FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF PROCESS AND FOOD ENGINEERING

SEMESTER 2

SESSION 2020/2021
COURSE CODE: EPF4702-1: (FABRICATED FOOD TECHNOLOGY)

TITLE: MINI PROJECT (CURRYPUFF MAKER)

GROUP: 2

LECTURER: PROF. TS. DR. ROSNAH BINTI SHAMSUDIN

NO. NAME MATRIC NUMBER

1. NUR NISYA FARHAH BT MOHD FADHIL 194898
2. NURUL ALISSA BINTI AFENDI 193502
3. MUHD KHAIRUL AMRI BIN MOHD NASSIR 191660
4. ANIS FADHILLAH BINTI MOHAMAD FARID 193500
5. NOR SYAHIRA BT MUHAMMAD ZUKRI 191866
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First and foremost, we would like to express our sincere gratitude and
acknowledgment to several individuals who helped us in completing this group assignment.
The people, who in one way or another, contributed and extended their valuable assistance in
the preparation and completion of this report. This report would not have been possible
without them. We would like to thanks to:
Prof. Ts. Dr. Rosnah Shamsudin, our lecturer, for all her help, interest, and valuable
hints, and her patience, motivation, enthusiasm, and immense knowledge.
Ts. Dr. Mohd Salahuddin Mohd Basri, our supervisor, for teaching and guiding us in
making our project, and enabling us to develop a deeper understanding of the subject.
Christine Jamie Anak Vincent Eddy, for making her time available for comments,
suggestions, and revision on the material analysis development.
Lastly, the Almighty God, for giving us knowledge and guidance, for answering our
prayers, and for giving us strength to complete this mini project.
Table of Content
 s
ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................2

MATERIALS AND METHODS...............................................................................................3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS..............................................................................................9

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................19

REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................20

List of Tables

Table 1: Material properties.......................................................................................................5

Table 2: Loads information........................................................................................................7
Table 3:Mesh information..........................................................................................................8
Table 4: Table of von Mises stress for different materials and loads........................................9
Table 5:Table of resultant displacement for different materials and loads..............................12
Table 6: Equivalent Strain from different material..................................................................14

List of Figure

Figure 1:Static stress analysis process flow...............................................................................3

Figure 2: Curry puff machine.....................................................................................................3
Figure 3: The component chosen as a critical part in curry puff machine (4MM-SUS-2PCS-
K87-PART-9).............................................................................................................................4
Figure 4: Fixture applied on the component..............................................................................5
Figure 5:The force applied.........................................................................................................6
Figure 6: The mould and hairlines of the curry puff machine...................................................6
Figure 7: Meshing of the component (4MM-SUS-2PCS-K87-PART-9)..................................7
Figure 8:The graph of maximum Von Mises Stress..................................................................9
Figure 9:The von mises stress of plain carbon steel for load 18.23 N.....................................11
Figure 10: The von mises stress of plain carbon steel for load 150 N.....................................11
Figure 11: The maximum resultant displacement for different loads and materials................12
Figure 12:The resultant displacement analysis for plain carbon steel with 18.23 N...............13
Figure 13:The resultant displacement analysis for plain carbon steel with 150 N..................13
Figure 14: Equivalent strain chart............................................................................................14
Figure 15: The equivalent strain analysis on plain carbon steel when 18.23N forces is applied.
..................................................................................................................................................15
Figure 16: The equivalent strain analysis on plain carbon steel when 150N forces is applied.
..................................................................................................................................................15
 ABSTRACT
The hinges that hold the hairlines, and the mould of the Curry Puff Maker were very
critical parts due to force being applied to the screw area. The screw area will likely be
damaged after frequent use of the machine. This study aims to do modelling, simulation and
performing linear stress analysis of the affected screw area to determine how much load it
can withstand acting on it. In this report, the bending stress (von Mises stress), the
displacement, and strain on the hinges with a different type of materials have been studied.
Both plain carbon steel and AISI 316 stainless steel sheet (SS) that are being tested have
2.206 x 108 N/m2 and 1.724 x 108 N/m2 value of yield strength which is greater than the
maximum value of von Mises stress induces in the material. This indicates that the design is
safe. As a result, plain carbon steel has been chosen as the construction material for certain
parts of the machine as it has a lower risk of deformation and fracture compared to stainless
steel

1
 INTRODUCTION
Curry puff is a dough filled with chunks of potatoes and sometimes small pieces of
chicken and chopped boiled egg which is cooked in the spicy and flavorful Malaysia curry,
then deep-fried. This classic Malaysian pastry is well known throughout the country and
getting more popular across the world. Here, the prices of curry puffs are relatively cheap,
around RM 0.40 each.

