You are on page 1of 21

School of Engineering & Applied Science

Dept: Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering MME 312: Mechanics of Materials


Jeong-Hoi Koo Fall 2012

Sign Support Structure Design: Final Report


Team: Coup detat
Ryan OShaugnessey, William Frain, Edward Kriz, Chris Angelo, Clair Christofersen

Due Date:

December 6th, 2012

Executive Summary
Our teams task was to design a sign support structure for a single lane parkway in Cincinnati. We were given the material and dimensions of the sign this support structure needs to hold up. In order to make sure the support structure could hold the sign up we needed to figure out the estimated external loadings that would be acting on the sign. We used the highest calculated wind speed in Cincinnati to figure out the max force that would act on the sign. From this force we were able to figure out the rough dimensions of our sign by setting a specific diameter of the support structure we wanted. We also found the material we wanted to use for the support structure by using a material selection matrix. From the set diameter we were able to find out the thickness the support structure needed to be. The height the support structure needed to be was found by looking up the maximum allowable height of vehicles, which was 137. The structure needs to be high enough for vehicles to pass under safely since the design has the sign hanging over the road. Once finding all of the dimensions of the support structure our team ran an in depth analysis on the structure using ABAQUS. We were able to find the stresses acting in the support and where the highest stresses acted. This analysis agreed with the hand calculations our team found. The team then realized that these dimensions were not the cheapest possible, so they made changes to optimize simplicity and cost. After figuring out the design was strong enough to hold against the external forces, the team calculated the cost of the support structure. The team then minimized the cost by finding the smallest thickness needed to support the force. The final support structure costs $8,325.18. This design uses minimum material, is cost effective, and will be able to support the sign under extreme weather conditions.

Introduction
The Ohio Department of Transportation has hired a team of design engineers to develop a new sign support structure for a single lane parkway in Cincinnati. The sign is made of Aluminum 2014-T6 with a width of 3 meters, height of 2 meters, and thickness of 0.001 meters. The team is to select the features, dimensions, and material necessary to hold this sign up in a safe and cost effective manner. That is, the team must ensure that the sign will not fall by optimizing the structural conditions while working with a budget. Typically overhead sign structures follow a variety of span and cantilever structures with the design consideration of allowing vertical clearance for vehicles to pass beneath the sign. Individual elements of a sign structure include the truss chord and the trussed-post web member. Some different design possibilities include the single arm cantilever type, the cantilever dual arm type, the span plane truss type, the cantilever dual arm butterfly type, the cantilever dual trussed arm type, the tri-truss type, and the four-chord truss type; the structure is generally selected based on the load experienced from the weight and dimensions of the sign, and how the pole is affected by the maximum recorded wind speed (Department of Transportation). After researching the different design types, the team devises a set of preliminary designs with different dimensions and materials for the support structure. Knowing the dimensions and material of the Aluminum signs to be held up, the team computes the weight of the sign to be 164.81 N. The team then performs research for the maximum wind speed in Ohio and calculates the distributed force of the wind onto the sign to be 4878.12 N. With these applied loads, the team analyzes each design for stress and deformation in the components as well as for a cost analysis. Based on the safety guidelines, ease of construction, and cost of labor and components, the team selects the best design layout as the final design. The team then devises a method of selecting materials and dimensions for the support structure components. When this is done, the final design and specifications are built using software AQUABUS to verify the results of deformation and internal stress. The ultimate goal of the project is to build a support structure that can survive the maximal internal loadings while utilizing the simplest and most cost effective design.

Design and Analysis


The team began the creation of a sign support structure by devising a list of preliminary design options. Each preliminary design is composed of a different street sign structure and the analysis was performed using the weight of the sign as well as the loading experienced based on the maximum-recorded Ohio wind speed (Appendix A). The first preliminary design is also the simplest; there exists a 12 m straight vertical pole to hold the 2x3 m sign. The pole is tubular with a 0.5 m outer diameter and 0.3 meter inner diameter (thickness = 0.1 m). The sign is bolted by four bolts to the pole at heights of 10 , 10.5 m, 11 m, 11.5 m. The material selected for this design was an Aluminum wrought alloy, Al2014T6. The ultimate tensile stress is 414 MPa and the Modulus of Elasticity is 73.1 GPa. The
3

