Blogs.solidworks.com



Barilla Fettuccini Pasta; Testing Data

Respectfully Submitted

by Richard Williams 5/16/2008

Static Testing:

Implements used for the test weights

1. Large and small container cups to hold weights added incrementally:

a. Large cup was a plastic mayonnaise jar with support wires = 60 grams.

b. Small container cup with support wires weighs = 11 grams.

c. Large 5 gallon plastic bucket w/s hook; for use in tension testing = 1072 grams.

2. Barilla Brand Fettuccini Pasta:

a. 4.5mm wide or 3/16 of an inch (X) 1mm thick or .06 of an inch (X) 20.32 centimeters or

8 inches long. Weighs 4 grams for single strip 8” long.

3. Special squeeze clamps and small c clamps combined weight = 133.0 grams.

a. Rubber squeeze clamp for primary connection to tested pasta.

b. Small c clamp was used to apply added pressure to rubber squeeze clamp for better holding

pressure. The bottom hanging portion of both these clamps were weighed and added to the

total stress weight of tested components

4. 16 oz. = 1lb. = 453.5924 grams = 0.0010 kilopounds = 9,071.8480 grains (metric)

Static Testing of I-beams Long 8 inch:

I-beam testing was done using three single strips of Fettuccini Pasta glued together using Elmer’s Wood

Glue in the shape of an I-beam. It was allowed to dry thoroughly so pieces could be tested. In all tested

specimens the minimum amount of glue was used at all times on all pieces tested, unless otherwise indica-

ted. Testing was done in good faith while striving to keep good data records as accurately as possible using

an acceptable procedure but acknowledging that the crude methods used would not conform to a certified

testing laboratories expertise. Setup picture down below.

[pic][pic]

Test I-beam #1: (Fully detailed for first beam test)

1. 229 grams of stress weight using large cup container and 30 quarters combined.

Nothing noticeable happened; very stable at this point.

2. 286 grams of stress weight total using 40 quarters plus container combined weight.

I was able to measure approximately a 7mm deformation at middle point of I-beam.

3. 427 grams of stress weight using large cup and 65 quarters for combined weight.

Now noticing approximately an 8mm beam deformation in the middle point.

4. 536 grams of stress weight using large cup and 80 quarters and one 3/8” rod coupling combined.

Noticing a 9mm beam deformation at the middle point.

5. 591 grams of stress weight using large cup and 80 quarters and 2 3/8” rod couplings.

Still seeing a 9mm middle beam deformation.

6. 697 grams of stress weight using large cup, 80 quarters plus 4 3/8” rod couplings.

Middle beam deformation remains at 9mm.

7. 796 grams of stress weight using large cup 80 quarters and 6 3/8” rod couplings.

Beam deformation remains at 9mm at the same middle point.

8. 850 grams of stress weight using large cup 80 quarters and 7 3/8” rod couplings.

Failure occurred in about 15 seconds with a 10” middle beam deformation.

Test I-beam #2:

1. Beam was incrementally loaded or stressed using the same basic steps as was used in the testing of the

number 1 beam. Failure occurred at 697 grams this time with a 7mm middle beam deformation but it

did hold this stress force (P) for almost 25 seconds. It was observed and a comment is here offered that

when failures occur they are sudden and dramatic. No creaking or bending was observed just a comp-

lete failure after stress forces were obviously too much for the beam. A comment would be offered at

this time in that the making of pasta fettuccini strips might not be consistent at any given time. Three

different boxes of Barilla Fettuccini Pasta was used in the making of the bridge and the test piece speci-

mens.

Test I-beam #3:

1. 644 grams and at this (P) a 3mm middle beam deformation was measured.

2. 801 grams. Failure was immediate on this test piece. So conservatively adjusting back to the last

known successful holding of 644 grams.

Test I-beam #4:

1. 644 grams of P force used and failure occurred at about 30 seconds so I used this total weight being that

it held for my parameter for testing of 15 seconds as a successful hold to that force impressed upon it.

Test I-beam#5:

1. 801 grams of (P) force used on specimen but failure occurred at only 4 seconds so for test result calcul-

ations I will revert back to last successful hold of 751 grams.

