AERO3110

Aerospace Design 1

Design Problem 1

Rabie-Bin Asim
z5265124

School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering

UNSW Sydney

June 2021
Contents
1 - Summary ...................................................................................................................... 3
2 – Methodology ............................................................................................................... 4
3 - Dimensions and Load Values ......................................................................................... 5
4 - Internal Load Calculations ............................................................................................. 6
5 - Limit and Ultimate Loads ............................................................................................ 10
6 - MoS Calculations – Steel AISI 301 AMS 5902 ............................................................... 11
6.1 - Limit Tension.....................................................................................................................12
6.2 - Limit Compression.............................................................................................................12
6.3 - Ultimate Tension ...............................................................................................................12
6.4 - Column Buckling ...............................................................................................................13
6.5 - Local Buckling....................................................................................................................13
6.6 - Summary for Steel.............................................................................................................14
7 – Redesign - Steel AISI 301 AMS 5902 ............................................................................ 14
7.1 - Second Moment of Area....................................................................................................15
7.2 - Area ..................................................................................................................................15
7.3 - Limit Tension.....................................................................................................................16
7.4 - Limit Compression.............................................................................................................16
7.5 - Ultimate Tension ...............................................................................................................17
7.6 - Column Buckling ...............................................................................................................17
7.7 - Local Buckling....................................................................................................................17
7.8 - Summary for Redesigned Steel ..........................................................................................18
8 – Redesign - Titanium Ti-6AI-4V AMS 4934 .................................................................... 19
8.1 - Second Moment of Area ...................................................................................................19
8.2 - Area .................................................................................................................................20
8.3 - Limit Tension.....................................................................................................................20
8.4 - Limit Compression.............................................................................................................21
8.5 - Ultimate Tension ...............................................................................................................21
8.6 - Column Buckling ...............................................................................................................21
8.7 - Local Buckling....................................................................................................................22
8.8 - Summary for Redesigned Titanium....................................................................................22
9 - Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 23
10 - References ................................................................................................................ 25
 1 - Summary

An idealized space truss structure was inspected and analyzed thoroughly as three Steel AISI
301 AMS 5092 were proposed to support an asteroid and meteor connector attached to the
given spacecraft. These truss members were especially investigated for a certain load case,
and then for subsequent limit and ultimate load cases. Figure 1 displays a version of the space
truss structure, with members AD, AC and AB being the focus. Certain loads were applied to
Joint A.

Figure 1- Members AB, AC and AD of the Space Truss Structure

Margin of Safety for the load cases were found for Limit Tension, Limit Compression,
Ultimate Tension, Column Buckling and Local Buckling failure and instability modes. The
Area and Second Moment of Area were used as drivers for resigning of the members based
on certain Tubing Profiles for both Steel and Titanium, and their subsequent Margin of
Safety’s were calculated.

For comparison, the Margin of Safety of both Steel and of the Titanium cases are summarized
in the table below.

Table 1 - Margin of Safety Summary for all three profiles

MS MS
Failure Type Member MS (Steel)
(Steel-Redesigned) (Titanium- Redesigned)
Limit Tension AD 5.45 9.77 11.9
Limit Compression AC 3.65 6.76 14.6
Ultimate Tension AD 5.13 9.23 9.38
 Local Buckling AC 42.0 66.2 28.2
Column Buckling AC −0.63 0.125 0.256

Further analysis of the calculations are provided in the following sections. By using weight as
a driver for recommendations of a material and properties, Titanium was concluded to be the
superior choice. It met the strength and safety standards, as well as being the lighter option of
the two materials.

2 – Methodology
This section provides a brief and concise order of steps performed in the design problem:

1. Dimensions and Loads for the given 1g case are calculated based on individual z ID’s

2. Lengths for member AB, AC and AD are calculated based of space truss trigonometry

3. Individual components for Member AC and AD are calculated using trigonometry

and ratio of lengths

4. An FBD is drawn for Joint A to be further analyzed for the following Method of
Joints calculations

5. Equilibrium equations are used in the x, y and z direction to solve for the internal
loads of member AB, AC and AD

6. Substitutions of the relevant members components are made, and then the equilibrium
equations are solved to find the internal loads of member AB, AC and AD

7. The internal loads are then multiplied by the limit and ultimate factor of safety’s and
summarized for future calculations

8. Using the given Diameter and Thickness, and the recommended Tubing Profile Table,
the Area and 2nd Moment of Area are found

9. Relevant Material properties are then found using certain recommended MMPDS
tables

10. The Limit Tension, Limit Compression, Ultimate Tension, Column Buckling and
Local Buckling failure mode stresses, loads and Margin of Safety’s are then
calculated

11. The Margin of Safety’s are then summarized into a table

12. Critical Margin of Safety’s and their relevant material properties are then analyzed
and used to obtain critical section properties for further resigning

13. Steps 9 – 11 are repeated for the resigned Steel and Titanium tubing profile cases
 14. By calculating the weight of each member in each profile case, a recommendation
was made further justified based on the strength and safety properties and
performance

3 - Dimensions and Load Values

In accordance to individual zID’s, the following dimensions and loads for the applied 1g case
were calculated.

