You are on page 1of 39

USTSenior Design Clinic

Team 11 Park Industries


Dual Acting Slab Loading Table

Team: Saad Alhajri, Andrew Heitzman, Samuel Schmidt


Sponsor Contact: Robert Monson, Ph.D.
Advisor: Michael Hennessey, Ph.D.
5/18/2016
Executive Summary

Park Industries asked the University of St. Thomas senior design team to create a dual
acting slab loading table that could be incorporated with a variety of machines for granite
fabrication. The current model has the ability to tilt in one direction while the new model is
desired to have the table top tilt in two opposing directions. The design chosen was a modified
version of the current design that Park Industries manufactures. In order to get the desired
motion, notches would have to be cutout from the linkages and a locking mechanism would be
created to prevent the table top from falling out of the mechanism. The team created a
prototype to help visualize and verify that the design chosen would work. The prototype shall
be completed during the summer months along with the validation of the system. The locking
mechanism, however, has been validated through testing. This report discusses how the team
went about creating the design which includes calculations, parts lists, and more.

1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Background .................................................................................................................................................... 3
Problem Statement ................................................................................................................................ 3
Background Information ........................................................................................................................ 3
Deliverables ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Customer Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 4
Functional Requirements....................................................................................................................... 5
Design ............................................................................................................................................................ 6
How we got to final design .................................................................................................................... 6
Solution Overview .................................................................................................................................. 6
Design Drawings .................................................................................................................................... 8
Design Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Supplemental Documentation (Bill of materials, etc) .........................................................................15
Fabrication ...................................................................................................................................................18
Prototyping Procedures .......................................................................................................................18
Manufacturing Considerations ............................................................................................................19
Testing ..........................................................................................................................................................21
Validation of the Locking Mechanism .................................................................................................21
Summary and Conclusion ............................................................................................................................22
Ethical Implications ......................................................................................................................................22
References ...................................................................................................................................................23
Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................23
Appendix A: Initial Designs and Concepts ...............................................................................................23
Appendix B: Final Design Drawings .........................................................................................................29
Appendix C: Static Analysis ......................................................................................................................34
Appendix D: Numerical Modeling Information .......................................................................................35

2
Background

Problem Statement

The task at hand is to upgrade the existing stone slab loading product so that the table
will lift in two opposing directions unlike the current model which lifts in only one direction. The
table shall lock securely into the two directions as well as in the level position. The table shall
use a hydraulic system that will be controlled using a preexisting control system with minor
modifications.

Background Information

Park Industries has been designing, manufacturing, selling, and supporting solutions for
the stone industry for over 60 years. Park currently runs a line of various machines for
countertop fabrication, which include several CNC saws, CNC routers, as well as edge polishers.
For the CNC saws, Park has developed a slab loading table called FUSION 4045 that interlocks
with the device and has the capability of tilting up to 80
degrees, Figure 1, to reduce stone slab breakage,
reduces material handling constraints, and allows easy
cleaning of the interior of the table base. The model is
controlled by a hydraulic system. It only has the ability to
tilt to one side where the stone slab is loaded on and
positioned to desired work location. Then the table is
lowered to horizontal position, Figure 2, for the slab to
be machined. The table lifts back to upright position for
Figure 1: Table at 80 degrees
the slab to be removed and the base to be cleaned.
position.

3
The goal of this project is to develop a table with the ability to lift on two opposing
directions while also being able to be integrated with
other machinery.

Deliverables

1. A statement of work and problem statement


describing the work to be completed
2. A list of requirements from the company and
those derived from the new system
3. A preliminary design review defining possible
solutions for a dual acting slab loading table
4. A critical design review demonstrating the
completion of a workable design for a dual acing slab Figure 2: Table at level position.
loading table prior to manufacturing
5. A collection of detailed drawings of the design
6. A physical representation of the created design

Customer Requirements

1. The system shall tilt in opposing directions to allow for loading of the slab and cleaning
of the system
2. The system shall fit seamlessly with the current product offerings
3. The system shall operate using hydraulic actuation
4. The system shall be able to repeat the desired action to within 1/32nd of an inch
5. Preexisting tank and table top shall not be altered
6. The maximum working pressure of the hydraulic system shall be no more than 3000 lbs.
per square inch
7. All parts shall be compatible with existing system
8. Appropriate stress analysis shall be applied to all frame members and linkages to insure
the required safety factor is met. Manufactures safe load specifications can be used for
purchased parts without additional stress analysis by the team.
9. All pinch/shear points shall be safety shielded to prevent injuries to operators and
personnel