Summary for I-beam test will be considered at an average of the five test beams and it calculates to be = 771.20 grams or 0.7712 kilograms or 27.2033 oz., or 1.7002 lbs., for this part of the testing of the bridge components.

Static Testing of Short I-beams:

Testing done in this section follows the same method as the long 8 inch I-beam testing but these tests are done on I-beams of only 4 inch length to see if there is any basic differences. Overlap on I-beams done in both the long and short lengths had a 3/16th of an inch overlap on the wooden supports of the outer edges. This equates to

the very width of the I-beams. However, I voided this whole test down below because I could not get three successful test results for a better average and will try doing this again on another day.

[pic][pic]

Test I-beam #1: the following five tests down below were voided out because there were not enough good test results for using in averaged data gatherings for the short I-beam tests.

1. 645 grams of test weight and it failed to hold for 15 seconds. Since I did not have any successful test

with this specimen before failure, I will void it from the test samples and go with the remaining four.

2. 1700 grams of test weights were used on this piece and it would not fail. I voided this test sample bec-

ause of its very unusual strength characteristics. I’m theorizing that this test sample might have been

manufactured differently or maybe there is more glue than is normal which I believe to be the case upon

close inspection, so I threw this second test out with the first one. I will go with the remaining three.

3. 645 grams of weight used and it failed. Experience showed me that this should have held up so I am

thinking that it is from a weaker box of Fettuccini or some other unknown reason. This test failed.

4. 901 grams was used with this specimen and it failed after holding for 20 full seconds so it will be

accepted for test results.

5. 751 grams was used and it held for only 12 seconds so this test weight failed and I reverted back to the

last known successful hold of 645 grams.

Summary of this short I-beam test would be better stated to be inconclusive because of too many test failures below the starting point of successful testing. These I-beams should have held either more weight or for longer periods. There could be an inconsistency with the pasta mix, my assembly of them, or some other un-known reason for failure here.

Down below here are the repeated test results for the short I-beam test with different pieces on a different day. Five good sample tests were used for the resultant averages. 600 grams of baseline force was used as a starting point for the test to proceed from there. Short I-beams

weigh approximately 2 grams or ½ as much as the 8” size beams at 4 grams a piece as tested above.

Test I-beam #1:

1. 972.0 grams used as baseline. No deformation observed.

1105.0 grams used and observed a 1mm deformation.

1202.0 grams used and saw about the same 1mm deformation.

1259.0 grams used and beam stayed at same 1mm deformation

1356.0 grams used, no further deformation other than 1mm observed.

1453.0 grams used and now 2mm deformation seen.

1731.0 grams used; holding at same 2mm deformation. Amazing strength of I-beam configuration.

1808.0 grams used; noticed a slight twisting of beam.

2115.0 grams Failure occurred after holding for more than 20 seconds. Test accepted.

Test I-beam #2:

1. 1802.0 grams used and failed after one full minute so I accepted test results being more than 15 sec.

Test I-beam #3:

1. 1802.0 grams used and failed after one full minute of holding weight. Test accepted.

Test I-beam #4:

1. Failed to hold 1802.0 grams of the baseline weight. Observed beam slightly misaligned when built.

This test was not used in the recording data processing.

Test I-beam #5:

1. 1802.0 grams used and failure occurred at 17 seconds surpassing test parameter of 15 seconds. Test was

accepted.

The setup for the short I-beam test was done exactly the same as before with a slight variation of clamp orientation used which would not affect test results to any significant amount. I disallowed for gravity forces since I couldn’t figure them out anyway.

[pic][pic]

The next two pictures down below are the resultant fracture failures of the test with corresponding test numbers from up above in the black font section. The importance of these two pictures is to show the different failure results between a short beam that was only spot glued at four places along its adjacent linear edges and those of

the next group of pictures below these two, that shows the results when glue is applied continuously on all mated linear edges. Interesting comparisons in the broken sections but no significant increase or decrease in counter

reaction forces noted to the force impressed downward upon the beam. Pictures down below here are exactly the same but I tried to get a close up picture with the camera. The same holds true for the next two also.

