Thanks: 0
Needs Pictures: 0
Picture(s) thanks: 0
Results 106 to 120 of 134
-
13th September 2012, 12:17 PM #106
Howdy Sumbloak ... thanks for thinking on a higher plane (even your gutters are elevated!).
There are two types of deformation when something bends.
The first one that applies is elastic ... you bend it, then when you release it returns to original shape.
This relates to the MODULUS of the material. Very roughly the modulus is proportional to the density of the timber or material (exceptions being things like carbon fibre and kevlar). It doesn't depend on compression or tension. It's the same for both.
But when you go past the "elastic limit" then the material is permanently distorted because of changes in the structure and won't quite go back to original shape. The material's structure has been damaged in some way. This is what we call "strength". I am not being patronising here ... but saying .. this is the point where Strength becomes important. But it is not just a material quality ... it is about the way the structure fails. Wood fails in distinctly different ways via compression and by tension.
For strength there are different mechanisms on tension and compression faces.
On the tension side the wood fibres have to be torn apart to break.
But on the compression side it is different. Wood fibres can be approximated by thinking of a bundle of drinking straws. If you bend the bundle the point of failure will be when one of the straws crimps or buckles under the pressure - it will just fold over at some random point. Then the load from that broken straw will be added to the load of the straw beside it ... plus the load the adjacent straw was already carrying .. so it will compress too.
This leaves interesting dark lines in the grain that are kind of perpendicular to the grain but weave around a bit. Classic sign of compression failure.
You seem very interested in materials and structures! Can I recommend one of my very favourite books?
The New Science of Strong Materials - or why you don't fall through the floor. By JE Gordon. It's in paperback. I'm definitely not fobbing you off with this suggestion but pointing you at a book that is technically very nice, but at the same time is full of real world examples - mostly to do with boats and aircraft, but also diverging into why the british long bow was never successful south of France or why the Greeks had to prop up their chariots overnight. Or why a cook was essential to the analysis of why the WW2 Liberty ships broke up in the beginning or how the doors wouldn't shut on glassfibre train carriages. It really humanises the engineering .. showing the problems that real people had with materials. And that makes it easy to read.
It also has your exact point about the compression strength of wood and how aircraft engineers utilised it.
The book also points out how trees and even carrots grow prestressed to reduce the risk of critical compression loads on the trunk of the tree. That's why if you cut a carrot up the middle it splays open!
One curious thing I am thinking of now is that carbon fibre laminates have pretty well the same tension and compression strength, but Kevlar is much weaker in compression than tension ... just like wood. So for compression loaded structures or parts of structures you can just substitute "S-Glass" fabric for the same compression strength.
It is a hoot of a book! Recommend it to all! (All regulars ... yes ... I'm banging on about it again!)
-
13th September 2012 12:17 PM # ADSGoogle Adsense Advertisement
- Join Date
- Always
- Location
- Advertising world
- Age
- 2010
- Posts
- Many
-
13th September 2012, 12:23 PM #107Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Location
- NSW, Australia
- Posts
- 474
Ok, that's the important bit for the current bunfight. If that's the case, there's no point having odd sections of mixed species. Wont help stiffness/weight.*
Knew the other stuff (but worth noting for people who didn't know).
You seem very interested in materials and structures! Can I recommend one of my very favourite books?
The New Science of Strong Materials - or why you don't fall through the floor. By JE Gordon. It's in paperback. I'm definitely not fobbing you off with this suggestion but pointing you at a book that is technically very nice, but at the same time is full of real world examples - mostly to do with boats and aircraft, but also diverging into why the british long bow was never successful south of France or why the Greeks had to prop up their chariots overnight. Or why a cook was essential to the analysis of why the WW2 Liberty ships broke up in the beginning or how the doors wouldn't shut on glassfibre train carriages. It really humanises the engineering .. showing the problems that real people had with materials. And that makes it easy to read.
*ETA: Which makes me wonder why the old racing oars used to do it. Might just have been because they never did a real analysis and just thought it was a cool idea.
-
13th September 2012, 12:25 PM #108Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
- Location
- Santa Cruz La Laguna
- Posts
- 134
I'll have to do some more research on the properties of timber before I comment on that. But most materials are either stronger in compression or tension and my understanding is that bending moments (which cause deflection), in a beam, can generally be consider as part of the beam being in tension and the other part being in compression. So changing the shape of a beam or the properties of the material in parts of a beam can be used to improve the stiffness (see my example below).
Think of a steel reinforced concrete beam - concrete is much stronger in compression than in tension and it is used in a beam primarily for it's compressive strength. Steel which is much stronger in tension than concrete is used in the side / face of the concrete beam under tension to carry the tensile loads. I think this might have been the direction you where heading (perhaps indirectly - as this can effect the location of the neutral axis) in some of your earlier posts - but I don't know enough about the difference between the tensile and compressive strength of timber (or if if it is significantly different), to know how much of an effect it would have.
I'll do some googling...