4
10. The von- Mises based safety factor for stress shall be a factor no less than 2 above the
yield stress of the materials used
11. All parts of the system shall be compatible with water stone slurry without corrosion
problems
12. All moving parts shall be sealed against the abrasive effects of the stone slurry
13. Moving parts shall be shielded from large stone shards to prevent interference with the
moving parts
14. No parts of the lift system shall intrude under the working surface of the table or into
the slurry box

Functional Requirements

The functional requirements are derived requirements that come from the creation of the
design. They are not necessarily requirements specified by the sponsor themselves.

1. The maximum lift angle required shall be 80 degrees from level


2. The system shall lift a 3000 lb. table top and a 1500 lb. slab of granite
3. The table must be captured by the lifting mechanism to assure safety
4. System shall meet applicable standards (ASME, ASTM, OSHA, ANSI)
5. The table system shall have no parts extending greater than 35 inches from the floor
6. The articulated table shall be no less than 144 inches wide normal to the pivot axis, and
no less than 96 inches long in the table axis pivot direction
7. The footprint on the floor of the system shall be less than 112 inches long in the
direction normal to the pivot axis, and less than 158 inches wide normal to the pivot axis
8. The maximum distance from either pivot axis to the stone center of gravity when table
is lifted shall be no less than 64 inches
9. The table system shall have no parts hanging lower than the bottom of the supporting
beams of the undercarriage.
10. Any linkage connections that must be made or changed to transition the lift direction
shall be easy to verify by sight and sound when clicked into place.
11. There shall be no unsafe linkage settings (i.e. both directions of lift engaged at the same
time) from which the hydraulics can be operated.

5
Design

How we got to final design

The team was given the initial task to construct a mechanism that would allow for bi-
directional movement of the table top. The designs that were created can be viewed in
Appendix A. However, these designs were unsatisfactory and so the team was provided a
design concept to validate whether or not that could work. The concept involved the use of a
single pivot along with multiple mechanisms to allow for the required movement. After
implementing the design into the CAD model provided by the company, it was discovered that
multiple interference issues prevented the design from working. That leads us to our final
design that was created which was the mirroring of Park Industries current design.

Solution Overview

The final design incorporates two mirrored four bar linkages that allow the mechanism
to move to the required positions without any interferences. While in use only one of the four
bar linkages is ever in motion, depending on which direction the table is leaning, the other four
bar will be in the resting level position. To ensure a high level of safety for those near the
machine a passive self-locking mechanism was installed which securely fixes the table to the
arms of whichever four bar linkage is being actuated at that moment.

The initial designs of the dual acting hydraulic lifting table revolved much more heavily
around implementing two bar linkages but after many tests it was concluded that a two bar
linkage would be unable to clear all interferences while still abiding by all requirements set for
by the company and thus a four bar linkage was used. By mirroring the four bar linkage that is
currently being used by Park Industries the table is able to move to all the prescribed locations
without interference and allowed park industries to continue their current manufacturing
process with minimal alterations.

6
Having the table not fixed to either of the four bar linkages allowed it to easily switch
from being actuated from one or the other. With a free floating table and limited available
space a passive self-actuating locking system was implemented to lock the table in place while
moving. The locking mechanism designed was a hook that would attached to both sides of the
eight linkages. Figure 3 shows the design of the hook.

Figure 3: Design of hook locking mechanism

These hooks have torsional springs inside that forces them up to the locked position. While one
side of the machine is being actuated the hooks on those arms are securely wrapped around
lock bars which are attached to the underside of the table Figure 4. Once the table is lowered
the hooks come into contact with push bars that force the hooks to detach from the lock bars
Figure 5. When the table is flat for machining all the locks are inactive and the table is free
floating.

Figure 4: Hooks attaching to lock bars

7
Figure 5: Hooks disengaging while table top is level

Design Drawings

All design drawings for the mechanism can be found in Appendix B.

Design Analysis

Hydraulic Cylinder Calculations

In order for the system to function, hydraulics must be used to actuate the table
top to the positions desired. While the new design is created from a previous working
design, minor changes in the geometry give rise to the necessity of doing calculations to
determine the size of the hydraulic cylinder needed to lift the table.
Using the assumption that the max loading from the table top and granite slab is
a combined 4500 lbs., half of the max load is distributed to each half of the table since
there are two cylinders working together. Because the motion of the system is slow,
static calculations can be done instead of dynamic calculations. The force generated
from the cylinder can be found by doing static analysis on the mechanism. Calculations
were done at the horizontal position which is where the greatest amount of force is
required by the cylinders to lift the table.

