Dan Ehlke

Doug Bradley

MET 4460

December 7, 2009

FEA Test Stand

OBJECTIVES
The MTU School of Technology labs need a finite element analysis (FEA) stand, but are not
willing to spend over $2000 on one. We believe that we could circumvent the price by building
and programming our own FEA stand.

Our objective is to create an FEA stand at a lower price than a commercial model, while still
retaining the necessary capabilities for the labs. Additionally, our design must be able to be
safely used to produce accurate results. Our main constraint in creating this is the cost of
production, with our goal being to keep the price lower than buying a FEA stand. We will be
using LabView software.

BACKGROUND
We looked at the lab where the FEA test stand would be housed to see the environment in
which the test stand would be used and to attain some of the size constraints, such as the size
of the table. We looked at some test specimens that could potentially be loaded into the FEA
test stand. We found that there were different shapes that have been used in the past. Some
of the circuitry that would be used for this project was also observed. From research into
patents, books and online resources (ref II, II, IV), we gained context of how strain gauges are
used in the field to conduct FEA analysis, and some innovations in the testing of different parts
for FEA analysis.

DATA GATHERING
The datum design for which we were to replicate and improve upon was provided by John Irwin
(fig I in Appendix & Ref I). The following is a description of the FL100 experimentation system:

Strain gauges are used extensively in sensor systems to detect forces, moments and deformations. The
FL 100 experimentation system provides a comprehensive introduction to the fundamentals of strain
gauges. Three test specimens for tension, bending and torsion are each fitted with three strain
gauges. The strain gauges are wired into a full bridge configuration. A defined load is generated with
the aid of weights, and the elongations can then be recorded.

The specimens under test can be inserted quickly and precisely into the mounting frame. The strain
gauge application area is protected by a Plexiglas cover, which also makes it clearly visible for
inspection purposes. The measuring amplifier unit delivers the bridge supply voltage, and displays
the load-dependent output voltage. The digital display is programmable, to provide readouts
conforming to the variables being measured. It also features a tare function to exclude the influence
of preloads.
All detachable test components are clearly laid-out and well-protected inside a storage box.
The well-structured instructional material outlines the technological fundamentals and provides a
step-by-step guide through the experiments.

Three additional tensile test rods, in aluminium, copper and brass, are available as accessories, in
order to obtain material-specific values from experiments.

From this design we observed the basic structure of the stand as a sturdy support of the test
specimen. The plexi-glass cover would be a good safety feature. This particular design has
been very useful to compare to because it is designed for learning purposes, and the attention
to making it easy to understand is a variable that we would carry into our design. This was not
as much the case with some of the patents and books that would most likely be directly applied
in the field. The amount of force that will be applied to the specimens is considerably less for
the datum than is required for our design. Our design will need to accommodate a larger force
than the aluminum frame of our datum would.

DECISION MATRIX & SELECTION PROCEDURE

The product design specifications (Fig III) were generated to get some basic design features
identified. From these specifications, the Quality Function Deployment (Fig IV) was created,
defining the most important design requirements for the project.

The most important variables to the customer are precision, user-friendliness, and safety; rated
the highest. Durablity was below those top three, and cost was rated below that. This is
because a lack of precision would yield the stand useless, the stand must be user friendly for
learning purposes and safety is a very basic and important necessity in the design. The
durability was rated above the cost because if it lasts longer, then it won’t need to be repaired or
replaced later on. The durability also contributes to safety.

Some product qualities were evaluated for these customer requirements. It was concluded that
a hydraulic means of applying force, an organized design, and a strong shield would be the
highest priority to include in our design to accommodate the customer requirements. From
these product qualities, three design concepts were created (Fig IV). These designs were
evaluated through a pugh’s matrix (Fig V) for customer requirements and criteria. Concepts 2
and 3 yielded the best results.

ANALYSIS & RESULTS

From the decision matrix and selection procedure, different features were mixed and matched to
generate concept 4 (Fig IV), which uses the ‘U-frame’ with a chuck assembly to hold samples,
dial indicator, internal electrical components and hydraulic cylinder to apply force. The chuck
assembly would allow for differently shaped specimens to be loaded into the stand. The
pneumatic cylinder would be a safe, compact and easy to use force applicator. The internal
electrical components are more user-friendly. A Computer-Aided Design drawing was created
from this concept to perform an FEA analysis (Fig VI). Due to technical difficulties, this analysis
was not carried out.