-
13th September 2012, 12:27 PM #109
And an ancillary point it that ... usually structures (even a teaspoon is a structure ... though plastic ones are even more so!) are expected to retain their shape. So design is to stay well within their elastic limits.
Your car and car springs are expected to be the same shape tomorrow!
So usually the stiffness requirement is more important than the strength for normal use.
Gordon's book has a picture of a passenger jet with the wings stressed to the elastic limit of the the material. It is truly impressive. And it makes me realise as I fly through turbulence between the Philippines and Taiwan that the wingtips are only deflecting a total of a metre or so relative to the fuselage.
To reach the elastic limit of the material the ends of the wingtips have to be about vertical.
Or another example ... it is possible to make boat decks much lighter and still have them easily strong enough ... but people don't like them to bend under their weight.
Best wishes (and thanks for prompting a great discussion)
MIK
-
13th September 2012, 12:41 PM #110
Engineers are interested in rather gross differences. I don't mean that unkindly (I am half an engineer). But within the average properties of a material you will find that the elastic modulus will be the same.
Because the elastic component of strength is load on the atomic level. The bonds between atoms are elastic and respond to compression and tension in the same way within the minor changes we are talking about here. You see lots of diagrams that show eetsy little springs between atoms.
Goes to show that engineers can be cutesy wootsie!
There is some component of strength that relates to the type of bond. Van der Waals, ionic, covalent. But below certain critical stresses each one is elastic - because of the small displacements and fundamental electrostatic forces that each is based on. But above certain stresses they will start to displace or dislocate and each material with have different mechanisms for deforming.
However, except in straight tension, these force are usually never realised because there will be some instability in the gross structure. Like the wood driniking straws analogy making the behaviour (and inelastic permanent deformation) different in different parts of the structure or material.
So with wood ... it is not just a material but a structure as well.
Liked Dave's comments of "working with the wood sprit" very much. My inner engineer bristles .. but at the same time a lot of the elegance of classic engineered structures is because of this working with the spirit of wood, or iron, or carbon fibre.
I'd say it is one of the great enjoyments of engineering.
MIK
-
13th September 2012, 12:46 PM #111
Wood Engineering started to become scientific around the era of aircraft ... because there is such a pressure on reducing weight compared to any other type of engineering ... so your point about allowing for the different tensile and compression strengths is completely relevant for other structures where light weight is essential.
My experience of oars for racing is that the final wooden generation were as you say .. hollow with a sort of triangular apex shape.
Or maybe it was to provide a flat back to lean up against the straight pivot of an offset oarlock? And then they found that they could build them lighter with few failures that way.
Engineering informs practice and practice informs engineering.
MIK
-
13th September 2012, 12:56 PM #112
Howdy ... from spar building practice .. the tendency has been to go for tubes ... whether they are round or square or octagonal. Mostly because they turn the "hard to calculate" twisting/torsion moments into factors of no significance. Torsion is a significant problem. As well side forces are significant too.
Sometimes every few years you see a hot boat with a truss as a boom. But in the end it is much too much work when a simple tube does the same job ... well ... more simply.
Also the smaller diameter truss tubing is vulnerable when it comes up hard against a stay during an intense gybe. (hmmm ... I am feeling my bs detector going off as I write that sentence! Possibly true because you can transfer the load into the wide top or bottom face if a rectangular hollow section (as one example).
MIK
-
13th September 2012, 01:51 PM #113Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
- Location
- Santa Cruz La Laguna
- Posts
- 134
Sumbloak - I would agree with these statements that MIK has made - my quick internet refresher coarse indicates that the modulus of elasticity is generally considered (assumed) the same in both compression and tension for most (a lot) of materials. I think there are exceptions but I couldn't find any evidence that timber fell into this category.
Table 2 of this document http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2001/green01d.pdf lists the tensile and compressive strength of some types of timber and the tensile strength is normally much greater than the compressive strength. I think this may have been what you were originally referring to. But as MIK pointed out these refer to the stresses required for the timber to fail (or to start plastically deforming past ie past the point where it will return to it's original shape) not to the stiffness before permanent/plastic deformation occurs.
Under normal operating conditions the boom should be flexing in the elastic range so compressive and tensile strengths should be roughly equal on each face of the beam and the neutral axis should be close to the center of the of the section. Under these conditions it shouldn't matter (in regards to stiffness) if an additional timber section was added to the the top or the bottom face. If you were looking at increasing the failure strength of the section then you would add the stronger material to the compressive face.
Got to love engineering and science! I think you should ignore my steel reinforced concrete example in my earlier post - it isn't very relevant here and I think it confuses and mixes the issues of elastic and plastic deformation.
