View Single Post
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-10-2005, 12:50
ChrisH's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
ChrisH ChrisH is offline
Generally Useless
FRC #0330 (Beach 'Bots)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA
Posts: 1,230
ChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond reputeChrisH has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Mechanical Reliability

Quote:
Originally Posted by billbo911
If I were to make any suggestion, these two mentioned above would be the two I would give.


I have seen a "Safety factor" mentioned a couple times. A ball park number for safety is to design for double what you think is the max. you will ever need. For example, if your arm will, at a maximum, have to support 8 pounds at full extension of 3 ft. Make sure you can support sixteen, or more. Also, don't forget to account for acceleration/deceleration forces of that mass. (Do the math!!!)By following the KISS principle, you may save a little weight. Use the extra weight to build a stronger arm.

Actually you are describing a STATIC safety factor. This assumes no acceleration (like being slammed by a robot). For my analysis on arms or lifting gear I assume the static load, add a 1/2g side load in the weak axis to account for getting hit. That gives a reasonable static load. I then multiply that by 4 to get a DYNAMIC safety factor. Actually the impacts we see will rarely push it to twice the load, but it doesn't hurt too much to add a little more. We have never broken a structure this way.

ChrisH
__________________
Christopher H Husmann, PE

"Who is John Galt?"