Traditionally, making curry puff is simply by filling some potatoes in the center of a
thin round piece of dough about 10 cm wide. Then, fold the pastry in half and seal the edges
by pressing and folding them with our fingers. After being deeply fried, the curry puff was
ready to eat.

In 2016, Prof. Dr. Rosnah Shamsudin from the Faculty of Engineering has invented a
Curry Puff Maker which allow 12 puffs to be formed at a time. This process starts by
manually laying the dough sheets and fillings, then hand-swing the handle that is
incorporated as part of the machine. The invention works on the mechanism of the
connecting rods that relay the next fold clamp sets. The machine can carry out multiple
functions simultaneously such as folding, pressing, cutting, designing, and eliminating excess
dough. The dimension of the machine is 560 mm(L) x 720mm(W) x 230mm(H).

The Curry Puff Maker will help businesses owners to mass-produce their product thus
increasing their profit. The machine has finished its design and prototype stages, yet it still
requires several testing and verification before ready to be commercialized. Comprehensive
testing of the final product takes place to evaluate the robustness of the design and its ability
to meet customer and performance requirements.

Objectives:

In this study, we will conduct structural stress analysis by using SOLIDWORK

Simulation to predict potential design issues and analyzing how a part or assembly will
perform over its lifetime.

Besides that, the stress, strain, and deformation of a chosen component or critical area
will be investigated under a range of load conditions to verify the structure’s strength for its
uses. Lastly, under the same exerted load and condition, a different type of material was used
as an alternative to understand structural behavior and therefore remove uncertainty in the
design phase.

2
 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Selection of the
Comparison
Material Finite element most suitable
with another
selection analysis material for the
material
critical part

Figure 1:Static stress analysis process flow

The process flow of this study is shown in (Figure 1). First, a conceptual design of a
curry puff machine was designed and modelled using Solidworks, as shown in (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Curry puff machine

Based on the evaluation, 4MM-SUS-2PCS-K87-PART-9 (refer to Figure 3), which is

the hinge that connects the hairline and handles, has been chosen as the critical component of
the curry puff machine. The high force applied here because it has to hold the weight of the
hairline and mould component. Therefore, this critical point has been selected as it holds the
most force and has a high tendency for the hinge to deform. In addition, the screw that will be
installed in the critical area tends to experience deformation, as it holds a similar weight as
applied at the hinge, as shown in Figure 3, where it demonstrated the application of forces on

3
the component. The stress analysis is performed using a linear elastic isotropic model, and the
maximum von Mises stress is used in this study to determine a default failure.

Critical point
Critical
component
chosen

Figure 3: The component chosen as a critical part in curry puff machine (4MM-SUS-2PCS-
K87-PART-9)

1. Material selection
The material used for the critical component is stainless steel 316. Stainless
steel refers to a type of steel defined by chromium and other alloying elements, such
as strong and highly durable (Ltd., 2021). Compared to stainless steel 304, stainless
steel 316 is more suitable for commercial kitchen surfaces, equipment, and
appliances.
Besides, carbon steel is far lower in chromium and is a carbon-iron alloy with
barely, if any, a few other components. Therefore, instead of stainless steel 316, plain
carbon steel would be an alternative material for the critical component as it is less
expensive than stainless steel and wear-resistant (Ltd., 2021).
6061 aluminium alloy is also one of the most common and most versatile
extrusion alloys. It is commonly referred to as structural aluminium because it is ideal
for structural applications with its strength. The difference between aluminium 6061
T6 and T4 is T4 naturally aged while T6 temper aluminium is artificially aged for
maximum strength (6061 Aluminum: Get to Know Its Properties and Uses - Gabrian,
n.d.). Aluminium alloy 6061 is a treatable heat alloy with a strength greater than
6005A with medium to high strength. Its high resistance to corrosion and excellent
weldability, although the welding area is less strong (Aluminium Alloy - Commercial

4
Alloy - 6061 - T6 Extrusions, n.d.). Hence, aluminium 6061-T6 would be a good
competitor for stainless steel 316 and plain carbon steel.
The properties of stainless steel 316, plain carbon steel and aluminium 6061-
T6 are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Material properties generated from SOLIDWORKS

Properties Value Units

Type of AISI 316 Plain carbon Aluminium -
materials Stainless Steel steel 6061-T6
Sheet (SS)
Yield strength 1.72 x 108 2.21 x 108 2.75 x 108 N/m2
Tensile strength 5.80 x 108 3.998 x 108 3.1 x 108 N/m2
Elastic modulus 1.93 x 1011 2.1 x 1011 6.9 x 1010 N/m2
Poisson’s ratio 0.27 0.28 0.33 -
Mass density 8000 7800 2700 kg/m3

Table 1 is the material properties generated from the SOLIDWORKS.

