1 / 37

Russell Foundation Monorail Support System

Russell Foundation Monorail Support System. ME 462 Capstone Design Group Members: Kelly Moore, Bart Sudhoff, Danny Compton, Katie Iaizzo, Mary Croucher Advisors: Dr. Jie Chen and Dr. Roger Knutson 12 Decmeber 2007. Introduction. Background Design Objectives Material Selection

odele
Download Presentation

Russell Foundation Monorail Support System

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Russell Foundation Monorail Support System ME 462 Capstone Design Group Members: Kelly Moore, Bart Sudhoff, Danny Compton, Katie Iaizzo, Mary Croucher Advisors: Dr. Jie Chen and Dr. Roger Knutson 12 Decmeber 2007

  2. Introduction • Background • Design Objectives • Material Selection • Cost Evaluation • Concept Design • Product Evaluation • Conclusion • Recommendations • Answer Questions

  3. Background

  4. Russell Foundation • Founded By Bishop Michael Russell and his Father In 2003 • Faith Based Community Development Organization • Renders Self-sufficiency Programs to Help Stabilize Families and Communities • Provides Jobs for Local Communities • Environmentally Friendly Initiatives

  5. Reasons For Design • Reduce Traffic Congestion around Chicago-Indiana Area • Provide High Speed Transportation • Create Jobs in Indiana • Pioneering Environmentally Friendly Mass Transit Solutions

  6. Preliminary Design

  7. Customer Requirements • Travel 75 MPH • Support Renewable Energy Source • Easy Assembly • Easy Maintenance • Smooth Rail Transition • Appearance • Support 160,000 lb load • Minimize Stopping Time • Minimize Cost • Minimize Environmental Effects

  8. Engineering Requirements • Minimize Resistance (Rail) • Maximize Allowable Stress (Structure) • Equipment Hours • Labor Hours • Minimize Rail Height Difference • Public Appearance Rating • Maximize Allowable Stress (Rail) • Maximize Allowable Stopping Force • Minimize Cost • Minimize Environmental Effects on Material

  9. Concept Design

  10. Column Support Box beam Concrete base Bolted to cross-support

  11. Cross Support Box beam Bolted to column Supports rails

  12. Standard I-Beam W27 x 368 Standard Size Internal height equal to 25.43 inches Fits standard 22 inch tire diameter

  13. Column Support Assembly All parts bolted and welded

  14. Full Assembly

  15. Material Selection

  16. Types of Steel • Two common types used: ASTM A992 and ASTM 588 • More common steel types reduce cost • High strength, low alloy steel, which used recycled metals • Saves on cost of manufacturing • Environmentally friendly

  17. Physical Properties

  18. Cost Evaluation

  19. Structural Steel

  20. Price Comparison • Consider long term maintenance and repair cost • Northwestern University experiment • A992 corrodes 64% more over time than A588 • A992 would last less than half as long as A588 (weathering steel)

  21. Nuts and Bolts

  22. Product Evaluation

  23. Loading (Structure) • Deadweight Load • 80,000 lbs (355868 N) per Rail • Braking Force • 9.8 m/s2 * 80,000 lbs • Fixed Supports • Base – Ground Interface • Open End Rails

  24. Equivalent Stress (Structure) • Maximum • 5.53e7 Pa

  25. Shear Stress (Structure) • Maximum • 2.81 e7 Pa

  26. Total Deformation (Structure) • Maximum • 16.75 mm • Location • Mid-span

  27. Factor of Safety (Structure) • Minimum • 6.15 • Location • Beam- Near Connection

  28. Fatigue Analysis (Beam)

  29. Loading (Beam) • Deadweight load • 40,000 lbs per Flange • Fixed Supports • Open Ends of Beam

  30. Total Deformation (Beam) • Maximum • 9.5 mm

  31. Fatigue Life (Beam) • Minimum • 8.03e5 cycles

  32. Conclusion

  33. Concluding Remarks • Our designed is based on the customer requirements and goals of the Russell Foundation. • The factor of safety meets required limit of 5-7 • Fatigue life exceeded 8.0 e5 cycles • A588 steel resists weathering without excessive cost • Single column design minimizes footprint • Designed to easily integrate renewable energy sources

  34. Recommendations

  35. Structure Span Length • Preliminary Testing • Larger Beam • 39 in. Interior Beam height • Factor of Safety Increased to 9.53 • Custom Beam • Standard Size Not Available

  36. References http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html http://www.delphion.com/home Project definition packet, Russell Foundation “IndianaFreight and IndianaMonorail,” Roger Knutson; Russell Foundation; Advance Transit Solutions, LLC, May 2007 http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-steel-i-beam.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-beam Machinist’s Handbook 12th Edition, Lang, page 397 http://www.matweb.com

  37. Questions

More Related