[pic][pic]

Please take notice of the fragments. I make no assumptions here I simply do not know what it means. The difference noted here is that in these down below glue was applied to the full intimate contact edges along the I-beam and when failure occurred they were clean breaks basically in the middle. Looking at the breaks again up above they are more fragmented and not necessarily in the middle part of the beams. My wild guess is that the gluing method used produces this difference.

[pic][pic]

Due to the closeness of tests 2, 3, and 5 with a very large difference in test #1, I decided to void out test #1 because of its unusually large weight hold compared to all others tested. Test #4 was omitted from any data average because the beam was malformed after the glue dried. Average hold was then calculated at 1802.0 x 3 = 5406.0 divided by 3 = 1802.0 average supported stress weight. Observation made was that the basic I-beam shape and configuration is indeed a marvelous one when you consider what it weighs and how much it can support. Large differences can perhaps be attributed to possible differences in the pasta formulations. Throwing out

the highs and lows seems to give a better overall average data yield. 1802.0 grams = 63.5637 ounces or 3.9727 lbs.

Single Pasta Strand Tension Test:

Because of the unusual amount of force needed to stress a single strand of this pasta to failure, I needed to adapt to a different method of doing this test. I resorted to using two squeeze clamps as used in the aircraft industry on the outside skins as they get riveted together. They are temporary holding clamps with rubber tips for the skins until rivets can be put in. After trying several pieces to get a basal or baseline starting point I found out that even though these rubber padded clamps did hold they did not hold tight enough and the pasta was slipping out from in-between the rubber pads. I then used two very small c clamps to provide more pressure on the rubber squeeze clamps holding the pasta to allow for testing without slipping out and voiding the test. The combined weight of the both clamps at the bottom end of the tested pasta was 133 grams. The large bucket for doing this test along with the S hook I fashioned to adapt to the bottom of these two clamps had a total combined weight of 1205 grams. Setup pictures down below.

[pic][pic]

Tension Pull Test #1:

1. 6,515 grams of weight until a successful failure was incurred. This was equivalent to 14.3631 lbs.

Tension Pull Test #2:

1. 9,539 grams of weight used until a successful failure took place after 3 minutes. This was equivalent

to 21.0299 lbs.

Tension Pull Test #3:

1. 8,976 grams of weight used on a successful failure test. Maintained the weight for 30 seconds. This

weight is equivalent to 19.7887 lbs.

Tension Pull Test #4:

1. 8,645 grams of weight used on a successful failure test. It held this weight for over 30 seconds.

This is equivalent to 19.0590 lbs.

An interesting and very suprising summation for this test is that in a straight pull or tension test this pasta withstood a pull test force on average of 8,418.75 grams of (P) which = 296.9627 ounces or 18.5602 lbs. I broke one pasta strut setting up the test

so I averaged in the four successfully completed ones. My observation here is about the amazing tension strength as was witnessed and successfully tested in this Fettuccini pasta material during tension stressing to failure. Amazing.

Bending Test Torsion: 8” size

Eight inch single pieces of fettuccini pasta struts were used for this test. Multiple c clamps were used to hold this pasta in a position that would enable it to be bent tested. Since there were wide variations of the results I decided to throw out the highest and the lowest of the tested samples. Five test pieces were used for the average data on this particular test. I am not sure if I am using the right word “torsion” for this test. Setup pictures down below.

[pic][pic]

Bending Test Torsion #1:

1. 30 grams of force was used to bend this sample over until breaking. It held okay at this force used.

used in the test. It failed upon increasing the incremental force P.

Bending Test Torsion #2:

1. Held okay at 32 grams. Failed upon increasing of stress force to next level.

Bending Test Torsion #3:

1. Held okay at 33 grams. Failed at next incremental increase to next level.

Bending Test Torsion #4:

1. Held okay at 26 grams. Failed at the next incremental increase to next level.

Bending Test Torsion #5:

1. Held okay at26 grams. Failed at the next incremental increase to next level.

The results on this particular testing averaged out to be 29.4 grams of bending force (P) which is equal to a stress bending force of 1.0371 oz = 0.0648 lbs. before failing.