Goengineer.com (n.d.) explained that the Young’s Modulus (Elastic module) is the
stress-to-stress ratio in the X, Y or Z directions. In static, nonlinear, frequency,
dynamic, and pinch analysis, elastic modules are used. Poisson's ratio between
transverse and axial strain is negative and dimensional. Poisson ratios used in static,
nonlinear, frequency, dynamic and buckling are equal in all planes for isotropic
materials. Static and buckling analyses are only used to define the strength of the
body (gravity and/or centrifugal). In static, nonlinear, frequency, dynamic, buckling
and thermal analyses, mass density are applied. Tensile strength is the maximum
resistance of material before stretching or breaking that is used in pin bolt safety,
fatigue, costing, a factor of safety, linear static analysis, von Mises stress, Mohr-
coulomb stress. Yield strength is when the material begins plastically deforming and
is used in the safety, fatigue, cost, safety factor, linear static analysis, von Mises
stress, and Mohr-coulomb strain. The data will be discussed further in results and
discussions.

5
 Fixture/ boundary condition:

Figure 4: Fixture applied on the component

Fixture geometry is applied where the area surrounding the screw is

connected, allowing prescribing zero or non-zero displacements with static,
frequency, buckling, dynamic and nonlinear studies (Systèmes., 2018a). The fixture is
a property applied to resist deformation under loading of certain edges, vertices and
faces. In this study, the fixture is set in the area circled in red (refer to Figure 4). The
fixture area is around the screw area, which is connected with the hairline.

2. Force

Figure 5:The force applied

In addition, the force applied at the area connecting with the handle upholds
the weight of the hairlines and moulds. Thus, the force is set at the edge of the hole
connected to the handle. The areas circled in red (refer to Figure 5) indicated the area
in which the high force will be imposed. For this study, two loads will be evaluated,
which are 3.646 kg and 30 kg.

6
 Hairlines

Mould

Figure 6: The mould and hairlines of the curry puff machine

The usual load that will be applied to the curry puff machine is 3.646 kg. The load is
due to the mould mass, 13.8 grams, and the hairline mass, 1146.43 grams. The total number
of moulds and hairlines that the component needs to bear are 15 moulds (black arrow, refer to
Figure 6) and three hairlines (yellow arrow, refer to Figure 6).

(13.8 g x 15) + (1146.43 x 3) =3646.29 g

3646.29 g/2 =1823.145g =1.823kg=18.23N

30000g /2 =15000 g =15kg=150 N

Hence, 3646.29 g is the total weight of 15 moulds and hairlines. However, the
component chosen applied in pairs. In this study, only one side of the component is
evaluated. Hence, 18.23 N is the force applied to the hinge (critical component chosen)
during simulation.

To produce a robust feature that can withstand heavy loads, a higher load of 30 kg is
evaluated. A figure for unprecedented events such as the severe human impact on the
machine (fall or bump) and loads stacking on top of the machine should be considered.
However, the component chosen applied in pairs. In this study, only one side of the
component is evaluated. Thus, 150 N is expected to be applied to the hinge (critical
component chosen) during simulation.

7
 Table 2: Loads information generated from SOLIDWORKS

Entities One face

Reference Face <1>
Values of forces 18.23 N and 150 N

3. Meshing

Figure 7: Meshing of the component (4MM-SUS-2PCS-K87-PART-9)

Table 3:Mesh information generated from SOLIDWORKS

Total nodes 8940

Total elements 4304
Element size 1.72035 mm
Mesh type Shell Mesh Using Mid-surfaces
Mesher used Standard mesh
Jacobian points for High-quality mesh 16 points
Mesh quality high
Time to complete mesh (hh: mm: ss) 00:00:05

Based on Table 3, shell mesh is used with an element size of 1.72035 mm and a
tolerance of 0.0860174 mm to achieve a high meshing quality (fine). The aspect ratio control
is used by the program automatically to monitor mesh quality. In solid mesh, there are
particular quantities about the aspect ratio to evaluate a good meshing. However, there is no
aspect ratio information of the component. The component used Shell Mesh Using Mid-
surfaces as mesh type rather than solid mesh due to the thin models of the component chosen.
Solid mesh can be applied to a solid model with tetrahedral solid elements (Systèmes.,
2018b).

