Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Transforming a Cantilever with Fixed Joints into Trussed Configurations: A Case Study in Creative Design Thinking & Prototyping Cover

Transforming a Cantilever with Fixed Joints into Trussed Configurations: A Case Study in Creative Design Thinking & Prototyping

Open Access
|May 2025

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Realized T1 configuration of the Y-shaped, cantilever arm assembled from standardized beech wood profiles and bespoke, 3D printed joints

Figure 2.

Left: Benchmark Y-shaped, polyhedral cantilever with fixed joints in side and top view. Right: T1 with coordinates, and indication of node 10 (load point c10), node 23 (load point c23), and node 15 (0/0/0 = c0)

Table 1.

Numerical values of displacements of nodes 10 / 23 for T1-T5 including mass calculation (Polyhedral* = optimized)

graphic/j_acee-2025-0009_tab_001.jpg
Figure 3.

Y-shaped, polyhedral cantilever with fixed joints as benchmark versus configurations T1-T5. The arrows indicate the differences between the individual configurations

Figure 4.

Optimized cross-sections for beech wood (color coded) for configurations T1 to T5. Dimensions of standardized circular profile cross-sections in 2, 2.2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, and 6 cm in diameter

Figure 5.

Configuration T1 and its displacements as simulated in Karamba3D. The cantilever was loaded by self-weight and vertical loads of 0.5 kN to both nodes 10 and 23

Figure 6.

Left: Resultant force replacing concentrical tension rods in multi-arm nodes by use of graphic statics. Center: 3D printing Node 11 including two through-the-joint-mounted fittings (also see Figure 8) by PrusaSlicer, Prusa i3 MK3 and PLA NX2. Right: 3D printed joints ready for T1 assembly

Figure 7.

Left: Two point-clouds from laser-scan with local coordinate system, target balls and reconstructed cylinders. Center: Scans from unloaded (green) and loaded (red) structure. Right: Example of reconstructed cylinder from approximately 1300 scanned points

Table 2.

Results of the computational comparison between the different configurations at the two load points

load point c10 load point c23
Difference vector Δci : Δx [cm]:3.211.39
Δy [cm]:0.521.84
Δz: [cm]:3.603.57
Euclidian norm Δci [cm]:4.854.25
Directional angle αi [°]:0.10.4
initial configurationend configurationinitial configurationend configuration
elevation to the horizontal plane βi [°]:40.4339.6927.4126.79
Figure 8.

Top: Overview of nodes. Bottom left: Node 19 with six wooden members and one threated tension rod. Bottom center: Node 19 in the realized structure. Bottom Right: Identical point c19 (blue dot) of the joint i=19 with six wooden members

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/acee-2025-0009 | Journal eISSN: 2720-6947 (formerly 1899-0142) | Journal ISSN: 1899-0142
Language: English
Page range: 113 - 128
Submitted on: Jun 24, 2024
Accepted on: Jan 3, 2025
Published on: May 10, 2025
Published by: Silesian University of Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: Volume open

© 2025 Günther H. Filz, Robert Eberle, Pia V. Nagl, Thomas Weinold, published by Silesian University of Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.