Structural Analysis of a Mounting Panel in the

Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle

by
Natalia Chabebe
An Engineering Project Submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Approved:
__________________________________________________
Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete, Engineering Project Adviser

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Hartford, CT
April, 2012

 Copyright 2012
by
Natalia Chabebe
All Rights Reserved

CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... v
GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF SYMBOLS ....................................................................................................... vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................................ viii
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... ix
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1
1.1

Background ........................................................................................................ 1

1.2

Criteria for Acceptance of Simplified Analysis ................................................. 5

2. Methodology ................................................................................................................ 6
2.1

Description of Environment ............................................................................... 6

2.2

Material Selection and Properties ...................................................................... 6

2.3

Description of Structural Analysis ..................................................................... 7

2.4

Creation of FEA Models .................................................................................... 7

2.4.1

Full Assembly Model FEA Set-Up ........................................................ 7

2.4.2

Sub-Assembly Model FEA Set-Up ...................................................... 11

3. Results........................................................................................................................ 15
3.1

Full Assembly Model ....................................................................................... 15

3.2

Sub-Assembly Model ....................................................................................... 17

3.3

3.2.1

Fixed Through Holes ........................................................................... 17

3.2.2

Fixed Surface ....................................................................................... 19

Summary .......................................................................................................... 20

4. Conclusions................................................................................................................ 22
4.1

Discussion of Results ....................................................................................... 22

4.2

Future Work ..................................................................................................... 23

5. Appendix.................................................................................................................... 24
ii

6. References.................................................................................................................. 26

iii

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1: ALUMINUM 7075 MATERIAL PROPERTIES [8] ................................... 6
TABLE 2.2: NASTRAN MODEL SUMMARY OF ELEMENTS................................. 10
TABLE 3.1: SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR MARGINS ........................................... 20
TABLE 3.2: SUMMARY OF COMPARED STRESS VALUES .................................. 21

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1: CUT-AWAY OF MPVC & CREW MODULE [2] .................................... 1
FIGURE 1.2: CROSS SECTION OF CREW MODULE AND ISOMETRIC VIEW OF
PANEL 1 [3] .............................................................................................................. 2
FIGURE 1.3: ISOMETRIC INTERNAL VIEW OF OF CM [3] ...................................... 3
FIGURE 1.4: SIMPLIFIED CROSS SECTION OF BACKBONE .................................. 3
FIGURE 1.5: PANEL 1 FULL ASSEMBLY.................................................................... 4
FIGURE 1.6: BRACKET DIMENSIONS ........................................................................ 4
FIGURE 2.1: NASTRAN MODEL OF FULL PANEL ASSEMBLY ............................. 9
FIGURE 2.2: CENTER OF GRAVITY OF ASSEMBLY .............................................. 11
FIGURE 2.3: FORCE BOUNDARY CONDITION ....................................................... 12
FIGURE 2.4: FIXED SUPPORT AT THROUGH HOLES ............................................ 13
FIGURE 2.5: TOP THROUGH HOLE SURFACE FIXED ........................................... 14
FIGURE 2.6: BRACKET MESH IN ANSYS WORKBENCH ...................................... 14
FIGURE 3.1: FULL ASSEMBLY BRACKET RESULTS ............................................ 15
FIGURE 3.2: HIGHEST STRESS IN FULL ASSEMBLY BRACKET ........................ 16
FIGURE 3.3: STRESS DISTRIBUTION FOR FIXED THROUGH HOLES................ 17
FIGURE 3.4: MAX STRESS FIXED THROUGH HOLE BRACKET.......................... 18
FIGURE 3.5: MAX STRESS FOR FIXED SURFACE ANALYSIS ............................. 19
FIGURE 5.1: NASTRAN MODEL REFINED MESH FOR BRACKET ANALYZED 24
FIGURE 5.2: CONTOUR PLOT OF STRESSES IN FIXED SURFACE BRACKET
ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................. 24
FIGURE 5.3: OUTER RIB STRESS IN FIXED SURFACE ANALYSIS ..................... 25

GLOSSARY
CM

Crew Module

EFT-1

Experimental Flight Test 1

LEO

Lower Earth Orbit

MS

Margin of Safety

MPCV

Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle

NASA

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Pro-E

Pro/ENGINEER

RBE2

Rigid Body Elements (add stiffness to modeled components)