8
 In geometry, tetrahedral is a polyhedral angle with four faces. However, the
component chosen is a thin plate. Meshing thin models with solid elements results in
generating many elements that deteriorate the quality of the mesh and leads to inaccurate
results (Systèmes., 2018c). Hence, the meshing applied in (Figure 7) used shell mesh using
mid-surfaces. Systèmes (2018b) explained that the aspect ratios of other elements are
calculated using the aspect ratio of a perfect tetrahedral element as a starting point. The
aspect proportion of an element is defined as a ratio from the vertex to the opposite face,
normalized concerning a perfect tetrahedral, between the longest and the smallest normal.
The aspect proportion of an element is defined as a ratio from the vertex to the opposite face,
normalized concerning a perfect tetrahedral, between the longest and the smallest normal.

9
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Table 4: Table of von Mises stress for different materials and loads

Von Mises Stress

Materials Force, N
Minimum ( N /m2) Maximum ( N /m2)
AISI 316 Stainless 18.23 1.126 ×10 4 9.620 ×10 6
Steel Sheet (SS) 150.00 9.263 ×10 4 7.915 ×107
18.23 1.130 ×10 4 9.617 ×10 6
Plain Carbon Steel
150.00 9.300 ×10 4 7.913 ×107

Von Mises Stress Chart

150 N
Load (N)

18 N

0.00E+001.00E+072.00E+073.00E+074.00E+075.00E+076.00E+077.00E+078.00E+079.00E+07
Von Mises Stress (N/m2)

AISI 316 Stainless Steel Sheet Plain Carbon Steel

Figure 8:The graph of maximum Von Mises Stress

In this analysis, there are two factors that are being manipulated, the load and the

material to observe the effect on the critical part, which is the hinge. The hinge (Figure 9)

which connects the handle and is used to lift up the hairlines and mould. The activity of

clamping the mould repeatedly may result in damage to that part. Based on the result above,

with a load of 18.23 N, AISI 316 stainless steel has higher tolerance of Von Mises Stress with

minimum value of 1.126 x 104 N/m2 to a maximum of 9.620 x 106 N/m2 compared to plain

carbon steel. Still, AISI 316 Stainless steel and plain carbon steel only have slight differences

in the maximum von Mises stress when being imposed with 18.23 N load. Von Mises Stress

is defined as the value determining the yield level of a ductile material under any loading

10
force before the distortional energy reaches its yielding point. For the yield strength, plain

carbon steel and AISI 316 stainless steel have 2.206 x 10 8 N/m2 and 1.724 x 108 N/m2

respectively. Yield strength is defined as the stress point at which the permanent deformation

will occur. When the material is imposed by a stress lower than the material yields stress, it

will undergo elastic strain and result in no permanent deformation on the material. As plain

carbon steel has lower maximum value of Von Mises Stress compared to AISI 316 stainless

steel, this indicates that plain carbon steel has higher range before the critical part undergoes

permanent deformation after being forced with 18.23 N load. In short, plain carbon steel can

resist more stress before changing shape compared to AISI 316 stainless steel. Despite that,

when comparing based on different loads, the load with 18.23 N has maximum von Mises

stress, 9.617x 106 N/m2 while with 150 N load, the maximum limit is 7.913 x 10 7 N/m2.

Comparing the colour intensity especially at the screw part, the intensity and diameter of the

green colour is greater for 150 N (Figure 10) compared to the green intensity for 18.23 N

(Figure 9). Also, a little bit of orange colour can be spotted inside the green colour parts.

Here, load of 150 N is considered to observe the strength of the material and effect on the

machine’s part when being imposed to excessive load. During the machine operation, this

screw part is indeed the most critical part and the greater the load will lead to higher damage

for this part. Thus, using AISI 316 stainless steel and plain carbon steel is considered suitable

for this machine because of the high yield strength for both material but imposing the

material to higher load may cause damage to the critical part.