resulting internal reactions at the centroid of the design are a normal moment in the y direction of 18488.07 N*m, a shearing moment in the z direction of 2439.06 N*m, and a shearing force in the x direction of 4878.12 N. Preliminary Design 2 has a base vertical pole that is fixed in the ground 2 m off the side of the single lane parkway. The pole is 6.5 m above the ground with a diameter of .61 m. This base pole will support two cross sectional poles that hold the sign over the single lane. These two poles are .15 m in diameter and 10.36 m in length. The top cross sectional pole will be placed at the top of the base pole, while the lower cross sectional pole is located 3 m from the top of the base pole. These cross sectional poles will be welded to the base pole and have an additional two 2.5 X 5/16 ASTM B 211 bolts holding each of them into place. All of the poles will be solid all of the way through.The sign will be attached to the two cross sections by a total of 6 2.5 X 5/16 ASTM B 211 bolts. There will be three bolts attaching the sign to the top cross sectional pole and three bolts attaching the sign to the bottom cross sectional pole. Each of the poles will be made out of a titanium alloy, Ti- 6Al- 4V (Grade 5). This material was chosen because of its high strength and a reasonable elongation of break of 10%. The ultimate tensile strength of the titanium is 170 ksi and has a shear strength of 110 ksi. The strength of this material will easily be able to handle the stresses it undergoes due to the wind and weight of the sign. Preliminary Design 3 consists of a vertical pole fixed in the ground off to the side of the single lane parkway. The vertical pole will be a total of 7.1148 m above ground. From the vertical pole, two horizontal supports will extend over the lane of the parkway. The top horizontal support will be located at the top of the vertical pole and the bottom horizontal support will be 1.8 m lower than the top horizontal support. The horizontal supports will extend 7.05 m off of the vertical pole. Between the horizontal supports will be a series of three identical truss that add additional support from deformation in the vertical direction. Each pole of the truss will be 2.96 m long. All components in the design will be made out of AISI E9310 Steel. This material was chosen due to its high ultimate tensile strength (1000 MPa) while still maintaining a high percent elongation at break (18.5%). The material also has a Shear Modulus of 80 GPa. The horizontal supports will be solid and have a diameter of 0.0762 m and will weigh 2475.85 N each. Each truss will have a diameter of 0.0254 m and will weigh 115.46 N each. The vertical pole will have a diameter of 0.1778 m. After analyzing stresses in the beams. The vertical beam has a shearing stress of 24.79 MPa, which will not exceed the Shear Modulus of 80 GPa. The teams primary goal is to design a simple and cost effective mechanism. Preliminary Design 1 is the simplest structure to create, but it was immediately ruled out because of safety factors. The team decided that in order to adhere to the states roadway safety regulations, the sign should be immediately overhead (rather than to the side of the road) to ensure that it is in the drivers peripheral vision. Preliminary Design 2 is the cantilevered dual arm butterfly support type, which is structurally the strongest but the most expensive to manufacture. This design is also the least aesthetically appealing, which many areas of the state are concerned with. The team gathers the results of each preliminary design and decides to proceed with the layout of
4

Preliminary Design 3 with a single arm cantilever rather than a truss cantilever. The truss cantilever is a sturdy mechanism, but it is more costly than a single arm and more difficult to construct. Selection of Dimensions, Materials, and other Features Dimensions of the pole were selected based on a number of educated guessed. The height of the pole was selected based on the tallest vehicles that were allowed to drive on the road. The tallest vehicles allowed were semi-trucks, with a maximum height of 13m. An extra 1m was added onto the height to be safe, making the height of the bottom of the horizontal beam 14m. The width of the beam was selected based on the width of the shoulder of the highway (3.05m) plus the width of the average highway lane (3.66m). The sign was then centered in the middle of the highway lane giving the horizontal pole a width of 6.38m. The radius of the curve was made to be 1.25m because it would be the most structurally sound. Further dimension selections included the outer diameter and the thickness of the pole. Initially, the team chose an outer diameter of 0.5 m with a thickness of 0.02 m. The cost was found to be was exceedingly high for a traffic sign, so the team changed the thickness of the pole to be 0.01 m and the outer diameter to be 0.3 m. These final selected dimensions led to a cost three times less than that of the primarily analyzed design. To select a material, the team decided to use the selection matrix show below in Table 1. The design criteria used to evaluate the effectiveness of each material were strength, weight, cost, and wear resistance. The materials to be considered include: AISI E9310 Steel, 2014-T6 Aluminum, Steel A588, Ti-6A1-4V (Grade 5). Each of these design criteria carries a different weight of importance as outlined below: Weight (15%): This is the least important factor in deciding the material because the materials weight would only affect the means of transportation, which isnt a big concern in this project. The metal will also already be able to support its own weight, so we dont need to worry about the weight as much. Strength (25%): The strength of the metal poles will be under constant strain from different forces such as the weight of the sign and the force of the wind. This is the second most important because the sign pole needs to be strong enough to withstand these forces without failing. Wear Resistance (20%): Wear resistance is important in our sign pole because it is placed outside and is open to the wear of weather. If the poles resist wear longer it means there wont need to be as much maintenance on the pole. Cost (40%): Cost is always a consideration when designing a product. In this case our team rated it the highest of importance because there are many materials capable of creating a sign pole, and the company we are designing it for would be interested in the cheaper material.