RBE3

Rigid Body Elements (interpolation element used to distribute mass and

load to modeled components)

vi

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Centerline

CG

Center of Gravity

FS

Factor of Safety

MS

Margin of Safety

MSAY

Yield Strength Margin of Safety for Full Assembly Model

MSAU

Ultimate Strength Margin of Safety for Full Assembly Model

MSSH-Y

Yield Strength Margin of Safety for Sub-Assembly Model Fixed at

Through Holes

MSSH-U

Ultimate Strength Margin of Safety for Sub-Assembly Model Fixed at

Through Holes

MSSS-Y

Yield Strength Margin of Safety for Sub-Assembly Model Fixed at

Surface

MSSS-U

Ultimate Strength Margin of Safety Sub-Assembly Model Fixed at

Surface

Sallow

Allowable Stress (psi)

Scalc

Calculated Stress (psi)

Calculated Stress of Full Assembly Model (psi)

SH

Calculated Stress of Sub-Assembly Model Fixed at Through Holes (psi)

SS

Calculated Stress of Sub-Assembly Model Fixed at Surface (psi)

Wtotal

Panel 1 assembly weight (lbs)

Wbracket

Weight taken by each bracket (lbs)

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to express my gratitude to my project adviser, Dr. Ernesto GutierrezMiravete, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, for
his guidance and insight throughout this process. I would also like to thank my coworkers, especially Paul Hearn for his dedication and assistance towards keeping me
motivated during the completion of this project. Finally to my mother, who constantly
reminded me that no matter how overwhelmed I might have been, all things have a way
of working themselves out.

viii

ABSTRACT
This paper will focus on performing a stress analysis on one of the component that
mounts secondary structure to the primary backbone. The analysis will first be
completed as a sub-assembly of the full scale and then the results will be compared to
the full structural analysis of the entire assembly. The goal of performing the separate
analyses is to determine if the sub-scale model results closely resemble the full scale
model results thus potentially avoiding a full scale analysis in the future which would
positively influence cost and schedule.
The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) is based on the Orion design
requirements for traveling beyond low Earth orbit (LEO). Orion, a program developed
by The National Aeronautics and Space Administrations (NASA), will serve as the
exploration vehicle that will carry the crew to space, provide emergency abort capability,
sustain the crew during the space travel, and provide safe re-entry from deep space
return velocities [1]. Inside the Crew Module (CM) are located all the electrical devices
that control the functions of the vehicle. This hardware is mounted on structural frames
attached to the primary backbone of the vehicle.

ix

1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), announced on May 24, 2011, is a
planned spacecraft that is being built by Lockheed Martin for NASA, based on designs
and tests already completed as part of the now-cancelled Constellation program,
development for which began in 2005 as the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). The
MPCV's debut unmanned multi-hour test flight, known as Exploration Flight Test
1 (EFT-1), is scheduled for a launch aboard a Delta IV Heavy rocket in 2014. Figure 1.1
[2] shows a cut-away view of the MPCV with an expanded image of the Crew Module.

Figure 1.1: Cut-Away of MPVC & Crew Module [2]

Inside the Crew Module (CM) is where all the hardware and electronics are
located that the space craft needs for functionality. The inside of the CM can be seen in
1

Figure 1.2 [3]. A more detailed inside view of the CM can be seen in Figure 1.3. The
internal structure relies on a primary structural support called the backbone. The
backbone has been highlighted in red for more detail in Figure 1.3. In order to illustrate
this a bit further, a simplified representation of the backbone is shown in Figure 1.4. This
figure is meant to describe Section A-A shown in Figure 1.3. The backbone of the
vehicle is labeled as the primary structure highlighted in red.

Figure 1.2: Cross Section of Crew Module and Isometric View of Panel 1 [3]
Figure 1.4 shows that the backbone is where secondary structure is mounted
which support various types of hardware. It is important to understand what types of
stresses these secondary structures are subject due during all possible scenarios during a
mission. The cross section of the backbone seen in Figure 1.4 shows a typical mounting
scheme for hardware inside the vehicle which for simplicity will be called Panel 1.