11
Figure 9:The von mises stress of plain carbon steel for load 18.23 N

Figure 10: The von mises stress of plain carbon steel for load 150 N

12
 Table 5:Table of resultant displacement for different materials and loads

Resultant Displacement
Materials Force, N
Minimum (mm) Maximum (mm)
AISI 316 Stainless 18.23 0 2.177 ×10−2
Steel Sheet (SS) 150.00 0 1.791× 10−1
18.23 0 2.005 ×10−2
Plain Carbon Steel
150.00 0 1.650 ×10−1

Resultant Displacement Chart

2.00E-01
1.80E-01
Resultant Displacement (mm)

1.60E-01
1.40E-01
1.20E-01
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
6.00E-02
4.00E-02
2.00E-02
0.00E+00
18 N 150 N
Load (N)

AISI 316 Stainless Steel Sheet Plain Carbon Steel

Figure 11: The maximum resultant displacement for different loads and materials
Displacement is a vector at any point in the continuum figure and the components have x,

y, and z-directions. The maximum displacements of the frame happened at the end of the

critical parts for both material and both loads. This part has a higher tendency of

displacement due to lifting the hairlines and mould. With a force of 18.23 N, both AISI 316

stainless steel and plain carbon steel have maximum value of 2.177 x 10-2 mm and 2.005 x 10-
2
mm (Figure 12) respectively. This shows that the part will have slightly change of

movement with the load of 18.23 N. Despite that, imposing the chosen part to higher load

13
such as 150 N will affect the resultant displacement. The maximum displacement for 150 N
-1
when using plain carbon steel is 1.650 x 10 mm (Figure 13). The higher the resultant

displacement indicates that there will be greater value in movement distance from the initial

point. Although the resultant displacement is quite low when being imposed to 150 N, any

great load should be avoided as any changes in displacement may affect the efficiency of the

machine.

Figure 12:The resultant displacement analysis for plain carbon steel with 18.23 N

14
 Figure 13:The resultant displacement analysis for plain carbon steel with 150 N
Table 6: Equivalent Strain from different material

Equivalent Strain
Materials Force, N
Minimum Maximum
AISI 316 Stainless 18.23 8.870 ×10−8 4.024 ×10−5
Steel Sheet (SS) 150.00 7.298 ×10−7 3.311 ×10−4
18.23 8.225 ×10−8 3.726 ×10−5
Plain Carbon Steel
150.00 6.768 ×10−7 3.066 ×10−4

Equivalent Strain Chart

3.50E-04

3.00E-04

2.50E-04
Equivalnet Strain

2.00E-04
AISI 316 Stainless Steel Sheet (SS)
1.50E-04
Plain Carbon Steel
1.00E-04

5.00E-05

0.00E+00
18.23 N 150.00 N
Load, N

Figure 14: Equivalent strain chart

15
 Table 6 summarizes the result of the equivalent stains obtained from different
materials with two different loads. The comparison will be done in 2 ways which is
comparison in terms of type of materials and in terms of different force applied. Comparison
between the type of materials shows that, the maximum equivalent strain for Stainless Steel
which is 4.024 ×10−5 is higher than Plain Carbon steel 3.726 ×10−5when 18.23 N force is
applied. This can be seen more clearly in (Figure 14), where the difference is relatively small
but still Stainless Steel will always have higher maximum equivalent strain compared to Plain
Carbon steel when 18.23 N and 150 N of force was applied. It proves those properties of
materials will affect the value of maximum strain obtained. However, a huge difference can
be detected when a different force is applied on the materials. When 18.23 N force is applied
on the Stainless Steel the value of maximum equivalent strain is 4.024 ×10−5 but higher
values of maximum equivalent strain which is 3.311 ×10−4 is obtained when 150 N force is
applied on the same materials. It shows that when force applied increases, the maximum
equivalent strain will also increase.

16
 Figure 15: The equivalent strain analysis on plain carbon steel when 18.23N forces is
applied.

Figure 16: The equivalent strain analysis on plain carbon steel when 150N forces is applied.

The highest maximum stain area for both materials and loads are located at the screw
area where it is indicated by the green colour with slightly red colour around the screw area
(Figure 15). Besides, by comparing the intensity of light blue and green colour near to the
screw area from (Figure 15) and (Figure 16), it shows that at 18.23 N the green colour is
darker than at 150 N. The tendency for the area to damage, screw damage, and deterioration
are high. In addition, the area covered with light blue colour at 150 N is also bigger and
clearer compared to the area when 18.23 N force is applied. In this light blue colour region,

17
the compartment has a tendency to return back its original shape when the force is removed.
However, savage damage, fracture or deformation may occur if more force is applied.
Lubricant can be applied to help in reducing the stain intensity at the screw hole area and
prevent deformation or fracture. Thus, based on the overall result of the strain. It
demonstrates that when stress is applied, plain carbon steel has a lower risk of deformation
and fracture compared to stainless steel.