8
Figure 6: Free body diagram of the driver link with corresponding mechanism image

Figure 6 shows the free body diagram (FBD) used to solve for the cylinder force . The
component B forces needed to be solved using another FBD which can be found in Appendix C.
The results of the static calculations done on the free body diagram can be found in Table 1. All
values in the table are various forces acting on a component of the driver link.

Table 1: Results of static calculations

Ax 9200 lbs.
Ay -2500 lbs.
Bx 5100 lbs.
By 1350 lbs.
FH 14800 lbs.

Using the hydraulic cylinder force found from the static calculations and the allowable
hydraulic pressure, the size of the cylinder can then be established. While the maximum
pressure allowed is 3000 psi, the standard operating pressure used by Park Industries is 2200
psi therefore that is the pressure the team used in their calculations. The diameter of the
hydraulic cylinger can be found by using equation 1.

4 4 14800
= = = 3 [1]
2200

9
The minimum diameter that the cylinders have to be in order to lift the maximum amount of
weight was calculated to be 3 inches. Park Industries currently uses a 4 inch cylinder which will
work if the company does not wish to manufacture or purchase new hydraulic cylinders for the
design.

Pneumatic Cylinder Calculations

Since the team was asked to create a scale model of the machine, a similar procedure
was done to calculate the force and size of a pneumatic cylinder. Pneumatics were chosen over
hydraulics due to the fact they are simpler to use and they are cheaper. More discussion on
that can be found in the Manufacturing Considerations section.
The weight of the table top used in the scale model is 10 lbs., to account for potential
friction in the pneumatic cylinders the assumed weight used for calculations was 15 lbs. Then,
using a similar setup for the hydraulic cylinders, static calculations were done on the scale
model mechanism. Figure 7 below shows the setup of the FBD for the scale model which is
similar to the actual model but with 1/4th scaled dimensions. The component B forces were
solved using a FBD of the table top and that can be found in Appendix C.

Figure 7: FBD of scale model driver link

Table 2 displays the results of the static calculations done for the scale model. All values
presented are various forces acting on a component of the table.

10
Table 2: Results of static calculations for scale model

Ax 28 lbs.
Ay -7 lbs.
Bx 16 lbs.
By 5 lbs.
FH 46 lbs.

After solving for the force that is required by the cylinder to lift the table top and
mechanism, the size of the cylinder can be determined. The team decided to use 60 psi as the
operating pressure and therefore, the pressure used when calculating the size of the pneumatic
cylinder. The diameter of the cylinder can be found using equation 1 again.

4 4 46
= = = 1
60

The minimum diameter that the pneumatic cylinders can be is 1 inch. The actual size used in
the scale model is 1-1/16 inch.

Shear Force on Pins

Multiple pins are used to allow for rotation of the arms so it was crucial to make sure
that they can withstand the shearing forces being applied. All the pins used in the mechanism
are 2 inches in diameter and are in double shear. Assuming that the greatest shear stress comes
from the greatest shear force, only one calculation is needed to make sure that the pin
diameter will work. If the 2 inch diameter pin can withstand the force created by the hydraulic
cylinder (the largest shear force), then they should be able to hold up any other force acting on
the machine.

= [2]
2

= 0.6 = 0.6 36000 = 21000 [3]


= =9 [4]

11
The shear stress can be calculated using the equations 2, 3, and 4 above. That can be compared
to the shear yield strength to calculate a factor of safety (FOS). The FOS for the pins is 9, which
is 4.5 times more than the required 2.

Follower and Driver Link Analysis

While the final design used a great portion of the previous model given by Park
Industries, some aspects were changed which resulted in the need for structural analysis on
both the follower and driver links of the mechanism. Due to the complex geometry of the
mechanism, it was decided that structural finite element analysis (FEA) in ANSYS was the best
option to calculate the internal stresses and deformation of the links. These results would then
be compared to the calculations done on the previous design by an employee at Park
Industries.
After the design had been completed in SolidWorks, individual components were then
brought into ANSYS for numerical simulation. Then, after achieving the correct boundary
conditions, mesh refinement was done to ensure the most precise answer would be given. Both
the boundary conditions and mesh refinement can be found in Appendix D. Once the
appropriate meshing for each of the two links was found, one final simulation was done to
analyze the maximum equivalent von-Mises stress, the minimum safety factor, and the total
deformation of the member. Figure 8 and Figure 9 display the safety factor output from the
numerical analysis that was done. Similar images for the equivalent von-Mises stress and total
deformation can be found in Appendix D.

