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
AI Thread Summary
At a launch facility, light fixtures have been failing due to inadequate structural support, prompting the need for a calculation of the necessary supports. The primary force acting on these fixtures is from rocket blasts, with additional considerations for wind speed and fixture weight. Initial calculations yielded a shear stress of 311 ksi on a proposed bolt, which was deemed excessively high. Adjustments to wind pressure calculations indicated that the stress might still be too large, and the moment arm used in the calculations was also questioned. Recommendations included using a more appropriate moment arm and considering a stronger bolt to ensure adequate support for the fixtures.
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!
 
Here's a video by “driving 4 answers” who seems to me to be well versed on the details of Internal Combustion engines. The video does cover something that's a bit shrouded in 'conspiracy theory', and he touches on that, but of course for phys.org, I'm only interested in the actual science involved. He analyzes the claim of achieving 100 mpg with a 427 cubic inch V8 1970 Ford Galaxy in 1977. Only the fuel supply system was modified. I was surprised that he feels the claim could have been...
Thread 'Turbocharging carbureted petrol 2 stroke engines'
Hi everyone, online I ve seen some images about 2 stroke carbureted turbo (motorcycle derivation engine). Now.. In the past in this forum some members spoke about turbocharging 2 stroke but not in sufficient detail. The intake and the exhaust are open at the same time and there are no valves like a 4 stroke. But if you search online you can find carbureted 2stroke turbo sled or the Am6 turbo. The question is: Is really possible turbocharge a 2 stroke carburated(NOT EFI)petrol engine and...
TL;DR Summary: Heard in the news about using sonar to locate the sub Hello : After the sinking of the ship near the Greek shores , carrying of alot of people , there was another accident that include 5 tourists and a submarine visiting the titanic , which went missing Some technical notes captured my attention, that there us few sonar devices are hearing sounds repeated every 30 seconds , but they are not able to locate the source Is it possible that the sound waves are reflecting from...
Back
Top