0% found this document useful (0 votes)
35 views3 pages

Solved Example

This document provides an example of a multi-constrained design problem involving optimizing the thickness of disposable fork tines. It is an overconstrained design with two performance constraints: 1) the tines must not fail under buckling load and 2) the tines must not fail under bending load. The coupling equation derived relates the two performance measures, showing they are not independent but rather dependent on the thickness.

Uploaded by

Saif Jassim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as pdf or txt
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
35 views3 pages

Solved Example

This document provides an example of a multi-constrained design problem involving optimizing the thickness of disposable fork tines. It is an overconstrained design with two performance constraints: 1) the tines must not fail under buckling load and 2) the tines must not fail under bending load. The coupling equation derived relates the two performance measures, showing they are not independent but rather dependent on the thickness.

Uploaded by

Saif Jassim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1/ 3

Solved Example about Multi constrains

Q1: You are asked to design a new type of disposable fork for a fast food restaurant (Fig 2). The
tines of the fork can be modeled as a cantilever beam under an end load. We are told that the size
and shape of the forks are fixed, but that the thickness of the tines can vary. The design statement
is as follows:

• The length, L, and width, w, are fixed;


• We want to minimize the cost of the forks;
• The tines must not fail under a buckling end load, 𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ;
• The tines must not fail with a bending end load, 𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 .

Given the equations below, answer the following questions:

9𝜋𝜋 2 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤𝑡𝑡 3


𝐶𝐶 = 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 , 𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 = , 𝐼𝐼 =
4𝐿𝐿2 12
𝐼𝐼 𝜎𝜎𝑓𝑓 𝐼𝐼 𝑤𝑤𝑡𝑡 2
𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 = � � , � � =
𝑦𝑦𝑚𝑚 𝐿𝐿 𝑦𝑦𝑚𝑚 6

o Is this an underconstrained, fully determined, or overconstrained design?


o Derive the coupling equation between the two performance indices, M1 and M2.
Tutorial 2

Solution

• Since there are two constraints and only one free parameter (t), this design is 2C1F, or
OVERCONSTRAINED.
• Measure of performance (MOF) is:
1 1 1 1 1
𝑃𝑃𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = = = = =
𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒. 𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
Solve for buckling constraint:

9𝜋𝜋 2 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑤𝑤𝑡𝑡 3 9𝜋𝜋 2 𝐸𝐸𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 3 3𝜋𝜋 2 𝐸𝐸𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 3


𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 = , 𝐼𝐼 = ∴ 𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 = =
4𝐿𝐿2 12 4𝐿𝐿2 12 16𝐿𝐿2
1⁄3
16𝐿𝐿2 𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝, 𝑡𝑡, ∶ 𝑡𝑡 = � �
3𝜋𝜋 2 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸

Substitute in MOP equation


1⁄3
1 1 3𝜋𝜋 2 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
(𝑃𝑃𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 )1 = = � �
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 16𝐿𝐿2 𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
1⁄3
3𝜋𝜋 2 𝐸𝐸 1⁄3
⟹ (𝑃𝑃𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 )1 = � � � �
16𝐿𝐿5 𝑤𝑤 3 𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶

𝐸𝐸1⁄3
∴ 𝑀𝑀1 = � �
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶

Solve for break constraint:

𝐼𝐼 𝜎𝜎𝑓𝑓 𝐼𝐼 𝑤𝑤𝑡𝑡 2 𝑤𝑤𝑡𝑡 2 𝜎𝜎𝑓𝑓


𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 = � � , � �= ∴ 𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 =
𝑦𝑦𝑚𝑚 𝐿𝐿 𝑦𝑦𝑚𝑚 6 6 𝐿𝐿
1⁄2
6𝐿𝐿𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝, 𝑡𝑡, 𝑡𝑡 = � �
𝑤𝑤𝜎𝜎𝑓𝑓

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒. ∶


1⁄2
1 1 𝑤𝑤𝜎𝜎𝑓𝑓 1⁄2 1 𝜎𝜎𝑓𝑓 1⁄2
(𝑃𝑃𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 )2 = = � � =� 3 � � �
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 6𝐿𝐿𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 6𝐿𝐿 𝑤𝑤𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶

𝜎𝜎𝑓𝑓 1⁄2
∴ 𝑀𝑀2 = � �
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
Tutorial 2

Coupling equation:
1 1
(𝑃𝑃𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 )1 = (𝑃𝑃𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 )2 = =
𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶
1⁄3 1⁄2
3𝜋𝜋 2 𝐸𝐸 1⁄3 1 𝜎𝜎𝑓𝑓 1⁄2
⟹� � � �= � 3 � � �
16𝐿𝐿5 𝑤𝑤 3 𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 6𝐿𝐿 𝑤𝑤𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
1⁄3 1⁄2
3𝜋𝜋 2 1
⟹� � 𝑀𝑀1 = � 3 � 𝑀𝑀2
16𝐿𝐿5 𝑤𝑤 3 𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 6𝐿𝐿 𝑤𝑤𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏

1⁄2 1⁄3
𝑀𝑀1 1 16𝐿𝐿5 𝑤𝑤 3 𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏
𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 =� 3 � � �
𝑀𝑀2 6𝐿𝐿 𝑤𝑤𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 3𝜋𝜋 2

You might also like