Figure 1.3: Isometric Internal View of of CM [3]

Figure 1.4: Simplified Cross Section of Backbone

Panel 1 consists of a frame that supports electrical hardware on both sides. There
are four mounting brackets which serve to attach the frame assembly to the main vehicle
structure. The details of the assembly are shown in Figure 1.5.
3

Figure 1.5: Panel 1 Full Assembly

The analysis being completed in this report will look at the stresses in the
mounting brackets due to limit load effects on a per g basis. It has been assumed that the
frame and electrical hardware have all been designed to withstand the loads during
operation. This analysis will focus on determining the stresses in the brackets using two
different methods. For additional content, Figure 1.6 shows the dimensions for the
bracket that will be analyzed

Figure 1.6: Bracket Dimensions

4

1.2 Criteria for Acceptance of Simplified Analysis

The purpose of comparing the results between a full scale models and a sub-assembly
model is to determine if it is possible to conserve time and budget utilizing a simplified
stress analysis method and achieve acceptable results. It is often extremely time
consuming to develop an FEA model with high fidelity that runs flawlessly at the first
attempt. Structural analysts are faced with debugging issues with 3D models in order to
create a set up acceptable for the software being utilized. In the interest of avoiding the
obstacles that might present themselves in a complex structural analysis, this project
aims to prove whether it is possible to simplify the full assembly into a sub-assembly
with conservative boundary conditions.
Instead of analyzing the full assembly model shown in Figure 1.5, only one of the
brackets will be modeled in simpler analysis software. The goal of the full assembly
model analysis is to determine the stresses in the brackets to determine whether or not
the current bracket design is valid for the loads the assembly will be subjected to during
launch. Since the brackets are the only components of interest in this particular analysis,
this paper will focus on comparing the results of a simplified bracket only model. This
simplified model has several conservative assumptions of the behavior of the full
assembly. The comparison of the stress distribution results will determine whether or not
the assumptions made are valid for this particular study.

2. Methodology
2.1 Description of Environment
There are a number of g-load levels the MPCV will be subject to during nominal and
off-nominal operations. For the scope of this paper, only the nominal launch cases will
be considered. The Delta IV Heavy rocket used for launching the vehicle is rated to
function up to 18gs which is slightly under the requirement for a human rated launch
capability [4]. This max g-level will be used in determining the stresses experienced by
the secondary structure in the vehicle.

2.2 Material Selection and Properties

Most of the hardware inside the vehicle is made of light metal alloys. A popular material
used throughout is Aluminum. Although there are varying types of aluminum used for
different hardware it will be assumed that all of the components are made of Aluminum
7075. The material properties used in this report are yield strength and ultimate strength
which are listed in Table 2.1 [8].
Table 2.1: Aluminum 7075 Material Properties [8]
Material

Yield

Ultimate

Modulus of

Poissons

Density

Strength (psi)

Strength (psi)

Elasticity (ksi)

Ratio

(lb/in3)

73000

83000

10000

.33

0.0975

Aluminum 7075

The factors of safety that will be used for the margin calculations will be 1.5 against
yield strength and 2.0 against ultimate strength. Equation 1 shows the how the margin
will be calculated.

MS =
Where:

S allow
1 0.00
FS * Scalc

Sallow = the applicable allowable stress

FS

= the required safety factor mentioned above

Scalc = the calculated stress based on the load environment

[1]

2.3

Description of Structural Analysis

The stress distribution in the mounting brackets of the Panel 1 assembly will be
determined using two different methods:
1. The full Panel 1 assembly will be modeled and assembled in
Pro/ENGINEER. This model will then be brought into Nastran and the
appropriate boundary conditions will be applied. Patran will be used to
evaluate and capture the results.
2. The second FEA will look only at one of the mounting brackets in the Panel 1
assembly. This analysis will assume equal weight distribution on all
mounting hardware as well as equal distribution of that weight at attachment
points to hardware.
The results of the two studies will be compared to determine whether or not a simplified
analysis is sufficient to determine actual stresses in efforts to save cost and schedule on
the design. A detailed explanation of the set up and boundary conditions is covered in
the following section.