-
13th September 2012, 01:58 PM #114Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
- Location
- Santa Cruz La Laguna
- Posts
- 134
-
13th September 2012, 04:10 PM #115Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Location
- NSW, Australia
- Posts
- 474
Ok, so if the "problem" with the existing booms is too much vertical deflection, the obvious thing to do is to just make them deeper. If using a box-section oregon boom as a benchmark, it should be feasible to replace the side panels with paulownia at twice the height. Density will be about half. Presumably (ballpark geusstimate) other properties will be about half too. Net result should be a boom with the same weight as the benchmark, with the same sideways stiffness, but with around four times as much vertical stiffness. The paulownia should still be able to handle the torsion and shear easily enough.
-
13th September 2012, 11:55 PM #116
Spot on Sumbloak.
Increase section without increasing weight ... or better ... reducing it.
Complicating factor is that wood doesn't have a mechanism for
1/ preventing splits in thin walls. The standard guideline for timber walled spars is that timber thickness is to be 20% of cross section (safe) or a 15% (a little risky).
2/ That split prevention also relates to allowable load on the glue joints ... having enough glue surface area. That can be a problem as the wall gets thin.
My own instinct is that plywood gets around both of these problems. However it has half the tensile strength which might be too great a sacrifice.
So I'm imagining a top and bottom flange of some nice looking fir or pine (or maybe paulownia is strong enough) Maybe 12mm thick like the mast walls with ply sides. With some organisation it might be possible to get the ply out of the sixth sheet used in the standard build.
Though I do think it might be fun to make something with 4mm ply sides and then try to work out how to prevent it from breaking!
That approach worked for the Tornado Catamaran - which was delicate when it came out but gradually they worked out how to build it (in timber originally) to be a reliable structure. It is still among the very fastest catamarans despite being almost 50 years old.
But 4mm means buying extra stuff.
Another approach would be to glass a full timber boom ... but I'm really against all that extra messing around. And it doubles the analysis problems.
By the way ... do you know we have been collecting data?
WIKI for setting up and tuning Lug and Sprit Rigs | Michael Storer Wooden Boat Plans
MIK
-
14th September 2012, 02:31 AM #117
Mik, I'll bring at least two and possibly three booms to SailOK. Ply/timber, lap-joined timber and a third one (different assembly method) I'll whip up early next week.
I'm not completely sold on the ply/timber one (6mm ply) but that may result from poor craftsmanship when I built it. I don't have enough 6mm on hand right now to more carefully make a new one. I am picking up more ply early next week and I may be able to craft a new ply/timber boom before leaving for Oklahoma.
Is there any reason, other than aesthetics, not to make a taller/deeper yard in order to improve stiffness?
See you in Oklahoma!Building Gardens of Fenwick, a Welsford Parthfinder
Gardens of Fenwick
Karen Ann, a Storer GIS
Goat Island Skiff - Sacramento
-
14th September 2012, 03:22 AM #118
I still have some 6mm off cuts from the GIS that are 8' long. I think I have enough to butt-join two sides of a ~12' boom. I also have a decent remnant of a 8' DF/Oregon board that could scarf to length for top and bottom caps. I'll wait to hear the SailOK feedback but I might be interested in putting together a ply-sided boom box. MIK, what if the caps were channeled out as c-sections? would the wall thickness still need to be the minimum (12mm for example) or could the cap start at 12mm with an interior lightening groove of 4-6mm? Will the remaining "flanges" retain the stiffness?
Dave
StorerBoat Builder, Sailor, Enthusiast
Dave's GIS Chronicles | Dave's Lugs'l Chronicles | Dave's StorerBoat Forum Thread
-
14th September 2012, 09:07 AM #119Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Location
- NSW, Australia
- Posts
- 474
1/ Yup, but the wall thickness would still be the same as the benchmark spar so it should be ok. The only change is increasing the height of the side walls and decreasing the density. As long as it isn't taken to ridiculous levels (like 300 tall and 12 thick or something) it should work. Might need some extra internal blocking here and there for added support, but that's not a big deal.
2/ In my idea, the actual gluing area is the same for both spars. Stress on the glue joints between the sides and top/bottom will be markedly reduced because of the deeper section, so the less dense timber can probably handle the shear loads ok. Easy enough to check with a quick calculation.
My own instinct is that plywood gets around both of these problems. However it has half the tensile strength which might be too great a sacrifice.
Though I do think it might be fun to make something with 4mm ply sides and then try to work out how to prevent it from breaking!
By the way ... do you know we have been collecting data?
WIKI for setting up and tuning Lug and Sprit Rigs | Michael Storer Wooden Boat Plans
MIK
-
15th September 2012, 01:43 PM #120
I prefer Oxygen and Hydrogen in my carbon.
MIK
Similar Threads
-
Goat Island Skiff vs Green Island 15
By ausie in forum BOAT DESIGNS / PLANSReplies: 26Last Post: 15th July 2021, 05:19 PM -
Goat Island Skiff
By bitingmidge in forum Michael Storer Wooden Boat PlansReplies: 513Last Post: 31st October 2019, 04:03 PM -
Goat Island Skiff
By woodeneye in forum CLASSIC BOAT RESCUE & ADOPTIONReplies: 2Last Post: 31st December 2011, 11:17 PM