dmu mech eng year 2

© All Rights Reserved

16 views

dmu mech eng year 2

© All Rights Reserved

- Class VIII(Nerul) CA2
- Kleinlogel Rigid Frame Formulas
- Beam Design Functions.xls
- JL-87-May-June Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete
- Geomechanical Analysis of the Naylor Field, Otway Basin, Australia (1)
- ANSYS Project
- Pneumatic Structure-vignesh srinivasan
- Waffle
- NCCI Initial Sizing of Vertical Bracing
- SRS-271.pdf
- Tunnel Support Design
- Introduction+theory
- SOIL_MECHANICS_AND_FOUNDATIONS_DIVISION_Proceeding.pdf
- FINITE ELEMENT STUDIES FOR CORRELATION WITH BLOCK SHEAR TESTS
- 1999ANTEC Boss Design
- Schewer Laboratory Tests
- Gate 2013 Syllabus
- 1 - Concept of Stress
- Op Tim Ization
- Lecture-17.pdf.pdf

You are on page 1of 22

Part A:

Unedited crank

Figure 2 shows an unedited crank in Autodesk simulation. The material being used is Steel AISI

4130.

The unedited crank, has a simple and basic design, it has a big hollow cylinder and a small hollow

cylinder, with a piece of metal connecting the two. It has limited sharp edges with most of the

edges rounded, to create a more visually appealing look.

I created the model in Creo Parametric 3.0. The design process used pretty basic features, such

as sketch, extrude and offset. The design process started with two circles in sketch mode; these

were then extruded. A reference tool was used to ensure the part connecting the two circles, fit

perfectly with the two circles. After the part was complete, I used the round feature to create a

more visually appealing look, this also makes it safer to use as it less sharp.

1000N load

Figure 3 shows the crank with a 1000N load on one hole and a fixed boundary constraint in the other end.

There are 895 mesh elements on this model

Figure 4 shows there is a maximum displacement of 0.37mm, when stress is applied to the centre of the

small end.

Figure 5: A basic crank analysis showing stress Von misis

Figure 5 shows the maximum stress, which is 85.55N/(mm2) given the stress applied is 1000N.

Figure 6 shows the allowable stress. This can be used to determine the factor of safety. The factor of

safety that is to be achieved is 3:1. From figure 6 you can see the allowable stress is 1172, this means that

the factor of safety has to be 390N/(mm2). This figure was derived using the following method:

1172

≅ 390

3

Changing mesh density for whole part to 75%

Figure 7 shows the size of mesh density changing from 895 mesh elements to 1580

Figure 8 shows displacement from 1000N force using 75% mesh density (1580 elements). The maximum

displacement is 0.37mm.

From fig.4 we can see that the displacement from 100% mesh density is 0.37mm. From this we can

conclude that there has not been a change in displacement as you change mesh density from 100% to

75%.

Figure 9: Stress von Misis with 75% mesh density

Figure 9 shows the maximum value for stress von misis is 80.9701 N/(mm2). From fig.5 we can see that

the stress von misis for 100% is 85.55 N/(mm2).

The stress von misis has seen a change of 4.58 N/(mm2) which is a 5.35% change. The stress still does not

meet the 3:1 safety factor of 390 N/(mm2)

The mesh density has been changed to 50%, this will change the mesh elements from 1580 to 2628.

Figure 10 shows the maximum displacement of the unedited crank is 0.38mm. This is almost the same as

fig.8 and fig.4. This shows that the mesh density does not affect displacement of the crank.

Figure 11: Stress von Misis at 50%

Figure 11 shows the maximum stress von misis for mesh density of 50% is 83.07 N/(mm2). From fig.9 we

can see that the stress von misis for mesh density of 75% is 80.97 N/(mm2).

The difference of stress von misis from 75% mesh density to 50% mesh density is 2.1, which is a change of

2.59%.

The difference of stress von misis from 100% to 50% is 2.48 which is a change of 2.9%.

From this we can suggest, as mesh density changes so does stress von misis.

The mesh density will change to 30%, this will bring the elements to 6418

Figure 11a shows the maximum displacement as 0.38. This is the same as displacement for mesh density

at 50% and almost the same as mesh density 100% and 75% (0.37mm).

Figure 1211b: Stress analysis for unedited crank at mesh density 30%

Figure 11b shows the maximum stress as 84.768 N/(mm2). This means that at 30% mesh density the

crank can withstand more stress compared to the previous mesh density. As the increase in mesh density

creates more nodes on the crank, it is the most accurate figure. The simulations that will be conducted for

the rest of the report will use 30% mesh density for the whole part. Some parts may have refinements.