2.4 Creation of FEA Models

2.4.1

Full Assembly Model FEA Set-Up

The full scale panel assembly was analyzed using the finite element analysis (FEA)
program NASTRAN. The following section details the FEA that was completed in
NASTRAN.
Assembly level structural analysis of the frame was performed using MSC NASTRAN
2008 finite element code. The NASTRAN model, which was developed with MSC
PATRAN 2010, is shown in Figure 2.1. This model consists of a structural frame,
mounting brackets, vibration isolators, four electrical boxes and miscellaneous hardware
(nuts, bolts, washers etc).
Referring to Figure 2.1, the finite element discretization consists primarily of
tetrahedral elements. These are higher-order elements, with quadratic shape functions,
that are used to model the structural frame, mounting brackets. The enclosure of each
electronic box is modeled using low-order elements with linear shape functions. Here, a
combination of quadrilateral plate elements, and hexagonal solid elements, are utilized.
7

Internal circuit cards and electrical cables and are treated as lumped masses since they
were not modeled. In the case of circuit cards, the corresponding lumped masses are
distributed over the base plates of the respective enclosures, by means of RBE3
elements. These elements are interpolation elements that are used to distribute mass and
load in the model. They were selected in an effort to prevent the assembly from
behaving in an overly stiff manner. Cable lumped masses, which are more localized in
nature, are attached via RBE2 elements. These are rigid body elements which add
stiffness. It is assumed that the cables hanging off the electrical boxes (which are not
modeled into the assembly) add some stiffness to the structure.
Bolted connections are simulated with RBE2 elements used in conjunction with
stiff, coincident node bushing elements, and lumped masses. Bushing elements are also
used to simulate the flexible behavior of elastomeric vibration isolators installed between
the mounting brackets and vehicle structure. For this assembly, the isolator stiffness is
taken as 2000 lb/in.

Electrical Hardware

Fixed displacement
constraints (16 places)
at bracket locations

y
x
z
Figure 2.1: NASTRAN Model of Full Panel Assembly

Table 2.2: NASTRAN Model Summary of Elements

Model Summary
Grid Points
1865266
CBUSH ELEMENTS
127
CHEXA ELEMENTS
28556
CONM2 ELEMENTS
252
CQUAD4 ELEMENTS
31922
CTERTRA ELEMENTS 1030798
RBE2 ELEMENTS
273
RBE3ELEMENTS
8

Boundary conditions for the model consist of translational and rotational degree-offreedom constraints applied at sixteen locations. These locations correspond to the
interface between the brackets and vehicle structure. At this location there are isolators
and in order to appropriately model the response of the isolators they were models as
previously explained. Loads applied to the model include unit acceleration loads (e.g. 1
g loads) in each of three directions applied independently. Since the acceleration load
analysis was run in each direction independently the stress results will be plotted for
each direction. It is expected that because of the weight distribution the worst case
directional loading will be the x-direction for the brackets. The x-direction as can be
seen in Figure 2.1 is along the long length of Panel 1. The total weight of the analyzed
assembly is 122.45 lb.
The center of gravity of the assembly is shifted towards one edge of the assembly.
Its location can be seen in Figure 2.2. In order to refine the solution for the stresses and
optimize run time, the mesh created for the bracket closest to the center of gravity will
be much finer than the rest of the assembly. The bracket closest to the center of gravity
is chosen because this bracket will be subjected to the highest effects of the weight since
it is shifted towards its location. Only the mesh in this bracket is refined in order to
obtain more accurate stress results to compare to the sub-assembly model. Looking at
Figure 2.2 the mesh for the bottom left bracket will be finer than the mesh for the rest of
the assembly. A detailed picture of the mesh can be seen in Figure 5.1 in the Appendix.

10

Figure 2.2: Center of Gravity of Assembly

2.4.2

Sub-Assembly Model FEA Set-Up

The sub-assembly model studied for this project represents the pursuit of determining a
simplified method of approaching the analysis. Since only the stresses in the bracket are
of interest for this particular case study, only the bracket will be analyzed. The rest of the
components in the assembly will be ignored and their effects will be converted into
conservative assumptions. In order to maintain ease throughout this analysis, simpler
FEA software was used. The software selected was ANSYS Workbench because despite
its simple user interface, it is known as a highly powerful platform with a sophisticated
automated meshing capability. For this particular analysis ANSYS Workbench version
12.0 was utilized.
The model of the singular bracket created in Pro-E was converted into a STEP
file for compatibility with ANSYS. The STEP file of was then brought into as the
geometry for a Structural Analysis in ANSYS. The appropriate material properties for
Aluminum 7075 were selected for the bracket.
The first boundary condition assumption made was that the weight is equally
distributed throughout all of the attachment points of the assembly. Although this might
not necessarily be the case, the factors of safety used for the analysis may help add the
extra conservatism needed. The weight of the full assembly that is also used in the full
assembly model is 122.45 pounds. To add some padding the analysis the weight will be
assumed to round up to 150 pounds (Wtotal). If there is a large discrepancy between the