Table 2 - Variables based on zID

A B C D E
6 5 1 2 4

Dimensions were calculated as follows:

L! = 12 + B ⟹ 12 + 5 = 17 in

L" = 12 + C ⟹ 12 + 1 = 13 in

𝐴 6
L# = 10 + ⟹ 10 + = 13 in
2 2

𝐷 2
L$ = 3 + ⟹ 3 + = 1.5 in
4 4

Loads were calculated as follows:

P = 140 + 2(E) ⟹ 140 + 2(4) = 148 lbf

L# 13
R = @ A × P ⟹ @ A × 148 = 113.176 lbf
L! 17

L" 13
S = @ A × P ⟹ @ A × 148 = 113.176 lbf
L! 17
4 - Internal Load Calculations
Since all the loads and members pass through or act on Joint A, it was specifically analyzed
by using the Method of Joints and Equilibrium Equations. The internal loads of Member AC,
AB and AD were solved for, as shown below. All the members were assumed to be in tension
initially. 𝐹%& acted in all three directions, whilst 𝐹%' only acted in the z and y direction, and
𝐹%( only acted in the z direction.

Figure 2 - FBD of Joint A

The lengths of each member and their relevant components were solved using trigonometry
and geometry as follows:

𝐿%( = 𝐿! = 17 𝑖𝑛 (𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑧 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑠)

 Figure 3- FBD of Joint A in the z-y axis

𝐿%' = QL# " + L! " = R13" + 17" = 21.4 𝑖𝑛 (𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑧 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑦 𝑎𝑥𝑒𝑠)

17
𝐹%' (+) = −𝐹%' @ A
√13" + 17"

13
𝐹%' (-) = 𝐹%' @ A
√13" + 17"

𝐹%' (.) = 0
 Figure 4 - FBD of Joint A in z-x and z-y axes

𝐿%& = QL$ " + L" " + L! " = R1.5" + 17" + 13" = 21.45 𝑖𝑛 (𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑙𝑙 3 𝑎𝑥𝑒𝑠)

The ratio of lengths was used to solve for the components of member AD as follows:

𝐿%& (.) = 13 𝑖𝑛, 𝐿%& (-) = 1.5 𝑖𝑛, 𝐿%& (+) = 17 𝑖𝑛

For x,

𝐿%& (.) 13
= = 0.60596
𝐿%& 21.45

⟹ 𝐿%& (.) = 0.60596 𝐿%&

⟹ 𝐹%& (.) = 0.60596 𝐹%&

For y,
 𝐿%& (-) 1.5
= = 0.069919
𝐿%& 21.45

⟹ 𝐿%& (-) = 0.069919 𝐿%&

⟹ 𝐹%& (-) = 0.069919 𝐹%&

For z,

𝐿%& (+) 17
= = 0.792414
𝐿%& 21.45

⟹ 𝐿%& (+) = 0.792414 𝐿%&

⟹ 𝐹%& (+) = 0.792414 𝐹%&

Now to calculate the internal loads 𝐹%& , 𝐹%& 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐹%& , equilibrium equations are used in the x,
y and z axes:

𝚺𝑭"
𝒙 =𝟎

⟹ 0 = −𝑆 + 𝐹%& (.)

⟹ 0 = −113.176 + 0.60596 𝐹%&

⟹ 113.176 = 0.60596 𝐹%&

113.176
⟹ 𝐹%& =
0.60596

∴ 𝐹%& = 186.771 𝑙𝑏𝑓 (𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛)

𝚺𝑭"
𝒚 =𝟎

⟹ 0 = 𝑅 + 𝐹%' (-) + 𝐹%& (-)

13
⟹ 0 = 113.176 + 𝐹%' @ A + − 0.069919 𝐹%&
√13" + 17"

13
⟹ 0 = 113.176 + 𝐹%' @ A + − 0.069919(186.771 )
√13" + 17"

√13" + 17"
⟹ 𝐹%' = (−113.176 + 0.069919(186.771 ) ) × ( )
13
 ∴ 𝐹%' = −164.815 𝑙𝑏𝑓 (𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛) = 164.815 𝑙𝑏𝑓 (𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛)

𝚺𝑭"
𝒛 =𝟎

⟹ 0 = 𝑃 − 𝐹%( + 𝐹%& (+) + 𝐹%' (+)