Weight

25%

15%

40%

20%

Design Material Strength Lightweight Cost Effective Wear Resistance Total Al 2014-T6 Ti-6A1-4V Steel A588 AISI E9310 Steel 1 4 2 3 4 3 2 1 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2.05 2.05 3.2 2.7

Table 1. Material Selection Matrix, with 1 being the worst and 4 being the best. From our material selection matrix our team found that the A588 Steel is the best material for the sign pole. This had a value of 3.2 in the cost matrix, which is well above all of the other materials. The material is very weather resistant and is even considered weathering steel because of how well it does outdoors. It is also the most cost effective choice, which will make the transportation company happy when it comes to paying for the pole. It isnt as strong or as lightweight as the other materials, but it is strong enough to resist all of the forces that would be acting on it and appropriate for the pole. Stress/Deformation Analysis Before the design was modeled in ABAQUS, hand calculations were performed to determine the internal loadings and stresses in the structure. It was believed that the highest stresses would occur at the base of the pole, where it was fixed into the ground, and would relate to the drag force from the wind, which would create a large torque, as well as the weight of the sign and the support. Therefore, the drag force from the highest wind ever recorded in Cincinnati was calculated on the area of the sign. This was found to be 4878.12 N. The weight of the sign was found to be 164.81 N, and the weights of the horizontal and vertical beams were found as well. (Appendix B) After these forces were calculated, the internal forces at the base of the beam were found. It was through these forces that the internal stresses were calculated. The internal normal stress at the base of the beam was found to be 72.31 MPa, and the internal shear stress at the same location was found to be 18.68 MPa. These both fall well beneath the yield stress of the material used (344 MPa), so the wall thickness of the support could be even less than it is, but the team decided to air on the side of safety and see was the deformation of the material would look like in the 3-D model. In creating the 3-D simulation, only the support structure was modeled, as this was thought to be a good representation of the actual deformation of the beam with the sign and the bolts on it. The two bolts holding in the sign only had a stress of about 72,000 Pa each, so they were believed to be strong enough to hold. Also, the drag force on the sign was modeled as a concentrated force on the center of the horizontal beam, allowing a good look at the deformation
6

and the stresses that would be taken by the support if a wind that strong hit the sign. Also, the weight of the sign and the support were taken into account in the model. Looking at figure 1 it is easy to see the location of the most of the stresses. The vertical pole is responsible for taking both the torque from the wind and the weight of the horizontal pole. The maximum stress received in the pole was approximately 44.6Mpa located at the lowest point of the semi-circular pole section. The highest stress value calculated at the base of the pole was approximately 40MPa. These stresses are not significant enough to cause any permanent deformation in the design. If permanent deformation were to occur a stress of 344 MPa would need to be achieved. The results of the simulation validated the hand calculations in showing that the beam would be able to hold under the given loading, and would only deflect around 5 cm if hit by extremely high wind forces.