The cylinder bore diameter was determined based on the required force to be applied to the test
specimen (Fig VII). From this data a 2” bore diameter cylinder was selected (Fig VIII). The
deflection of the beam was assumed to be less than 0.5”. The stroke length of this cylinder is 1”,
making it a suitable for this application.

DISCUSSION
Considering the steel material of the frame and the small forces it will be subject to, the prospect
of the FEA test stand failing or deflecting enough to compromise precision is not a substantial
concern. Not carrying out this analysis may not be imperative before decisions to manufacture
the frame are made. A proper FEA analysis will be performed on the stand design as soon as
technical issues with the software are addressed.

Given the calculations for the cylinder, it would appear that the cylinder would be suitable as a
component of the FEA test stand. It was, however noted that the 60psi pressure source is often
unreliable, and there is a certain degree of error in using a pressure gauge to verify the force
being applied by the cylinder. There is also a loss of precision on the pressure reading because
it is a dial and has an accuracy of +/-1% (1psi). This design could be improved by using a hand
jack (similar to a pneumatic car jack) to address the unreliability of the force, and a force gauge.

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

1. A steel frame would be the best material

a. The strength of the frame needs to hold 150 lb force with minimal deflection

b. Further FEA analysis should confirm adequate strength.

i. An increase in cross-sectional area of frame would increase strength if

this is not the case.

2. A pneumatic cylinder would be the best means of applying force to the specimen

a. A hand jack should be investigated further

3. The chuck assembly would be the best system to hold the specimen in place

a. A chuck may be limited to 1” cross-sections considering commercial chucks

investigated

b. An alternative clamping system using the design concepts should be

investigated.

4. A plexi-glass enclosure would protect the components from interference, and the user
from injury.

5. A simple footing should be added to the base of the frame design

a. Increase stability of the stand

b. The frame could also be clamped directly to the table

6. Internal electrical components

a. Easy hook-up and dismantle of electrical system

The design of the steel frame has undergone adequate investigation at this time to be
manufactured. The clamping system will continue to be designed, but does not affect the basic
frame design. This is also the case with the footing. The basic frame is the most crucial to the
stand’s function, and requires welding, so this will be top priority for next semester, with all other
details worked out concurrently or consecutively to ensure that a working FEA test stand is
complete for May 2010.

REFERENCES
I. Datum Design

http://www.fs.vsb.cz/books/GUNT/html/p3154.htm

This is the website of the FL100 experimentation system.

II. Preassembled, easily mountable strain gage

http://www.google.com/patents?id=khYmAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

This patent / idea is great because one of our limitations in how many different sample we can test is our
ability to apply strain gauges.

III. Semiconductor Strain Gauge

http://www.google.com/patents?id=Xq5zAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&dq=strain%20gauge%20test&pg=PA2#v=one
page&q=strain%20gauge%20test&f=false

This patent involves using a semiconductor to measure tension. Measurement of tension in a metal part is
the ultimate goal of this stand and it is good to at least have knowledge of other means of measurement. It is
possible that in the future standard strain gauges become replaced by semiconductors, so it is good to have
an exposure to the concepts of data acquisition rather than strain gauges alone.

IV. Test Stand for Testing hydraulic devices

http://www.google.com/patents?id=QzQuAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&dq=test%20stand&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=&
f=false

For our test stand we are considering hydraulics as the means for applying force to our test subject. This
could be a good resource because it would be good to know the exact force being appied, or understand the
forces involved in a hydraulic device so that we can compensate for error.

V. Dieter, George E., Schmidt, Linda C. Engineering Design. Fourth Edition. New York, NY. The
McGraw-Hill Companies

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Advisor: John L. Irwin, Ed.D.