17
⟹ 0 = 148 − 𝐹%( + − 0.792414 𝐹%& + −𝐹%' @ A
√13" + 17"
17
⟹ 0 = 148 − 𝐹%( + − 0.792414 (186.771 ) + −164.815 @ A
√13" + 17"
17
⟹ 𝐹%( = 148 − 0.792414 (186.771 ) + −164.815 @ A
√13" + 17"

∴ 𝐹%( = −130.922 𝑙𝑏𝑓 (𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛) = 130.922 𝑙𝑏𝑓 (𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛)

5 - Limit and Ultimate Loads

The critical applied 1g loads cases for members AB, AC and AD are summarized as follows:

For n=1 (Applied 1g Load Case):

𝐹%( = 130.922 𝑙𝑏𝑓 (𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛)

𝐹%' = 164.815 𝑙𝑏𝑓 (𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛)

𝐹%& = 186.771 𝑙𝑏𝑓 (𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛)

The internal load cases are then multiplied by a Factor of Safety of 3 to solve for the relevant
limit load cases, which are to be further analyzed in the failure mode Margin of Safety
calculations.

For n=3 (Limit Load Case):

𝐹%( (/01) = 130.922 × 3 ⟹ 392.976 𝑙𝑏𝑓 (𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛)

𝐹%' (/01) = 164.815 × 3 ⟹ 494.445 𝑙𝑏𝑓 (𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛)

𝐹%& (/01) = 186.771 × 3 ⟹ 560.313 𝑙𝑏𝑓 (𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛)

Similarly, the limit load cases are then multiplied by a Factor of Safety of 1.4 to solve for the
ultimate load cases.
For n=1.4 (Ultimate Load Case):

𝐹%( (2/3) = 392.976 × 1.4 ⟹ 550.166 𝑙𝑏𝑓 (𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛)

𝐹%' (2/3) = 494.445 × 1.4 ⟹ 692.223 𝑙𝑏𝑓 (𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛)

𝐹%& (2/3) = 560.313 × 1.4 ⟹ 784.438 𝑙𝑏𝑓 (𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛)

6 - MS Calculations – Steel AISI 301 AMS 5902

Given that the diameter (D) and the thickness (t) of the members are 0.375 in and 0.028
respectively, relevant section properties of the Standard Tubing Profile were able to be found
using Bruhn Table C4.3 [1] , such as the Area (A) and Second Moment of Area (I). These
properties have been summarized in table 3.

Table 3 - Section Properties for the Steel Tubing Profile

Section Property Value

D 3/8 = 0.375 in
D/t 13.39
t 0.028 in
A 0.03063 in2
I 0.000462 in4

In addition, the relevant material properties for the given Steel AISI 301 AMS 5902 members
were also able to be found using MMPDS-15 Table 2.7.1.0(b1) [1]. The ‘A’ basis and ‘L’
grain values were sourced for the following Margin of Safety calculations. These have been
summarized as follows.

Table 4 - Material Properties of Steel AISI 301 AMS 5902

Material Property Value

𝐹45 157 × 10# psi
𝐹4- 118 × 10# psi
𝐹6- 75 × 10# psi
𝐸6 26 × 107 psi
𝜔 0.286 lb/in3
6.1 - Limit Tension

Member AD is already known to be in tension and its limit load has already been calculated,
thus we are able to solve for the Limit Tension failure stress value, 𝜎%&(/01 389:;<9) , and its
resulting Margin of Safety, 𝑀𝑆/01 389:;<9 . The MS is considered to be ample.

𝑃%&(/01 389:;<9) 560.313

𝜎%&(/01 389:;<9) = = = 18292.94809 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐴 0.03063

𝐹4- 118 × 10#

⟹ 𝑀𝑆 = − 1 = −1
𝜎%&(/01 389:;<9) 18292.94809

∴ 𝑀𝑆/01 389:;<9 = 5.45 (𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒)

6.2 - Limit Compression

Likewise, since we already know member AC is in compression, we are able to solve for the
Limit compression failure stress value, 𝜎%'(/01 '<=>?8::;<9) , and its resulting Margin of
Safety, 𝑀𝑆/01 '<=>?8::;<9 using the relevant Limit load value . Member AC was chosen for
the compression case as its load value is much larger than that of member AB. The MS is
also considered to be ample.

𝑃%'(/01 '<=>?8::;<9) 494.445

𝜎%'(/01 '<=>?8::;<9) = = = 16142.50735 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐴 0.03063

𝐹6- 75 × 10#
⟹ 𝑀𝑆 = − 1 = −1
𝜎%'(/01 '<=>?8::;<9) 16142.50735

∴ 𝑀𝑆/01 '<=>?8::;<9 = 3.65 (𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒)

6.3 - Ultimate Tension

Similar to the Limit Tension case, we are also able to solve for the Ultimate Tension failure
stress value, 𝜎%&(2/3 389:;<9) , and its resulting Margin of Safety, 𝑀𝑆2/3 389:;<9 The MS is
also considered to be ample.