The figures above show that a specific refinement has been created at the section where the ring and the

middle part meet (4 refinement points). This refinement will help towards a more accurate result and as

it is at a high stress point, it should increase the stress. This can be seen as the max stress has changed

from 84.77 N/(mm2) to 109.35 N/(mm2). Using refinement points also helps reduce the time to simulate

Change 1

Figure 13 shows a CAD drawing from Creo. As

shown the thickness of the middle part is 8mm.

When the thickness was reduced, the offset had

to be removed (as offset was 2mm). The radius

for the round edges had to be decreased also.

step file.

has been meshed at 30%

Figure 14: Autodesk mesh model for change 1

The reason for this change was due to the bending equation which states:

𝑀𝑌

=σ

𝐼

𝑀 = 𝐹𝑑

𝑏𝑑3

𝐼=

12

Therefore, decreasing the value for ‘I’, the value for bending stress will increase. To increase the value for

‘I’, the value of ‘b’ can be increase by decreasing the thickness of the middle plate.

Figure 15: Displacement analysis for change 1

Figure 11a shows the maximum displacement for the unedited crank is 0.38mm.

This has a change of 47%. The change in displacement is quite significant when the thickness is reduced.

Figure 16 shows that the max stress for change 1 is 129.15 N/(mm2).

Figure 11b shows that the max stress of the unedited crank is 84.76 N/(mm2).

From this analysis we can see that by decreasing the thickness of the crank, the crank is able to withstand

more stress. However, it is not enough to be classed as safe as it does not meet the 3:1 safety factor.

Change 1a

middle part has been changed from 8mm to 1mm.

Figure 16b shows the max displacement as 3.02mm. This will have

a significant impact on the crank, as the bending of the crank may

affect the rest of the bike- the crank will hit the main bike frame.

This will deem the change unacceptable as the elasticity of the

crank with change 1a would be too much.

Figure 16b shows that the max stress is 735.8N/(mm2). The safety

Figure 16a: Creo model for change 1 factor of 3:1 is 390 N/(mm2). The max stress change

1a can withhold is 1.59:1. This is not acceptable as it

does not meet the standard.

unacceptable displacement and stress value, the

crank is not visually appealing. This adds to the

reasons why this change will not be implemented

and will not be used to be developed upon.

Change 2

Change 2 consists of shortening the height of the middle part. The original height was 35mm and the new

height is 25mm. By shortening the height the stress should increase as there is less material to withhold

the force

The creo part was transferred to Autodesk for simulation. There are 6308 elements when the crank was

meshed at 30%.

Figure 18 gives a max

displacement of 1.06 mm. This

makes the crank more elastic

that the unedited crank.

stress is 235.99N/(mm2). This is

closer to the safety factor than

the previous change. However,

the max stress is not enough to

meet the criteria of 3:1.

Another change will have to be

conducted in order to meet the

product criteria.

Change 3

Figure 20: Creo design for change 3

Change 3 consists of decreasing the radius of the ring with the fixed constraints. This should increase the

value of the stress the crank can withhold as there is less material.

Figure 21 shows that the max displacement is 1.28mm. As this is a bike crank, the force is not always

constant. When the user is not using the bike, barely any force is applied, when the user is using the bike

force is going to be applied. The displacement and elasticity of the material and the crank may lead to the

crank suffering from fatigue stress.

Figure 22 shows that the max stress is 238.47 N/(mm2), this is an increase of 1% from the last change. This

increase in stress does not compensate for the increase in displacement, nor does it look visually

appealing. Due to the cons outweighing the pros, this change will not be taken into consideration.

Change 4

Figure 23: Creo model of crank with change 4

Figure 24 shows that the max displacement is 0.56mm. This is a significant decrease in comparison to

change 2, where the max displacement for change 2 is more than double the displacement for change 4.

Figure 25 shows the max stress is 228.192 N/(mm2). This is a decrease from change 2, which suggests that

by using this spline, the crank will not achieve its safety factor of 3:1. For this reason, this change will not

be suitable on the crank. However, the displacement figure for this change has decreased displacement

significantly which will be great if this product was targeted at extreme or professional bikers. By adding

the spline, the cost to the manufacturer will be higher than having a simple circular hole, this reinforces

my point that this change will be suitable for professional bikers, who are willing to pay that little bit

more.