12
Figure 8: Resulting safety factor on follower link from finite element analysis

Figure 9: Resulting safety factor of driver link from finite element analysis

Table 3 show the results for both the follower and driver link when FEA in ANSYS was done.
Although the minimum safety factor for the driver link was 1.8, Park Industries gave approval
on the value.

Table 3: Results from finite element analysis on links


Follower Link Driver Link
Max von-Mises Stress (psi) 7730 19850
Tensile Yield Strength (psi) 36000 36000
Min Safety Factor 4.7 1.8
Max Deformation (in) 0.002 0.1

13
Locking Mechanism

Both sets of links will have a notch cut out of them to allow for the multi-directional
movement, which means that the table top is exposed and runs a risk of slipping out from the
mechanism if something were to go wrong. So a locking mechanism was established to prevent
the table top from any possible escape from the linkages. Since the max weight of the table top
and granite will be 4500 lbs., the hooks used in the final design have been created to hold of
the weight, or 1125 lbs. each. Because it would be difficult to establish exactly where on the
hook the force from the table would be applied, multiple calculations were done on a variety of
directions in which the force could be applied. Figure 10 shows the three directions that were
tested.

Figure 10: Various forced directions applied to the hooks

Using those three directions, FEA in ANSYS was done to check how much force in a certain
direction the hook could hold. If the hook could not hold the 1125 lbs., it would be redesigned
and then reanalyzed. After multiple iterations, the hook was able to hold up to the desired
value. Table 4 shows the results of the testing done in ANSYS.

Table 4: Results from finite element analysis on hooks

Force (lbs.) Safety Factor


F1 1125 4
F2 1125 2
F3 1125 2

14
Torsional Spring Constant

A torsional spring is used to allow for the hook to open and close. Its important to be sure that
the right spring is used to ensure that the hook will be able to move to the required positioning. A range
of values is determined by the maximum and minimum spring coefficients. These values then allow for
any spring that will fit inside the hook to be used. Table 5 below shows the maximum and minimum
spring coefficients that were determined by equation 5.

[5]
=

Here, k is the torsional spring coefficient, P is the force applied to the spring, M is the moment arm or
arm length of the spring, and Deg is the angle the arm makes from the beginning to the end of the
motion.

Table 5: Maximum and minimum spring coefficients

k_max 6.25 lb*in/deg


k_min 0.09 lb*in/deg

Supplemental Documentation (Bill of materials, etc)

Bill of Materials

Part Specification Cost Quantity Source Part# Total cost

BIMBA BIM 094- $36.50 4 JHF -- 146.00


Cylinder DX
Cylinder BIM 124_DP $49.75 1 JHF -- $49.75

NATU x .17 P/E FRW $.28 10 JHF -- $2.8


FREELIN- 1A-204-10
WADE
TUBING
Flow PISCO VALVE $12.27 2 JHF -- $24.54
control METER-IN NPC
valve JSC N1AU

15
Bushing OIL LITE $0.80 2 RAINBOW 373 $14.35
BUSHING- PRECISION
EP060806 PRODUCTS
Oil lite bushing- $0.91 2 RAINBOW
EP081006 PRECISION 373 $15.23
PRODUCTS
Pivot BIMBA FRW 1A- $8.5 1 JHF -- $8.55
bracket 204-10
90 Degrees 3 ft long 6061 $13.75 2 McMaster- 54428035 $31.28
angled Aluminum 1/8x Carr
bracket 1-1/2 x 1-1/2

3 ft long 6061 $42.27 2 $88.32


Aluminum, x McMaster-Carr 54428035
2 x 3
Driver link ASTM B209-10 $13.65 4 DISCOUNT 45214 $54.6
5052-H32 STEEL
ALUMINUM
Follower $9.90 4 45214 $39.60
PLATE (12 X DISCOUNT STEEL
link
12)
Ground $16.50 8 45214 $132
DISCOUNT STEEL
link
Gusset $14.70 3 45214 $44.10
DISCOUNT STEEL
plate
Valve ball valve $3.99 1 MENARDS 4085360 $3.99