𝑃%&(2/3 389:;<9) 784.4382

𝜎%&(2/3 389:;<9) = = = 25610.12733 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐴 0.03063

𝐹45 157 × 10#

⟹ 𝑀𝑆 = − 1 = −1
𝜎%&(2/3 389:;<9) 25610.12733

∴ 𝑀𝑆2/3 389:;<9 = 5.13 (𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒)

6.4 - Column Buckling

𝑃'?;4;6@A is the load at which Column Buckling occurs, and unlike the Limit Tension, Limit
Compression and Ultimate Tension values, the 𝑀𝑆'<A5=9 (56BA;9C by using the load version
D!""#$%&"'
of the MS formula, which is 𝑀𝑆 = D!((")'*
− 1. Column Buckling occurs in the ultimate
compressive case on the longest member, which is member AC in this case. We are able to
solve for the 𝑃'?;4;6@A , and its resulting Margin of Safety, 𝑀𝑆'<A5=9 (56BA;9C .The MS is
considered to be a failure case, leading to a redesignation process.

𝑃%>>A;8E = 𝑃%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) = 692.223 𝑙𝑏𝑓

𝜋 " × 𝐸6 × 𝐼 𝜋 " × 26 × 107 × 0.000462

𝑃%AA<F@GA8 = 𝑃'?;4;6@A = = = 258.8734563 𝑙𝑏𝑓
(𝐿%' )" (21.4)"

𝑃%AA<F@GA8 𝑃'?;4;6@A 258.8734563

⟹ 𝑀𝑆 = −1= − 1 = −1
𝑃%>>A;8E 𝑃%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) 692.223

∴ 𝑀𝑆'<A5=9 (56BA;9C = −0.63 (𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙)

6.5 - Local Buckling

𝐹66 is the stress at which Local Buckling occurs. Similar to Column Buckling, Local Buckling
occurs in the ultimate compressive case on the longest member, which is member AC.. We
are able to solve for the 𝐹66 and its resulting Margin of Safety, 𝑀𝑆/<6@A (56BA;9C .The MS is
considered to be ample.

𝑃%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) 692.223

𝜎%>>A;8EH 𝜎%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) = = = 22599.51028 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐴 0.03063

I.K LM+ ×M,

Now for 𝐹66 = - , 𝐸4 cannot be easily solved for. However, we can test the assumption
O P
,
of 𝐸3 = 𝐸6 to simply the equation, making it much easier to solve, and this is done as
follows:

𝜎%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) < 𝐹6-

⟹ 22599.51028 < 75000

⟹ ∴ 𝐸3 = 𝐸6

Now since the assumption is valid,

 0.5 R𝐸6 × 𝐸4 0.5 × 𝐸6 0.5 × 26 × 107
𝜎%AA<F@GA8 = 𝐹66 = = = = 970873.7864 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐷 𝐷 (13.39)
g𝑡h g𝑡h

𝜎%AA<F@GA8 𝐹66 970873.7864

⟹ 𝑀𝑆 = −1= − 1 = −1
𝜎%>>A;8E 𝜎%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) 22599.51028

∴ 𝑀𝑆/<6@A (56BA;9C = 42.0

6.6 - Summary for Steel

The Margin of Safety for the given Steel Tubing Profile for the relevant failure and instability
cases are summarized in the table below. It can be seen that the Truss Structure will fail in the
ultimate compression case on Member AC by Column Buckling. Therefore, the profile needs
to be revised and redesigned.

Table 5 - Summary of Failure modes for Steel AISI 301 AMS 5902

Failure Type Member Margin of Safety (Steel)

Limit Tension AD 5.45
Limit Compression AC 3.65
Ultimate Tension AD 5.13
Local Buckling AC 42.0
Column Buckling AC −0.63

7 – Redesign - Steel AISI 301 AMS 5902

As the Space Truss Structure had failed in the ultimate compressive state on Member AC by
Column Buckling, it was vital for it to be redesigned. It is first done using the same material
of Steel AISI 301 AMS 5902, which has the same material properties as previously stated,
from MMPDS-15 Table 2.7.1.0(b1) [1].