Change 5

Figure 26: Creo design for change 5

Figure 26 shows the changes that the crank has undergone. The height has been changed from 25mm to

20mm. Along with this the round edges were changed from 3mm to 2mm. These changes were made to

decrease the surface area, therefore increasing the stress.

Figure 28 shows the maximum stress as 347.78 N/(mm2). This is close to meeting the safety factor of 3:1.

At the moment the crank is too safe, this is good for the consumer but it is unnecessary as it is a waste of

resources thus leading to an increase in cost.

Change 6

Figure 29:Creo model of crank with change 6

Figure 29 shows the changes to the crank. The height of the middle part of the crank has been further

reduced to reduce the surface area. This in theory will increase stress as σ =F/A.

Figure 31 shows that the maximum stress for the crank with change 6 is 372.85 N/(mm2). This figure gives

a safety factor of 3.14:1. Being 0.14 shy from the target safety factor of 3:1, this crank is safe to be used.

The material reduction has reduced the resources needed to create the crank. The crank is not too thin to

displace, nor have a significant twisting motion and is visually appealing. For the reasons stated, this crank

will not need to undergo anymore changes as it has met the criteria of the specification.

Part B:

600mm

For an evaluation of a universal beam, an ‘I beam’ was used. Figure 32 shows the I beam that was used.

The material that was used for this beam is steel 4130, this material would not usually be used in

industry, but for the purpose of this report, I have used steel 4130. A fixed constraint was used on one

end of the beam. A force of 10KN is applied to the other end of the cantilever beam.

displacement is 0.611mm. This value is

almost half of the value given in fig 30 for

the bike crank.

N/(mm2). This value is significantly lower

than the figure from the bike crank. As the

allowable stress is 1170 N/(mm2), this

beam has a safety factor of 20:1.

Figure 35 shows the beam with extreme

temperature applied. One end of the beam has a

room temperature of 20⁰C and the other end has

an extreme temperature of 60⁰C. The middle east

usually has extreme temperatures of 54⁰C.

Figure 36 shows the displacement under these

extreme heat conditions. The max displacement

is 0.64mm. This figure is an increase from fig 33

where temperature was not a factor during the

simulation. The increase in displacement

suggests that the beam is more prone to bending

and movement when under extreme heat

temperature.

Figure 37 shows that the max stress as 63.99

N/(mm2). This is an increase from the I beam

without the temperature. The increase in stress

considerably decrease the factor of safety (18:1)

as the structure is unable to hold the same load

at such extreme temperature.

the beam. One end of the beam is at room

temperature of 20⁰C, the other end is -60⁰C.

These temperatures are common in places like

Alaska and Greenland.

displacement at extreme cold

temperature has increased. This

displacement is more than the

extreme hot temperature as the

difference between 20⁰C and

60⁰C is 40⁰C, whereas the

difference between 20⁰C and -

Figure 39 60⁰C is 80⁰C.

Figure 39 shows that the max stress on the

extreme cold I beam is 69.99 N/ (mm2). This

increase in stress could be due to parts of the

beam where the temperatures are at its

extreme.

Steel 4130 has a relatively high boiling point; this is a good feature as it is able to maintain most of its

posture during extreme high temperatures. However, as shown in fig 37 and fig 39 it is evident that the

beam is unable to support the same load at extreme hot and cold temperature than at normal

temperature (20⁰C).

beam. This simulation will show how the beam will

react to a simple supported beam.

beam with the force applied in the middle is

0.04mm. This is a significantly lower value

compared to the cantilever. This could be because

the the load is distributed evenly in the centre,

Figure 41: Displacement of simple supported beam therefore the beam is less prone to change from

its original position.

16.27N/(mm2). The stress is also lower than the

cantilever beam, this could be due again to the

evenly distributed load over the beam.

Figure 42: Stress analysis of simple supported beam The beam was cut into half hexagons (fig32), the

two parts were then combined and welded

as can be seen in fig 43. The hexagon holes

in the I beam has an impact on both the

displacement and the stress applied to the

beam. As there are holes in the I beam the

surface area has decreased thus leading to

an increase in stress

Figure 43: I beam with holes

Figure 44: stress on middle

Figure 44 shows the stress applied to the middle part of the I beam. The stress increases massively, this is

because the force is applied directly through a cut out of the hexagon, meaning there is less material for

the force to go through, and less material for the beam to withstand the force being applied, hence this

increases the stress the beam experiences.