Adapter MIP adapter $2.49 1 6806152 $2.49


MENARDS

Coupling coupling male- $0.99 4 2074653 $3.96


MENARDS
male
Aluminum ASTM B221-08 $5.82 1 JHF -- $5.82
round 6061-
T6511
ALUMINUM
ROUND BAR 3/8

16
ASTM B221-08 $6.28 1
6061-
T6511 JHF -- $6.28
ALUMINUM
ROUND BAR 1/2
Tube union NPC pp1/4 $4.76 4 JHF 6806153 $19.04
tee
BREATHER NUM B2MN $1.31 4 JHF -- $5.24
VENT
MUFFL
ASP-2BV
NPT NPC PL1/4-N1UT $2 2 JHF -- $4
SWIVEL EL
PISCO T-
SRIES

NPT NPC PL1/4-N1UT $2 2 JHF -- $4


CONNECTE
R PISCO T-
SERIES

MEAD/BIM 1/8 NPT REGU $17.50 2 JHF -- $35.00


BA MSR200-06
FLOW NPC JSC1/4-N1AU $12.27 4 JHF -- $49.08
CONT
PISCO
VALVE
MEAD M4H310-08 $33.95 1 JHF -- $33.95
DETENT
LEVER VA
BIMBA BIM D-166-1 $4.75 4 JHF -- $19
ROD
CLEVIS
PLASTIC 3D PRINTED --
HOOKS
Total cost $842.97

17
Fabrication
Prototyping Procedures

The lifting arms, small links, hooks, corner link and gusset plates were all laser cut from
Discount steel using aluminum 6061.

Prototype Process

Part Prototype Manufacturing Outside service Buy part from vendor

Driver link Laser cut Yes Yes

Follower link Laser cut Yes Yes

Ground link Laser cut Yes Yes

Side bars Laser cut Yes Yes

Gusset plates Laser cut Yes Yes

Linkage connecting rod Machined No --

Bushings -- Yes Yes

Washers -- Yes Yes

Bolts and nuts -- Yes Yes

Spacer Machined No --

Table top Welded No --

Tub Welded No --

90 degrees angled brackets -- Yes Yes

18
Pneumatics -- Yes Yes

Cylinder support Machined No --

Cylinder clevis Machined No --

BIMBA cylinder clevis -- Yes Yes

Clevis rod Machined No --

Air Compressor -- -- --

Flow regulator -- Yes Yes

Switch toggle -- Yes Yes

Double splitter -- No Yes

Thumb screw -- No Yes

Tubing -- No Yes

Manufacturing Considerations

Due to time and budget constraints, building a full scale model of the machine would be
difficult. Instead, the team created a simplified 1/4th scale model which would give a visual
representation of key components. Testing would then be done on the scaled prototype to
verify that the design would work.

When building the simplified scale model, some components from the full scale model
would have to be altered. The first being the material that the linkages would be made from.
The full scale model uses A36 steel, while the 1/4th scale uses aluminum 6061. Aluminum was
used because it is easier to machine and since the prototype would be moved frequently, its
important that it be light and durable. Another change is the use of pneumatics compared to

19
hydraulics. The scale model uses pneumatics because they are easier to use and they keep the
model relatively inexpensive.

There is not a direct correlation between pneumatics and hydraulics. In hydraulics, the
substance used is an incompressible fluid, like oil. Pneumatics, on the other hand, makes use of
a compressible gas, like air. Due to this difference, the force generated by a pneumatic cylinder
is less than that of a hydraulic cylinder. The table top for the scale model would then need to be
light enough to allow for the pneumatics to move the table top through the full range of
motion. Another issue with using pneumatics over hydraulics is that pneumatics generally have
a smaller stroke length per length of cylinder housing compared to their pneumatic
counterparts. While the full scale model is able to reach the required 80 degree angle, the 1/4 th
scale model can only reach 65 degrees. Larger pneumatic cylinders were placed on the outside
of the mechanism to allow for one direction to go 80 degrees. A visual representation of this
can be seen in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Mechanism with large cylinder and small cylinder

20
Testing

The team was required to provide validation for the locking mechanism, while the rest of the
validation will be provided along with the completed prototype during the summer semester.