11

results and the design proves marginal, this weight will be revised. The following
calculations detail the weight breakdown for each bracket used in the analysis:
Since there are four brackets (Figure 1.2) and each assumed to take the weight
equally the weight of the bracket (Wbracket). Equation 2 shows this calculation.
Wbracket =

Wbracket =

Wtotal
4

[2]

150
= 37.5 40lbs
4

The weight applied at each bracket is also rounded up to add more conservatism and
simplicity to the analysis.
There are four bolts that attach the bracket to the primary structure. It is assumed
that each of these attachment points take equal amounts of the weight each bracket is
carrying. This will be the boundary condition that will translate as a force applied to the
through hole of the bolts that attach the bracket to primary structure. Figure 2.3 shows
the forces the force applied at the thru holes in red.

Figure 2.3: Force Boundary Condition

12

The 40lb weight is distributed amongst the four primary structure attachment
points and applied simultaneously in each direction. Although in the full assembly model
the effect of the acceleration in each direction is looked independently, this simultaneous
directional force application is done to add conservatism to the analysis in order to
compensate for any inaccurate assumptions.
In order to represent the fixed displacement boundary condition of the bracket,
two different models were created with different constraints. These two models were
runs separately, each with a different boundary condition because it is difficult to
simulate the effects that the bolts have in the full scale model. The first run was
completed by fixing the thru holes for the bolts that attach the bracket to the Panel 1.
Figure 2.4 shows the through hole pairs circled that were selected to fix. These through
holes are the four pairs of holes that run across the length of the bracket.

Fixed through holes

Figure 2.4: Fixed Support at Through Holes

For the second run of the bracket model, the top surface where the through holes
begin was selected. The reason these different conditions were used was to try to ignore
any artificially high stresses that were anticipated the software would generate because
13

of the rigid boundary condition. The goal was to determine the most conservative
approach and use the stress values for the model that produced the highest values. The
boundary condition selection can be seen circled in Figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5: Top Through Hole Surface Fixed

Since the model of the bracket is fairly simple, a very fine was created. The element size
was kept small, approximately .00625 inches in order to maximize the effectiveness of
the results obtained. The total number of resulting elements was 393357. Figure 2.6
shows an image of the bracket mesh.

Figure 2.6: Bracket Mesh in Ansys Workbench

14

3. Results
3.1 Full Assembly Model
In order to compare the results as directly as possible the stresses were pulled out for one
bracket in particular in the assembly and the stresses in this bracket were evaluated.
Since the center of gravity was not directly in the center of the assembly, the bracket
analyzed for results was the one closest to the center of gravity since this one is expected
to take the majority of forces. It was also determined that, as predicted, the x-direction
produced the worst case stresses in the bracket hence only the stress values for this
particular direction will be addressed in this section.
Figure 3.1 shows a contour plot of the results for the worst case loaded bracket in
the assembly. In order to easily view the stresses on the bracket only, the component was
isolated from the rest of the assembly and the contour plot shows only the bracket in
question since the rest of the assembly stresses are not relevant to this study.

Figure 3.1: Full Assembly Bracket Results

Although it appears that the highest stresses are in the region of the two through holes
for the bolts at the bottom surface of the bracket, these are considered at singularities
15

that the software generates as artificially high stresses because of the boundary
conditions in that particular region. If the stresses immediately adjacent to the bolt
through holes are discarded, the next highest stresses occur in the outermost ribs of the
bracket. Figure 3.2 shows the highest stressed area isolated from the rest of the model.
The value for the stress is 216 psi/g.

Figure 3.2: Highest Stress in Full Assembly Bracket

Knowing the stress distribution on a per g basis, it is necessary to determine the full
scale stresses the bracket will be subjected to upon launch. Once the full stress is
determined, Equation 1 will be used to determine the margin of safety in order to verify
that the design will survive. The full stress (A) is simply calculated by multiplying the
stress/g generated from the model and the g-levels expected from the Delta-V launch,
18gs:

SS = 216 18 = 3888 psi

[3]

Using Equation 1 and the material properties for Al 7075 from Table 2.1 the margin of
safety can be calculated against yield and ultimate strength as follows:
MS AY =

73000
1 = 11.5
3888 1.5

[4]

MS AU =

83000
1 = 9 .7
3888 2.0

[5]

16

The margin for both cases is well over the minimum required value of zero, therefore the
design will survive during launch of the vehicle. The full stress value as well as the
margins will be used to compare to the simplified sub-assembly model results.