Table 6 - Material Properties for Steel AISI 301 AMS 5902

Material Property Value

𝐹45 157 × 10# psi
𝐹4- 118 × 10# psi
𝐹6- 75 × 10# psi
𝐸6 26 × 107 psi
𝜔 0.286 lb/in3
7.1 - Second Moment of Area

Considering Column Buckling is the most critical Margin of Safety, which is based on its
Second Moment of Area section property, it is absolutely vital to solve for its minimum safe
required value:

𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑀𝑆 > 0 ⟹

𝑃'?;4;6@A
− 1 > 0
𝑃2/3 '<=>?8::;<9

⟹ 𝑃'?;4;6@A > 𝑃2/3 '<=>?8::;<9

𝜋 " × 𝐸6 × 𝐼
⟹ > 𝑃2/3 '<=>?8::;<9
(𝐿%' )"
(𝐿%' )"
⟹ 𝐼 > 𝑃2/3 '<=>?8::;<9 × "
𝜋 × 𝐸6

(21.4)"
⟹ 𝐼 > 692.223 × "
𝜋 × 26 × 107

∴ 𝐼 > 0.00123537975 𝑖𝑛$

7.2 - Area

Similarly, considering Limit Compression is the most critical Margin of Safety based on its
Area section property, it is absolutely vital to solve for its minimum safe required value:

𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑀𝑆 > 0 ⟹

𝐹6-
− 1 > 0
𝜎/01 '<=>?8::;<9

⟹ 𝐹6- > 𝜎/01 '<=>?8::;<9

𝑃/01 '<=>?8::;<9
⟹ 𝐹6- >
𝐴
𝐹%' (/01 '<=>?8::;<9)
⟹ 𝐹6- >
𝐴
𝐹%' (/01 '<=>?8::;<9)
⟹ 𝐴 >
𝐹6-
494.445
⟹ 𝐴 >
75 × 10#
 ∴ 𝐴 > 0.0065926 𝑖𝑛"

By using these values and by inspecting the Bruhn Table C4.3 [2], the relevant tube section
properties were found. This was done by choosing the minimum Second Moment of Area
value which satisfied the above criteria, and by choosing its corresponding Area value. This
was done to ensure the lightest yet still safe section profile was chosen for the members.
These values are summarized in the table below.

Table 7 - Section Properties for the Redesigned Steel Tubing Profile

Section Property Value

D ½ = 0.5 in
D/t 14.28
t 0.035 in
A 0.05113 in2
I 0.001390 in4

7.3 - Limit Tension

Now like in the previous section, Member AD is already known to be in tension and its limit
load has already been calculated, thus we are able to solve for the Limit Tension failure stress
value, 𝜎%&(/01 389:;<9) , and its resulting Margin of Safety, 𝑀𝑆/01 389:;<9 . The MS is
considered to be ample.

𝑃%&(/01 389:;<9) 560.313

𝜎%&(/01 389:;<9) = = = 10958.59574 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐴 0.05113

𝐹4- 118 × 10#

⟹ 𝑀𝑆 = − 1 = −1
𝜎%&(/01 389:;<9) 10958.59574

∴ 𝑀𝑆/01 389:;<9 = 9.77(𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒)

7.4 - Limit Compression

Similarly, we are able to solve for the Limit compression failure stress
value, 𝜎%'(/01 '<=>?8::;<9) , and its resulting Margin of Safety, 𝑀𝑆/01 '<=>?8::;<9 using the
relevant Limit load value . Member AC was chosen for the compression case as its load value
is much larger than that of member AB. The MS is also considered to be ample.

𝑃%'(/01 '<=>?8::;<9) 494.445

𝜎%'(/01 '<=>?8::;<9) = = = 9670.350088 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐴 0.05113

𝐹6- 75 × 10#
⟹ 𝑀𝑆 = − 1 = −1
𝜎%'(/01 '<=>?8::;<9) 9670.350088
 ∴ 𝑀𝑆/01 '<=>?8::;<9 = 6.76(𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒)

7.5 - Ultimate Tension

Likewise, we are also able to solve for the Ultimate Tension failure stress
value, 𝜎%&(2/3 389:;<9) , and its resulting Margin of Safety, 𝑀𝑆2/3 389:;<9 The MS is also
considered to be ample.

𝑃%&(2/3 389:;<9) 784.4382

𝜎%&(2/3 389:;<9) = = = 15342.03403 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐴 0.05113

𝐹45 157 × 10#

⟹ 𝑀𝑆 = − 1 = −1
𝜎%&(2/3 389:;<9) 15342.03403

∴ 𝑀𝑆2/3 389:;<9 = 9.23(𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒)

7.6 - Column Buckling

Just like before, it is known that 𝑃'?;4;6@A is the load at which Column Buckling occurs, which
also occurs in the ultimate compressive case on the longest member, which is member AC in
this case. We are able to solve for the 𝑃'?;4;6@A , and its resulting Margin of Safety,
𝑀𝑆'<A5=9 (56BA;9C .The MS is considered to be ample and to just have passed.