Figure 45 shows when the I beam is under extreme cold conditions (-60⁰C). The stress increases

significantly when the force is applied.

1800mm beam

Figure 47 shows that the stress has increased, this could be due to the pressure of the force applied to

the right of the beam. As the mesh applied to the extended beam is larger than the original beam,

this results in a decrease in surface area, and as the stress formula (Stress=Force/Area) implies,

the stress is indirectly proportional to the area, therefore as the area decreases the stress

increases.

Part C

Figure 45 shows the bell crank used in a formula student race car,

“The force undergoes a force of 2.5g when carting out a turn, and this force is multiplied by the mass of

the car. The car weights 344Kg”1

Therefore, the force that is applied to the crank is calculated using the following:

This force is applied in the y direction at a negative value of -0.5 and in the z direction of 1. This is because

the force applied wouldn’t be in one specific direction, it would be applied at an angle, so these values

are chosen to select a medium.

The general constraints were added to the bell crank; this is because the bell crank is held down in the

car. The general constraints are only applied in the Rx direction. The material used is Aluminium 6063-T6.

1

Henry Spencer, Formula student coordinator at DMU

Part D

Solid elements – stress, temperature, displacement and flow velocity. This type of analysis is a bit more

complicated and detailed than 2-D and is carried out on faster computers. They take longer to perform

due to the detail in analysing the solid element. The results achieved in these types of analysis are more

accurate.2

Structural Analysis – These consist of linear and non-linear models. Linear models assume the model’s

material is not plastically deformed. Analysis with non-linear models stresses the materials beyond its

elastic limits.

Vibration Analysis – In this analysis a material is tested against different vibrations, shocks and impact

levels. These forces may cause resonance and failure on the material.

Thermal Analysis – This type of analysis measures the temperature, conductivity and thermal fluid

dynamics of the material. These transfers maybe in steady states through constant thermo properties or

transient transfer.3

Design analysis is a time saving process in a product life cycle. It allows a designer to examine how fit for

purpose a product is before it is manufactured. It also informs the designer of the designs inefficiency, if it

needs to be changed. Without design analysis designs of products would be manufactured before

knowing if the product is fit for purpose, efficient and safe. If the product would be made with an

ineffective design the design would have to be changed and the manufacturing process would have to be

repeated.

2

Yijun Liu, 1998, “Types of Finite Elements”, [online] Available from:

http://web.itu.edu.tr/~mecit/uum508e/Liu_pdf/Chapt_01_Lect03.pdf [Accessed: 08/03/17].

3

Peter Widas, 1997, “Introduction to Finte Element Analysis”, [online] Available from:

http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/97ClassProj/num/widas/history.html [Accessed:

08/03/17]

- Class VIII(Nerul) CA2Uploaded byAryan Gupta
- Kleinlogel Rigid Frame FormulasUploaded byJose2806
- Beam Design Functions.xlsUploaded byMagdy Bakry
- JL-87-May-June Toward a Consistent Design of Structural ConcreteUploaded byjbonafilho
- Geomechanical Analysis of the Naylor Field, Otway Basin, Australia (1)Uploaded bydianac27
- ANSYS ProjectUploaded byVamsi Krishna
- Pneumatic Structure-vignesh srinivasanUploaded byVignesh Srinivasan
- WaffleUploaded byAnkesh Mundra
- NCCI Initial Sizing of Vertical BracingUploaded byCristian Blanaru
- SRS-271.pdfUploaded bykannankriv
- Tunnel Support DesignUploaded byRAVI AGGRAWALLA
- Introduction+theoryUploaded byJames Hearn
- SOIL_MECHANICS_AND_FOUNDATIONS_DIVISION_Proceeding.pdfUploaded byRakesh7770
- FINITE ELEMENT STUDIES FOR CORRELATION WITH BLOCK SHEAR TESTSUploaded bytemestruc71
- 1999ANTEC Boss DesignUploaded bypeloz1
- Schewer Laboratory TestsUploaded byFABIAN FIENGO
- Gate 2013 SyllabusUploaded bysamcat2009
- 1 - Concept of StressUploaded byKen Andrade
- Op Tim IzationUploaded byAbdullah Helmi
- Lecture-17.pdf.pdfUploaded bysurya
- Advantage of Hollow Tail Shaft Over Fully Built Up ShaftUploaded byRachit
- Stress StrainUploaded bygk_kishoree81
- Effective Properties of New Materials From Homogenization TechniqueUploaded bysac21m
- 0097_0145_000190Uploaded byMarcelo Protz
- Lecture 3Uploaded byPritam Jadhav
- 65 ComparativeUploaded bysuyogbhave
- Rao PresentationUploaded byThiênSứBanPhúc
- Fem ReportUploaded byVarun James
- MATH_Simplified_Steel_Design.docxUploaded byEnrike Garcia
- Lec2-AUploaded byShahla Gondal