3.2 Sub-Assembly Model

3.2.1

Fixed Through Holes

For the case where the through holes of the bracket were held in a fixed position the
maximum stresses appeared at the outermost ribs of the bracket. Looking at Figure 3.3
there are some high stresses in the through hole region. This distribution was expected
because of how the software reacts to the fixed boundary condition at that exact location.
The high stress values immediately adjacent to the through holes can be ignored with the
justification that that particular location is a singularity. The stresses one node from the
singularity regions drops immediately.

Figure 3.3: Stress Distribution for Fixed Through Holes

17

The next highest stress at the outer ribs of the bracket is observed to be just below
300 psi/g. This value is seen in the rib at the far right of Figure 3.3. A close up of this
stress is shown in Figure 3.4. The exact value is seen 295.43 psi/g.

Figure 3.4: Max Stress Fixed Through Hole Bracket

Knowing the full value of the stress on a per g basis, the full stress at launch can be
calculated:

SH = 295.43 18 = 5318 psi

[6]

Using Equation 1 and the material properties for Al 7075 from Table 2.1 the margin of
safety can be calculated against yield and ultimate strength as follows:
MS SH Y =

73000
1 = 8 .2
5318 1.5

[7]

MS SH U =

83000
1 = 6 .8
5381 2.0

[8]

18

Looking at the results for the margin for both equations [7] and [8] the values are well
over the minimum requirement of zero which indicated the bracket is robust and well
designed to survive the launch environment.

3.2.2

Fixed Surface

For the case where the top of the through hole surfaces of the bracket were held in a
fixed position the overall stress distribution was practically identical to the other case run
in Workbench where the through holes were held fixed. The maximum stresses appeared
in the exact same location as the previous case with a slightly higher value.

Figure 3.5: Max Stress for Fixed Surface Analysis

This case was run in addition to the other scenario where the through hole internal
surfaces were fixed in order to correlate results between two different boundary
conditions. The stress value for this run was 298.4psi/g. Seeing that the results for both
were within 1% of each other gives confidence in the set up of the analysis.

SS = 295.43 18 = 5371 psi

19

[9]

Using Equation 1 and the material properties for Al 7075 from Table 2.1 the margin of
safety can be calculated against yield and ultimate strength as follows:
MS SS Y =

73000
1 = 8 .1
5371 1.5

[10]

MS SS U =

83000
1 = 6 .7
5371 2.0

[11]

As expected, the margins for this scenario are above the minimum requirement.
Since this case yields the highest stress in the bracket, it will be used to compare against
the stress generated in the bracket from the full assembly. In order to suggest that a
simplified analysis of just one bracket is a valid generalization, this stress value has to be
higher than that of the full assembly model. This is because if the value is higher the
bracket will be designed to survive the higher stresses and therefore will more than
sufficient to endure the lower stresses projected by the full assembly.

3.3 Summary
The results for stresses and margins of safety for each of the cases analyzed are
summarized in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Summary of Results for Margins

Model Description
Full Assembly
Sub-Assembly Bracket with
Through Holes Fixed
Sub-Assembly Bracket with
Through Hole Surface Fixed

psi/g

Max Stress

Margin of Safety

(psi)

Yield

Ultimate

216

3888

11.5

9.7

295.43

5310

8.2

6.8

298.4

5364

8.1

6.7

Since the goal of this study was to compare stress values between different models,
Table 3.2 shows this summary. The summary is provided as a percentage difference
above the target stress value.