Figure 1 - Vonn Mises Stress

Figure 2 - Maximum Deflection


7

Cost Analysis The total cost of adding a sign support structure can be calculated with the material, dimensions, and cost of labor added as a constant. Because the team is using a tubular structure, the team can calculate the volume of A588 steel used by subtracting the inner volume of the steel from the outer volume of the steel. The team also found that steel is generally $2000 per ton and the density of A588 is equal to 7.85 g/cm^3 (eFunda). This volume can then be multiplied by the cost per unit volume of A588 steel, which was found to be $17,306 per cubic meter with the knowledge that steel is generally $2000 per ton and the density of A588 is equal to 7.85 g/cm^3 (teach engineering). The volume of the total structure can be found by partitioning it into three parts (two straight, tubular cylinders and one curved, tubular cylinder). The total volume of the support structure used is then 1.52688 m^3. With this and the cost per unit volume of A588 steel, the cost of the support structure is $26,424.61. The team considers the manufacturing, shipping, and labor costs to be negligible, because regardless of the design selected, these costs would be constant and much smaller than that of the purchased structure. After performing research, the team decides to lower the cost of the structure by making the thickness 1 cm rather than 2 cm. This reduces the volume of the support to 0.9302 m^3 and the cost to $16,098.30, which is significantly lower than the last. When checking for the internal stresses, the maximum internal stress is still much less than the ultimate tensile stress, so the team chooses to use a smaller radius of 0.3 m (rather than 0.5 m). This reduces the volume of the structure to 0.48105 m^3 and the total cost to $8,325.18. The team agreed that this is a feasible cost for the construction of our design. Analysis 1 Analysis 2 Final Analysis Outer diameter 0.5 m 0.5 m 0.3 m Thickness 0.02 m 0.01 m 0.01 m Total Volume 1.527 m3 0.9302 m3 0.48105 m3 Total Cost $26,424.61 $16,098.30 $8,325.18

Figure 3: Cost Comparison Effect of Computational Tools Due to the use of the computational tools, the team was able to decide on changing the size of the design several times. The outer diameter of the poles was initially found to be too large, and so it was taken in, but the thickness then needed to be adjusted to allow for the support of greater forces. Overall, the computational methods were a good supporting factor for the hand calculations, as it allowed a visualization of exactly where the points of high stress were.

Conclusions
Through this project, the team designed a support system for an overhead sign for a parkway. Many different factors needed to be taken into account in this design, such as, how tall will it be, how thick will it be, and what material should be used in the design? The team settled on an L shaped support that overhung the parkway and was made of ASTM-A588 steel. Hand calculations were then preformed on the design to find the internal loadings and stresses. A 3-D model of the design was then created in ABAQUS in order to verify that the hand calculations were accurate, and to give a visual representation of the stresses on the support. The cost of the design was also taken into account, and it is through all of these factors that one could decide whether or not to build this support. It was found that while the support is structurally sound, it is very heavy, and would require a large force to implement it. It was also found to be fairly expensive, so while the metal used in the design is great for its anti-weathering capabilities, it may not be the best option for a sign support, which can be easily maintained. Furthermore, the region of the support where it curves was found to be a point of high stress, and while no hand calculations were recorded for this section, it was found that the support would still hold up under the given loading. Another things to consider for future work would be what would happen to the support if it were struck by a vehicle/what would happen to the vehicle? Some supports are designed to break away when hit by a vehicle, while this support might stop the vehicle dead in its tracks and cause a lot of damage.

References
Department of Transportation, Office of Engineering Structures Design and Construction Division. (n.d.).Overhead Sign Structure. Retrieved from NYSDOT Region 10 website: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/structures/repository/manuals/oss_inspman.pdf eFunda. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.efunda.com/glossary/materials/alloys/materials-alloys--steel--alloy_steel--astm_a588_grade_a.cfm Matweb. (1996). Retrieved from http://www.matweb.com/tools/weightcalculator.aspx teach engineering. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.teachengineering.org/collection/cub_/activi ties/cub_brid/cub_brid_lesson05_activity1_worksheetas.pdf 2010, Volume of a Curved Pipe, from http://www.had2know.com/technology/curved-pipevolume.html