- Belt DriveUploaded byLegendaryN
- CAD Report 1Uploaded byLegendaryN
- v4.0Uploaded byLegendaryN
- engd2051 -Group Assignment v2.0Uploaded byLegendaryN
- Fatigue Testing ReportUploaded byLegendaryN
- Usama - Introduction and Scope ManagementUploaded byLegendaryN
- Tensile TestingUploaded byLegendaryN
- Strain GaugeUploaded byLegendaryN
- 16 12 07 ENGD2007 Non Destructive Testing[42]Uploaded byLegendaryN
- Hardness TestingUploaded byLegendaryN
- d ElectionUploaded byLegendaryN
- CES-4Uploaded byLegendaryN
- CES-3Uploaded byLegendaryN
- Bending StressUploaded byLegendaryN
- CES-2Uploaded byLegendaryN
- CES-1Uploaded byLegendaryN
- Heat Pump Lab SheetUploaded byLegendaryN
- Accelaration of Geared SystemUploaded byLegendaryN
- Rc FiltersUploaded byLegendaryN
- Report 2- Thermal Conductivity 2.12.15Uploaded byLegendaryN
- Report 1- Simple PendulumUploaded byLegendaryN
- Force Board 2Uploaded byLegendaryN
- Flywheel 2Uploaded byLegendaryN
- Defelction of BeamsUploaded byLegendaryN
- engd1008 - presentationUploaded byLegendaryN
- ENGD1019 CAD reportUploaded byLegendaryN
- ENGD3000 - project PosterUploaded byLegendaryN
- ENGD3000 - Project presentationUploaded byLegendaryN
- ENGD3038 - TosionalUploaded byLegendaryN

- Effect of Comminution on Particle Shape and Surface Roughness and Their Relation to Flotation ProcessUploaded byYesi Ceballos
- Nalco Sales brochureUploaded byashmitashrivas
- SolitonsUploaded byNandagopal Sivakumar
- Tubes and sdfsPipesUploaded byScumfucOutlaw
- Keiser - Optical Fiber Communication 4thUploaded byjeff vega
- Pipeline_Lecture_4.pptUploaded bySampurnanand Pandey
- lec 2+3 Settlement AnalysisUploaded byusman javed
- 1 Shear Strength & Slope Stability-IEM lecture(22Feb19)v2notes.pdfUploaded byJensen Tan
- Triple point cells.pdfUploaded byPilar Nm
- Steel TankUploaded byace1205
- Study Note on DynamicsUploaded bySan Yu Khaing
- 45_37295_EE218_2012_4__2_1_EE 218 sheets and solutionsUploaded bymaz alvit
- What Is AC Induction Motor CrawlingUploaded bySubhakanta
- Plant Engineers Fan Design ReferenceUploaded byzamburitti
- NCS AssignmentsUploaded bySyedZameer
- Sr. Bldg Services Eng 1213 R.A4.F1Uploaded byAdnan Attish
- Boiler Feedwater AVT(O) in China.pdfUploaded byRabee Abdelaal
- Jasco Applications Book CD and PolarimetersUploaded byDan Pantoș
- BoltsUploaded byIgor Šušić
- MaterialData_14076 HDS H13Uploaded byAmol Kulkarni
- RChE-Nov-2018.pdfUploaded byAnonymous elDyjv7
- Introduction Lab BoyleUploaded byMuhammad Thalha
- UNI 10011-88Uploaded byBruno Manzetti
- Science and Empricism in Pile Foundation Design (Randolph 2003)Uploaded byAbdul Mozid Shikder
- Dielectric HeatingUploaded byPallavi Jain
- Rotation Dynamics AssigntyrftyugrroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomentUploaded byAnju Sahai
- Drill Bit HydraulicsUploaded byAgung Doank Yess
- Hemt StructureUploaded byIrfanKhan
- Basic InstrumentationUploaded byharifavouriteenglish
- GasVelocityCalculator.xlsUploaded byesutjiadi