𝑃%>>A;8E = 𝑃%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) = 692.223 𝑙𝑏𝑓

𝜋 " × 𝐸6 × 𝐼 𝜋 " × 26 × 107 × 0.001390

𝑃%AA<F@GA8 = 𝑃'?;4;6@A = = = 778.8616976 𝑙𝑏𝑓
(𝐿%' )" (21.4)"

𝑃%AA<F@GA8 𝑃'?;4;6@A 778.8616976

⟹ 𝑀𝑆 = −1= − 1 = −1
𝑃%>>A;8E 𝑃%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) 692.223

∴ 𝑀𝑆'<A5=9 (56BA;9C = 0.125(𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠)

7.7 - Local Buckling

As in Section 6.7, 𝐹66 is the stress at which Local Buckling occurs and we are able to solve
for the 𝐹66 and its resulting Margin of Safety, 𝑀𝑆/<6@A (56BA;9C .The MS is considered to be
ample.

𝑃%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) 692.223

𝜎%>>A;8EH 𝜎%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) = = = 13538.49012 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐴 0.05113
 I.K LM+ ×M,
Just like in the previous section, for 𝐹66 = - , 𝐸4 cannot be easily solved for. However,
O P
,
we can test the assumption of 𝐸3 = 𝐸6 to simply the equation, making it much easier to
solve, and this is done as follows:

𝜎%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) < 𝐹6-

⟹ 13538.49012 < 75000

⟹ ∴ 𝐸3 = 𝐸6

The assumption is valid, therefore:

0.5 R𝐸6 × 𝐸4 0.5 × 𝐸6 0.5 × 26 × 107

𝜎%AA<F@GA8 = 𝐹66 = = = = 910000 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐷 𝐷 0.5
g𝑡h g𝑡h g0.035h

𝜎%AA<F@GA8 𝐹66 910000

⟹ 𝑀𝑆 = −1= − 1 = −1
𝜎%>>A;8E 𝜎%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) 13538.49012

∴ 𝑀𝑆/<6@A (56BA;9C = 66.2

7.8 - Summary for Redesigned Steel

The Margin of Safety for the redesigned Steel Tubing Profile for the relevant failure and
instability cases are summarized in the table below. Unlike the given case, the Truss Structure
will not fail and is idealized to an optimum Tube Profile and material, the profile is ample
and safe.

Table 8 - Summary of MS for the Redesigned Steel Tubing Profile

Failure Type Member Margin of Safety

Limit Tension AD 9.77
Limit Compression AC 6.76
Ultimate Tension AD 9.23
Local Buckling AC 66.2
Column Buckling AC 0.125
8 – Redesign - Titanium Ti-6AI-4V AMS 4934
Similar to the previous Section 7, it is known that the Space Truss Structure had failed in the
ultimate compressive state on Member AC by Column Buckling for the given Steel case, it
was vital for it to be redesigned. It is now done using Titanium Ti-6AI-4V AMS 4934
instead. In addition, the relevant material properties for Titanium Ti-6AI-4V AMS 4934
members were also able to be found using MMPDS-15 Table 5.4.1.0(e) [1]. The ‘A’ basis
and ‘L’ grain values were sourced for the following Margin of Safety calculations. These
have been summarized as follows.

Table 9 - Material Properties for Titanium Ti-6AI-4V AMS 4934

Material Property Value

𝐹45 155 × 10# psi
𝐹4- 138 × 10# psi
𝐹6- 147 × 10# psi
𝐸6 17.2 × 107 psi
𝜔 0.160 lb/in3

8.1 - Second Moment of Area

As in Section 7.1, Column Buckling was considered to be the most critical Margin of Safety,
which is based on its Second Moment of Area section property, it is absolutely vital to solve
for its minimum safe required value:

𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑀𝑆 > 0 ⟹

𝑃'?;4;6@A
− 1 > 0
𝑃2/3 '<=>?8::;<9

⟹ 𝑃'?;4;6@A > 𝑃2/3 '<=>?8::;<9

𝜋 " × 𝐸6 × 𝐼
⟹ > 𝑃2/3 '<=>?8::;<9
(𝐿%' )"
(𝐿%' )"
⟹ 𝐼 > 𝑃2/3 '<=>?8::;<9 × "
𝜋 × 𝐸6

(21.4)"
⟹ 𝐼 > 692.223 × "
𝜋 × 17.2 × 107

∴ 𝐼 > 0.0018674345 𝑖𝑛$

8.2 - Area

Similarly, considering Limit Compression is the most critical Margin of Safety based on its
Area section property, it is absolutely vital to solve for its minimum safe required value:

𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑀𝑆 > 0 ⟹

𝐹6-
− 1 > 0
𝜎/01 '<=>?8::;<9

⟹ 𝐹6- > 𝜎/01 '<=>?8::;<9

𝑃/01 '<=>?8::;<9
⟹ 𝐹6- >
𝐴
𝐹%' (/01 '<=>?8::;<9)
⟹ 𝐹6- >
𝐴
𝐹%' (/01 '<=>?8::;<9)
⟹ 𝐴 >
𝐹6-
494.445
⟹ 𝐴 >
147 × 10#

∴ 𝐴 > 0.00336357142 𝑖𝑛"

Like before, by using these values and by inspecting the Bruhn Table C4.3 [2], the relevant
Titanium tube section properties were found. This was done by choosing the minimum
Second Moment of Area value which satisfied the above criteria, and by choosing its
corresponding Area value. This was done to ensure the lightest yet still safe section profile
was chosen for the members. These values are summarized in the table below.