Bending Test Torsion Repeated: 4” size

This same test was repeated with a sample piece of 4” this time for a comparative analysis to show any differences in the proportional sizes. Slight modification in the clamping was needed to allow stress to be placed and steadied on the very end of the samples. I needed a slight variation in the positioning of the clamps to allow the little container to stay put on the end of the sample. Setup pictures down below. Notice the clamping angle to the horizontal bench surface. This enabled the test container to be balanced on the very end.

[pic][pic]

Bending Test Torsion #1:

1. Held okay at 40 grams but failed on next incremental increase of force.

Bending Test Torsion #2:

1. Held okay at 46 grams but failed on next incremental increase of force.

Bending Test Torsion #3:

1. Held okay at 45 grams but failed on next incremental increase of force.

Bending Test Torsion #4:

1. Held okay at 42 grams but failed on next incremental increase of force.

Bending Test Torsion #5:

1. Held okay at 43 grams but failed on next incremental increase of force.

Summation for this proportional test was an averaged 43.2 grams of force, which equals a total of 1.5238 ounces of bending force or 0.0952 lbs force used successfully and failure occurred with next incremental increase used.

Glue joint testing:

This test was performed in order to record the average strength of a glued joint which was fully dried overnight inside a house with very low humidity. The first time I performed this test I had considerable set up problems and only got one piece successfully tested which is not enough for a final approximation of the glued joint strength. This time around I will use six new pieces using a baseline to start at of 3,300 grams approximately. Set up was once again used with ladder rather than the table top bench for the vertical distance needed to perform the test.

Tension Glue Joint Pull Test #1:

1. 2119 grams used for this test and failure occurred after more than 30 seconds.

Tension Glue Joint Pull Test #2:

1. 1905 grams used to start of test and test failed to hold for required minimum stress test time of 15 sec.

Tension Glue Joint Pull Test #3, #4, #5

1. All sequenced tests failed to hold the minimum baseline stress weight and minimum time allowed for

passing the test. See below pictures for explanation of the problem encountered.

Testing Procedure Failure Again:

The problem here is with the glue joint itself. Since one strut is glued on top of the other one with a half inch overlapping for good joint bonding, it is virtually impossible to pull them apart in this fashion because the struts bend right at the ends of the overlapping pieces putting an undue added stress right at that point not overlapped. To put it another way the joint bond would not fail but the strut itself failed at the very beginning or end if you will of the overlapping pieces. An observation here is that if there were a way to test this glue joint bond without bending the natural length of the rest of it or putting a much greater force on the overlapping end surfaces, then the test would most likely still fail to properly test the joint bonding. The reason for this is that in the above tension testing of a full 8” strut, forces of about 18.5 pounds on average where needed to bring the individual struts to failure. A non-tested assumption here would be that the bonding joint itself, would far exceed the breaking force needed to break the normal strut in the tension pull test. That being the case then there is no way that I have at my disposal to test just the joint itself without breaking the strut first. The pictures down below in order show the various attempts I made to try and keep the strut aligned with the joint in a straight pull. None of my methods would work properly and I did try a few.

[pic]

[pic][pic]

Although I was not successful in conducting this part of the test to a proper conclusion and data result, I am very confident that the glued joints would far exceed any other strain or stress impressed upon the pasta during these tests over a period of four days. I have endeavored to conduct these tests in the best way possible using my unscientific approaches and most likely imperfect results, in order to provide perhaps the world’s very first data sets for stress testing Barilla Fettuccini Pasta. I believe the results gathered can be used in approximations of expected calculated reactionary forces to the building of and testing of the Barilla Fettuccini Bridge down below. I humbly provide these data sets for the inspection of those industries, societies and engineering firms and other interested parties that might want this data to make more informed decisions on this project that I have undertaken and stayed with over the last month and a half. Sincerely, Richard Williams.

[pic]

[pic][pic][pic][pic]

Once again I would like to extend my thanks to Mr. Glen Crouch who has provided me two invaluable tools to help me conduct this test, with all the necessary conversions and calculations that had to be made for this study. These tools can be found at: and proved to be really worthwhile to use here for this testing. Thank you Sir.

Screen shots of both the conversion and calculator programs are down below.

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download