10

Appendix A - Preliminary Design 1,2,3 Sketch

Design 1

Design 2

d Design 3

11

Appendix B - Final Design Stress/Deformation Analysis Hand calculations

esign = 2800kg / m 3 ebeams = 7850kg / m 3


Wind Speed = 33.975 m/s Asign = 6 m3

eair =1.204 kg / m 3

CD = 1.17 Dbolts = 0.0381m Dbeam (outer) = 0.3m Dbeam (inner) = 0.28m Vvertical ( estimate ) = 0.0544 m 3 Vhorizontal ( estimate ) = 0.0608 m 3 Vsign = 0.006 m 3 W +( vertical ) = 4188.52 N W +( horizontal ) = 4682.12 N W +( sigm ) = 164.81N
Fwind 1 C D A(W * 0.5) 2 (eair ) = = 4878.12 N 2 e

12

Fz = 0 : N base = W + vertical + W + horizontal + W + sign N base = 9035.45 N Fx = 0 : Vx = Fwind Vbase ( x ) = 4878.12 N F y= 0 : Vy = 0N M z = 0 : Tbase = Fwind (4.878 m) Tbase = 23,795.47 Nm M y = 0 : M base( y ) = Fwind (6.12 m) M base ( y ) = 29,854.09 Nm M x = 0 : M base( x ) = W +( vertical ) (3.189 m) + W +( sign ) (4.878 m) M base ( x ) = 15,73.22 Nm I = (ro 4 ri4 ) 4 4R 4R Q = o A2 i A1 3 3 J = (ro 4 ri4 ) 2 I = ((0.15) 4 (0.14) 4 ) = 9.589 x10 5 m 4 4 4(0.15) 1 4(0.14) 1 Q= ( (0.15) 2 ) ( (0.14) 2 ) = 4.207 x10 4 m 3 3 2 3 2 J = ((0.15) 4 (0.14) 4 ) = 1.918 x10 4 m 4 2 M R M R N base = base + y o + x o = 72.31MPa A I I TR VQ base = o + = 18.68 MPa J It 1 W sign bolts = 2 ( rbolts ) 2

13

Vsign = 6(0.001) = 0.006 m 3 esign = 2.8 g / cc = 2800 msign kg m3 = (0.006)(2800) = 16.8 kg(9.81) = 164.81N

164.81 =18,069.82 Pa (0.1905) 2 N base = 4682.12 + 4188.52 +164.81 = 9035.45 N Vbase = 4878.12 Tbase = 4878.12(4.878 m) = 23,795.47 Nm M base ( y ) = 4878.12(6.12) = 29,854.09 Nm bolts = M base ( x ) = (4682.12)(3.189) +164.81(4.878) = 15,735.22 Nm N M yc M x c base = + A I I 9035.45 29,854.69(0.15) 15,735.22(0.15) base = + = 72.31MPa 2 2 + ((0.15) (0.14) ) 9.589 x10 5 9.589 x10 5 Tc VQ = + J It 23,795.4(0.15) (4878.12)(4.207 x10 4 ) = + = 18.68 MPa 1.918 x10 4 (9.585 x10 5 )(0.3)

Appendix C Figures and Tables

14

Figure 1 - Vonn Mises Stress

15

Appendix D - Meeting Minutes

Meeting 1: Friday November 16, 4:10-5PM Reviewed the requirements of the project Began researching existing sign support structures and specifications Each team member expected to bring preliminary design ideas to next meeting Meeting 2: Thursday November 29, 8PM - 11PM Examined preliminary designs Selected different materials for each preliminary design Selected acceptable dimensions Each team member expected to bring analyses of the chosen preliminary design to next meeting Meeting 3: Sunday December 2, 5:30PM-9:30PM Reviewed analyses, selected the most effective design Performed work on AQUABUS Tweaked the design to see if other dimensions might be more effective Saved the design to continue work at next meeting Meeting 4: Tuesday December 4, 6PM-9:30PM Created a selection matrix for the best material Conducted research for the best dimension type; completed the dimension, material, feature portion of the report Implemented this material into ABAQUS and finished work from last time Meeting 5: Wednesday December 5, 8PM-11PM Added all figures and calculations to report and appendices Decided to change thickness in ABAQUS and perform reanalysis to minimize cost Meeting 6: Thursday December 6, 6PM-930PM Finished analysis of final design with new dimensions Completed cost analysis Completed report

Appendix E Calculations

16

Preliminary Design 1 Calculations

17

Preliminary Design 2 Calculations

Preliminary Design 3 Calculations

18

Cost Analysis (1)

19

Cost Analysis (2)


20

Final Cost Analysis

21

You might also like