Validation of the Locking Mechanism

Validation of the locking mechanism was done to prove that the hooks would move to
the prescribed positions and was done in a two-step process. The first step was creating a fully
accurate 3D assembly in SolidWorks that showed the movement of the table and how the
locking mechanism would safely secure the table to the four-bar linkage without any
interferences. Once the SolidWorks design was deemed acceptable, a small scale model was
made to show the movement of the hooks. When scaling the hooks down to 1/4 th size it
became apparent that the original design had to be modified in order to be installed. The
torsional spring was replaced with an elastic strip and a small bar was added to connect the
strip to both of the hooking mechanisms. Figures 12-15 illustrates the hook going through the
motion of closing when the mechanism starts to lift off. To better illustrate the movement of
the hook moving to the prescribed positions the table top was replaced with a bar equal in size
to the locking bar which the hook is meant to wrap around. The real life testing procedure was
a success with the hooks continuously locking to the bar when in the actuated positions and
would release when at the level position.

Figure 12 Figure 13
21
Figure 14 Figure 15

Summary and Conclusion

While the prototype still needs to be validated and verified, the customer is satisfied
with what the team has created thus far. However, if more time were given, the locking
mechanism would be something to improve upon. Since it would be controlled by either a
torsional spring or linear spring, it is considerably weaker than the hook itself and therefore it
would be the first thing to fail. The team recommends another locking mechanism, possibly one
that uses a small actuator that can open and close to ensure that the opening on the
mechanism is closed.

Ethical Implications

For this project safety was the main concern while creating the design. Since the table
top and granite are a combined 4500 lbs., it is crucial to make sure that everything can lock into
place and have a failsafe incase anything goes wrong. Along with the heavy weight, there are
also multiple pinch points that people need to be aware of. Overall, the product was
constructed to have as little human interaction as possible to avoid safety risks.

22
Most of the components used in the scale-model were made from aluminum which, if
the company wishes, can be recycled when it is no longer needed. Pneumatic cylinders are used
instead of hydraulics so air is being used instead of oil that is not biodegradable.

While the team did a good job of producing what was desired, more work could be done
on the project. One of the main components was the locking mechanism, and while analysis
was done to determine whether or not it could hold a certain weight, there was little analysis
and rigor done to determine how it would be attached to the mechanism and if the attachment
would be able to withstand the weight. More research and analysis can be done to figure out
what would work best. A more realistic scale-model could also be created to have a better
representation of how the machine would actually work.

References

Beer, Ferdinand, John Dewolf and Russell Johnston. Mechanics of Materials. 4th ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 2006. Print.

Hibbler, R.C. Mechanics of Materials. 9th ed. New York: Pearson, 2014. Print.

Appendices

Appendix A: Initial Designs and Concepts

23
Figure 16: Cowboy door design

Figure 17: Rotating table design

24
Figure 18: Cowboy door center design

Figure 19: Tilting table design

25
Figure 20: Rope pulling design

Figure 21: Fork design

26
Figure 22: End pivot design

Figure 23: Dump-truck design

27
Figure 24: Mirrored cylinder concept

Figure was given to the team by professor Hammer.

Figure 25: Multiple slider design

28
Figure 26: Single pivot concept

Figure was the concept given to the team by the sponsor.

Appendix B: Final Design Drawings

29
30
31
32
33
Appendix C: Static Analysis

Figure 27: FBD of the table top

Figure 28: FBD of the driver link

34
Appendix D: Numerical Modeling Information

Figure 29: Boundary conditions for the follower link

Figure 30: Boundary conditions for the driver link

35
Big Link
20300 1.87
20200 1.86
20100
Max Equivalent Stress

1.85
20000

Safety Factor
1.84
19900
1.83
19800
1.82
19700
19600 1.81

19500 1.8

19400 1.79
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000
Number of Elements

Max Equivalent Stress (psi) Min Safety Factor

Figure 31: Mesh refinement for driver link

Small Link
7750 4.88

4.86
7700
4.84
Max Equivalent Stress

7650 4.82

Safety Factor
4.8
7600
4.78
7550
4.76

7500 4.74

4.72
7450
4.7

7400 4.68
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
Number of Elements

Max Equivalent Stress Min Safety Factor

Figure 32: Mesh refinement for follower link

36
Figure 33: Equivalent stress (psi) for follower link at critical region

Figure 34: Total deformation (in) for follower link at critical region

37
Figure 35: Equivalent stress (psi) for driver link at critical region

Figure 36: Total deformation (in) for driver link at critical region

38