John Irwin advised us throughout the design process. He provided design requirements,
constraints and customer needs.
APPENDIX

Figure I

Figure II: Product Design Specification

Product Identification Physical Description
• Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Stand • External Dimensions: 42” wide x 30 “tall x 6” deep
• Functions: • Include rounded corners and case edges to improve
o Apply load to test pieces feel
o Measure stress and strain in test pieces • Material: Steel
o Show results from electronic strain gauges • Chuck Assembly
• Special Features:
Financial Requirements
o Screw Jack for precise loading
o Adaptable clamping system for variety of • Time to complete project & key project deadlines: 7
test pieces months
o LabView software allows results to be • Level of capital investment required: <$2000
clearly shown
• Key Performance Targets: Life Cycle Targets
o Able to apply 150 lbs of force to test pieces
• Useful Life: 1000000 loading cycles
in 10 lb increments
• Cost of Installation and Operation: None
o Negligible deflection of frame under load.
• Maintenance Schedule and Location: Minimal regular
o Able to read an electronic strain gauge
maintenance
• Service Environment: MET and Industrial Tech Labs
• Reliability: TBD
• User Training Required: Minimal (10 minute
• End-of-Life Strategy: Scrap for parts
walkthrough)
Legal Requirements
Market Identification
• Safety and product liability. Predictable unintended
• Market size: 1 (John L. Irwin)
uses for the product, safety label guidelines,
• Competing Products: None
applicable company safety standards.
• Branding Strategy: Team Bender Logo
Manufacturing Specifications
Key Project Deadlines
• Suppliers: metalsdepot.com, National Instruments
• Time to Complete Design: 3 months
• Time to Complete Project: 7 months
Figure III: Quality Function Deployment
Figure IV: Design Concepts

Figure V: Pugh’s Decision Matrix

(Box Frame)
Commercial

(U-Frame)
(L-Frame)
Concept 1

Concept 2

Concept 3
Standard

FEA Test
Stand

Criteria

Safe - = =
Accurate / Precise - - -
User-Friendly = + +
DATUM

Durable/Long-Lasting + + +
Low Cost + + +
Adaptable + + +
Compact = = =
Aesthetic = = =
Pluses 0 3 4 4
Minuses 0 2 1 1
Figure VI

Figure VII: Pneumatic cylinder bore size

KNOWN SOLVE FOR DIAMETER

F = Force F=pA
P = pressure 2
150 lb = (60 lbs/in ) * A
A = Surface area of pneumatic cylinder A = 2.5 in
2

bore
D = Minimum Cylinder Bore Diameter 2
A = πr
F= 150 lb (10 lb increments) Determine r
2 2 2
P= 60 lbs/in 2.5 in = πr
A=? r = 0.89206
D=? D = r*2
D = 1.784124
The bore size should be at least 1.8 “
The next standard pneumatic size is a 2” pneumatic cylinder.
Assumption: Test Specimen deflection < 0.5”
 Figure VIII: Parts List
Part Requirements Price Image Source
Specifications
Pneumatic Test Specimen http://www.automationdirect.com/adc/Shopping/Catalog/P
neumatic_Components/Pneumatic_Cylinders_-
Cylinder deflection < 0.5”
$51.25 _A_Series_%28SS_Round_Body,_Non-
1” pneumatic repairable%29/2_inch_Bore/A32010SD
cylinder stroke
2 http://www.automationdirect.com/adc/Shopping/Catalog/P
Flow Control P= 60 lbs/in
neumatic_Components/Flow_Control_Valves_-
Valve Working pressure:
$27.50 _Speed_Controllers/In-line_(Straight)/FVU12
29.5” Hg to 150
2
lbs/in
Dial Indicators Assumed: 0.5” http://www.dialindicator.com/mechanical_agd_group1.php
max
$132.70
Highest range (in
English): 0.5”
Tubing http://www.automationdirect.com/adc/Overview/Catalog/P
$10.25 neumatic_Components/Flexible_Pneumatic_Tubing
(100 ft. package)
Pressure At least 0-60 http://www.gaugestore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=36139
2
Gauge lbs/in
Pressure Range:
2 $39.18
0-100 lbs/in
Accuracy: +/-
1% of span
Steel FEA Analysis: M:\metsd_teambender\UGNX
http://www.metalsdepot.com
Rectangular minimum
U-frame deflection
$189.72
Need 10’
Stock #T16414
12.0 “
1061 FEA Analysis: M:\metsd_teambender\UGNX

Barstock minimum Free -

deflection Basement
Support Bar

Total Cost: $450.60

Alternative Displacement Measurement solution:

Cylinder Assumed: 0.5” http://www.automationdirect.com/adc/Overview/Catalog/P
neumatic_Components/Pneumatic_Cylinder_Position_Swi
Position max
18.75 tches
Switch

This position sensor requires that the pneumatic have a magnet built-in to measure the displacement of the piston. This would require some
circuitry as well as programming to be a practical solution to the measurement of beam deflection. This may yield a more precise
measurement.