1. SportsNet - Contingency Plan
MSD I – Phase 4

2. Current design Systems: Priorities: Mezzanine Tilt N’ Store
Elevator
Stairs
Tilt N’ Store
Priorities:
** The team agrees that there is much more benefit in developing the mezzanine ahead of the Tilt N’ Store. This is because the Mezzanine has the ability to store a larger variety of items and it provides more additional square footage.
Originally, both of these subsystems were going to be fully designed  Now less analysis and design is needed to get them working.

3. Main Concerns Concern #1:
The cinderblock wall will not be able to support the moment induced by the Tilt N’ Store.
Concern #2
Our Budget will not allow for us to design both a Mezzanine and a Tilt N’ Store.

4. Proposed Idea
If the Tilt N’ Store is not allowed to hang from the wall we need to…
Eliminate the Bending Moment/Torqueing action place on the wall.
Anchor the Tilt N’ Store over a stronger structure
Eliminate the Tilt N’ Store and pursue only the mezzanine.
The proposed plan attempts to merge the mezzanine and Tilt N’ Store concepts in an effort to save on costs and prevent creating a moment on the wall.

5. Proposed Idea Proposal:
Attempting to leverage the I-Beam as an anchor (as done with the new Elevator Design), a bar, approximately eight feet long, will be set on an extended frame of the Mezzanine. This bar will be used to hold the Bikes up in the air.
When Bikes are needed, the chain hoist is attached to the bar, the bar is lifted off the frame, the chain hoist is then dragged to the Mezzanine opening that allows access to the floor below where the bar is lowered to the ground so Bikes can be removed/added. 7 6 2 3 8 1 4 5

6. New Idea – Vertical Storage
I Beam
New Idea – Vertical Storage
Trolley’s Path
Chain Hoist’s Path
Elevator

8. Front View of Mezzanine

9. Top View of Mezzanine

10. Side View from Left Side of Mezzanine
Side View from Right Side of Mezzanine

11. Pros for each approach

12. Comments/Conclusions:
Assuming resultant point loads from the Bikes modelled as a point load on the steel bar, we see that the force felt at each column is less than 400lbs. This is relatively small compared to the reactions at the columns supporting the beams, and therefore we should easily be able to size a wooden column for these supports.
We are also expecting minimal effects on the overall structure because the reaction force is so small.
Deflection also looks acceptable at this inflated loading. However, if upon further analysis, the wood shows signs of too much deflection, we can increase the size of the wood to increase the Moment of Inertia.

13. Comments/Conclusions:
Will only one pivot point in the center of the bar, there will be issues when the loads are not balanced.
The analysis to the left attempts to keep the angle of rotation below 5 degrees with the prescribed system variables. Given these variables, it would take a concentrated load of approximately 450 lbs to keep the bar from rotating more than 5 degree when a bike is hung at the very end of the bar.