Table 10 - Section Properties of the Redesigned Titanium Tube Profile

Section Property Value

D 5/8 = 0.625 in
D/t 22.30
t 0.028 in
A 0.05252 in2
I 0.002345 in4

8.3 - Limit Tension

Now like in the previous section, Member AD is already known to be in tension and its limit
load has already been calculated, thus we are able to solve for the Limit Tension failure stress
value, 𝜎%&(/01 389:;<9) , and its resulting Margin of Safety, 𝑀𝑆/01 389:;<9 . The MS is
considered to be ample.
 𝑃%&(/01 389:;<9) 560.313
𝜎%&(/01 389:;<9) = = = 10668.56436 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐴 0.05252

𝐹4- 138 × 10#

⟹ 𝑀𝑆 = − 1 = −1
𝜎%&(/01 389:;<9) 10668.56436

∴ 𝑀𝑆/01 389:;<9 = 11.9(𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒)

8.4 - Limit Compression

Similarly, we are able to solve for the Limit compression failure stress
value, 𝜎%'(/01 '<=>?8::;<9) , and its resulting Margin of Safety, 𝑀𝑆/01 '<=>?8::;<9 using the
relevant Limit load value . Member AC was chosen for the compression case as its load value
is much larger than that of member AB. The MS is also considered to be ample.

𝑃%'(/01 '<=>?8::;<9) 494.445

𝜎%'(/01 '<=>?8::;<9) = = = 9414.413557 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐴 0.05252

𝐹6- 147 × 10#

⟹ 𝑀𝑆 = − 1 = −1
𝜎%'(/01 '<=>?8::;<9) 9414.413557

∴ 𝑀𝑆/01 '<=>?8::;<9 = 14.6(𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒)

8.5 - Ultimate Tension

Likewise, we are also able to solve for the Ultimate Tension failure stress
value, 𝜎%&(2/3 389:;<9) , and its resulting Margin of Safety, 𝑀𝑆2/3 389:;<9 The MS is also
considered to be ample.

𝑃%&(2/3 389:;<9) 784.4382

𝜎%&(2/3 389:;<9) = = = 14935.9901 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐴 0.05252

𝐹45 155 × 10#

⟹ 𝑀𝑆 = − 1 = −1
𝜎%&(2/3 389:;<9) 14935.9901

∴ 𝑀𝑆2/3 389:;<9 = 9.38(𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒)

8.6 - Column Buckling

Just like before, it is known that 𝑃'?;4;6@A is the load at which Column Buckling occurs, which
also occurs in the ultimate compressive case on the longest member, which is member AC in
this case. We are able to solve for the 𝑃'?;4;6@A , and its resulting Margin of Safety,
𝑀𝑆'<A5=9 (56BA;9C .The MS is considered to be ample and to just have passed.
 𝑃%>>A;8E = 𝑃%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) = 692.223 𝑙𝑏𝑓

𝜋 " × 𝐸6 × 𝐼 𝜋 " × 17.2 × 107 × 0.002345

𝑃%AA<F@GA8 = 𝑃'?;4;6@A = = = 869.2475848 𝑙𝑏𝑓
(𝐿%' )" (21.4)"

𝑃%AA<F@GA8 𝑃'?;4;6@A 869.2475848

⟹ 𝑀𝑆 = −1= − 1 = −1
𝑃%>>A;8E 𝑃%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) 692.223

∴ 𝑀𝑆'<A5=9 (56BA;9C = 0.256(𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠)

8.7 - Local Buckling

As in Section 6.7 and 7.7 , 𝐹66 is the stress at which Local Buckling occurs and we are able to
solve for the 𝐹66 and its resulting Margin of Safety, 𝑀𝑆/<6@A (56BA;9C .The MS is considered to
be ample.