20

Table 3.2: Summary of Compared Stress Values

% Error Between Full
Model Stress Value
-

Model Description
Full Assembly
Sub-Assembly Bracket with Through Holes Fixed

27%

Sub-Assembly Bracket with Through Hole

Surface Fixed

28%

21

4. Conclusions
4.1 Discussion of Results
The goal of this project was to determine if by making some conservative assumptions
on inputs and boundary conditions, a simplified sub-assembly model could be used to
predict the stress distribution of a particular component of a larger assembly. For this
particular case, a structural panel assembly with electrical hardware was analyzed. The
main component of concern was the brackets that held the assembly together to the
vehicle. Since there were several crude assumptions made in the subassembly model,
there were certain steps taken to add some conservatism into the analysis. An example of
this was that there were two sub-assembly models created in attempts to capture the
most realistic approach of recreating the boundary conditions of the full assembly model.
First the results for the two different sub-assembly models will be discussed.
Looking at Figure 3.3 and Figure 5.2 it can be seen that the stress distribution in both
models is almost identical. There are some regions specifically where the fixed boundary
conditions were located (fixing the inner through hole surface and fixing the top of the
though hole surface) that some artificially high stresses show up. These values were
disregarded and labeled as discontinuities generated by the FEA software. The stress per
g values were also almost identical between the two models (295psi/g vs 298psi/g). In
order to add some extra conservatism into the analysis, the higher of the two values was
used for a comparison against the stress per g values of the full assembly model.
The full assembly model generated a value of 216 psi/g for the max stress in the
bracket. This value was used to compare against the sub-assembly model generated
stresses. In order for the analysis to be considered successful, the value of the subassembly model should be equal or greater than the value from the full assembly in order
to capture the worst case stress possible. If the stresses in the sub-assembly model were
higher than those in the full assembly then the bracket would be designed to higher
stresses and ultimately being a valid design for any application with equal or lower
stresses.
Comparing the stress values for the full assembly model and the sub-assembly
model, it can be concluded that the sub-assembly analysis, because it shows 28% higher
22

stresses values than the full assembly, can be used to design the bracket. The bracket
designed to the higher stresses would be somewhat over-designed but it would
ultimately save time and cost. If the most important aspect of a program is to meet cost
and schedule, it would be beneficial to use the sub-assembly model analysis as a means
to design a functional bracket. However, if weight is more important and time and cost
are flexible, it would make more sense to pursue analyzing the full assembly in order to
design as closely to flight-like conditions.

4.2 Future Work

One of the main reasons this analysis proved to be successful was because the center of
gravity of the assembly was so close to the center. Had it been shifted further to one side,
the assumption that the weight is distributed equally may not have proved in a successful
generalization of the boundary conditions. Something that should be looked at in more
detail would be the effect of the location of the center of gravity on the stresses in the
bracket.

23

5. Appendix

Figure 5.1: Nastran Model Refined Mesh for Bracket Analyzed

Figure 5.2: Contour Plot of Stresses in Fixed Surface Bracket Analysis

24

Figure 5.3: Outer Rib Stress in Fixed Surface Analysis

25

6. References
[1] United States. NASA. Orion Spacecraft Overview. Nov. 2011. Web. 27 Jan. 2012.
<http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/617409main_fs_2011-11-054jsc_orion_overview_012012.pdf>.
[2] MPCV Cut-away. Photograph. Www.nasa.gov. NASA. Web. 1 Feb. 2012.
<http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/545955main_mpcvstack_full.jpg>.
[3] Crew Module Cut-Away. Photograph. Www.nasa.gov. NASA. Web. 1 Feb. 2012.
<http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/176612main_jsc2007e20981_hires.jpg>.
[4] Bearden, David A., John P. Skratt, and Matthew J. Hart. Human-Rated Delta IV
Heavy Study Constellation Architecture Impacts. Rep. no. TOR-2009(2187)-9151.
Washington, DC: NASA Headquarters, 2009. Web. 31 Jan. 2012.
<http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/377875main_081109%20Human%20Rated%20Delta%20IV.
pdf>.
[5] Hu, Howard & Straube, Tim. (2007). Orion GN&C Overview and Architecture.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Retrieved from http://ntrs.nasa.gov
[6] Lugo, Valentina. Structural Analysis of the Crew Exploration Vehicles Crew
Module During Launch Abort. Rep. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Jan. 2010. Web. 29
Jan. 2012. <http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~lugov/EP/Proposal/Proposal.pdf>.

[7] Lugo, Valentina. Structural Analysis of the Crew Exploration Vehicles Crew Module
During Launch Abort. Rep. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Apr. 2010. Web. 29 Jan.
2012.
<http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~lugov/EP/Final%20Draft/Final%20Report.pdf>.
[8] Metals Handbook, Vol.2 - Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Special
Purpose Materials, ASM International 10th Ed. 1990.

26