𝑃%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) 692.223

𝜎%>>A;8EH 𝜎%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) = = = 13180.17898 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐴 0.05252
I.K LM+ ×M,
Just like in the previous section, for 𝐹66 = - , 𝐸4 cannot be easily solved for. However,
O P
,
we can test the assumption of 𝐸3 = 𝐸6 to simply the equation, making it much easier to
solve, and this is done as follows:

𝜎%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) < 𝐹6-

⟹ 13180.17898 < 147000

⟹ ∴ 𝐸3 = 𝐸6

The assumption is valid, therefore:

0.5 R𝐸6 × 𝐸4 0.5 × 𝐸6 0.5 × 17.2 × 107

𝜎%AA<F@GA8 = 𝐹66 = = = = 385280 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝐷 𝐷 0.625
g𝑡h g𝑡h g0.028h

𝜎%AA<F@GA8 𝐹66 385280

⟹ 𝑀𝑆 = −1= − 1 = −1
𝜎%>>A;8E 𝜎%'(2/3 '<=>?8::;<9) 13180.17898

∴ 𝑀𝑆/<6@A (56BA;9C = 28.2 (𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒)

8.8 - Summary for Redesigned Titanium

The Margin of Safety for the redesigned Titanium Tubing Profile for the relevant failure and
instability cases are summarized in the table below. Unlike the given steel case, the Truss
 Structure will not fail and is idealized to an optimum Tube Profile and material, the profile is
ample and safe.

Table 11 - Summary of failure types for the redesigned Titanium Tube profile

Failure Type Member Margin of Safety

Limit Tension AD 11.9
Limit Compression AC 14.6
Ultimate Tension AD 9.38
Local Buckling AC 28.2
Column Buckling AC 0.256

9 - Recommendations
Margin of Safety for the load cases were found for Limit Tension, Limit Compression,
Ultimate Tension, Column Buckling and Local Buckling failure and instability modes. The
Area and Second Moment of Area were used as drivers for resigning of the members based
on certain Tubing Profiles for both Steel and Titanium, and their subsequent Margin of
Safety’s were calculated. For comparison, the Margin of Safety of both Steel and of the
Titanium cases are summarized in the table below.

Table 12 - Margin of Safety Summary for all three profiles

MS MS
Failure Type Member MS (Steel)
(Steel-Redesigned) (Titanium- Redesigned)
Limit Tension AD 5.45 9.77 11.9
Limit Compression AC 3.65 6.76 14.6
Ultimate Tension AD 5.13 9.23 9.38
Local Buckling AC 42.0 66.2 28.2
Column Buckling AC −0.63 0.125 0.256

The Tube Profiles and their relevant material properties are summarized in the table below.

Table 13 - Tube Profiles and Material Properties

Material Diameter Thickness Area 2nd MOA Density

Steel AISI 0.5 in 0.035 in 0.05113 in2 0.001390 in4 0.286 lb/in3
301 AMS
5902

Titanium Ti- 0.625 in 0.028 in 0.05252 in2 0.002345 in4 0.160 lb/in3
6AI-4V
AMS 4934
As stated before, further analysis of the calculations need to be done by using weight as a
driver for recommendations of a material and properties. This was determined by finding the
𝜔 or density for each material, and then solving for the weight of each member then adding
them up.

𝑊 =𝐴×𝐿×𝜔

𝐿%( = 17 𝑖𝑛, 𝐿%' = 21.4 𝑖𝑛, 𝐿%& = 21.45 𝑖𝑛

𝑊3<4@A = 𝑊%( + 𝑊%' + 𝑊%&

For Steel,
𝑊%( = 𝐴 × 𝐿%( × 𝜔 = 0.05113 × 17 × 0.286 = 0.24859406 𝑙𝑏𝑓

𝑊%' = 𝐴 × 𝐿%' × 𝜔 = 0.05113 × 21.4 × 0.286 = 0.312936952 𝑙𝑏𝑓

𝑊%& = 𝐴 × 𝐿%& × 𝜔 = 0.05113 × 21.45 × 0.286 = 0.313667211 𝑙𝑏𝑓

∴ 𝑊3<4@A = 0.875 𝑙𝑏𝑓

For Titanium,

𝑊%( = 𝐴 × 𝐿%( × 𝜔 = 0.05252 × 17 × 0.160 = 0.1428544 𝑙𝑏𝑓

𝑊%' = 𝐴 × 𝐿%' × 𝜔 = 0.05252 × 21.4 × 0.160 = 0.17982848 𝑙𝑏𝑓

𝑊%& = 𝐴 × 𝐿%& × 𝜔 = 0.05252 × 21.45 × 0.160 = 0.18024864 𝑙𝑏𝑓

∴ 𝑊3<4@A = 0.503 𝑙𝑏𝑓

∴ The combined weight of the Titanium members is significantly less than the combined
weight of the Steel members, and since both materials meet the strength and safety
requirements after redesigning, titanium is the ideal material choice for the space truss
structure, meeting all requirements. Additionally, the MS for each member for the Titanium
case are significantly bigger than their Steel counterpart, allowing the members to have much
higher Factor of Safety while being much lighter.

10 - References

[1] E. F. Bruhn, Analysis and design of flight vehicle structures, Indianapolis: SR Jacobs &
Associates, 1973.
[2] B. M. Institute, Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization
(MMPDS-15), 2020.