The overall result from the analysis shows a competitive trend in terms of mechanical
properties for both materials. The comparison between stainless steel and carbon steel can be
distinguished more in terms of its corrosivity. Carbon steel is high in carbon that when
exposed to moisture can corrode and rust quickly, but stainless steel has a high chromium
content which acts as a protective layer against corrosion and rust. Next in terms of
appearance, stainless steel can be given a particular finish if attractive appearance is desired
and does not tarnish easily while carbon steel is having less attractive appearance and cannot
achieve the finish of stainless steel. Next, aside from material properties, consideration in
terms or price also have to be done. By referring to Fastwell Engg. Pvt Ltd price list, the price
for AISI 316 Stainless Steel Sheet (SS) is Stainless Steel 316 is 3.72 USD/kg while the price
for carbon steel 2.048 USD/kg.

18
Calculation:

For critical circular beam, Q

Q = A ý

π r2 4 r
Q= ×
2 3π

2 3
Q= r
3

2
Q= (0.00425)3
3

Q = 5.118 x 10-8

QV
Maximum stress,τ =
Ib

Where:

Q = critical circular beam

V = shear force

I = the centroidal moment of inertia

π D2 π r 4
I= =
64 4

b = the effective width of the cross section

QV 2 3 4 1
τ max= = r ×V ( 4 ) ( )
Ib 3 πr 2r

19
 4V
τ max=
3A

Where:

V = shear force = 150N

A = π r 2 = π (0.00425 m)2

A = 5.675 ×10−5 m 2

Thus,

4(150 N )
τ max= = 3.52×10 6N/m2
3(5.675 ×10−5 m2)

Maximum 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 < 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠s

Yield strength for AISI 316 Stainless Steel Sheet (SS) and Plain carbon steel, 1.72 x 108 N/m2
and 2.21 x 108 N/m2 respectively. Maximum shear stress of the condition applied is well
below the minimum yield stress.

20
21
 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the analysis of Von Mises Stress, resultant displacement, and
equivalent strain has shown that AISI 316 steel and plain carbon steel are both suitable for
this machine due to their high yield strength. However, subjecting them to higher loads may
damage the critical part. For elastic strain to occur and prevent permanent deformation of the
material, the maximum amount of stress applied to the material must be less than the
material's yield stress.

The critical part is the connector where the screw connects to the machine body and
this part is used to lift up the hairlines and mould. The activity of clamping the mould
repeatedly may result in damage to that part. AISI 316 stainless steel has higher tolerance of
Von Mises Stress with minimum value of 1.126 x 10 4 N/m2 to a maximum of 9.620 x 106
N/m2 compared to plain carbon steel. Plain carbon steel can resist more stress before
changing shape compared to AISI 316 stainless steel. When comparing based on different
loads, the load with 18.23 N has maximum Von Mises Stress, 9.617x 10 6 N /m2 while with
150 N load, maximum limit is 7.913 x 10 7 N/m2. Load of 150 N is considered to observe the
strength of the material and effect on the machine's part when being imposed to excessive
load. During the machine operation, this screw part is indeed the most critical part and the
greater the load will lead to higher damage for this part.

Furthermore, displacement is a vector at any point in the continuum figure and the
components have x, y, and z-directions. With a force of 18.23 N, both AISI 316 stainless
steel and plain carbon steel have maximum value of 2.177 x 10 -2 mm and 2.005 x 10-2 mm.
The higher the resultant displacement, the greater the value in movement distance from the
initial point. The load of 150 N should be avoided as any changes in displacement may affect
the efficiency of the machine.

Besides, when 18.23N and 150N of force were applied, AISI 316 stainless steel had a
higher maximum equivalent strain than plain carbon steel. It demonstrates that as the force
applied increases, the maximum equivalent strain increases as well. When a different force is
applied to the materials, a significant difference can be detected. It demonstrates how
material properties influence the maximum strain obtained. Although the difference is minor,
Stainless Steel will always have a higher total equivalent strain. As a result, based on the
strain's overall result. It demonstrates that plain carbon steel has a lower risk of deformation
and fracture when compared to stainless steel when stress is applied.

22
 REFERENCES
6061 Aluminum: Get to Know its Properties and Uses - Gabrian. (n.d.). Retrieved June 8,
2021, from https://www.gabrian.com/6061-aluminum-properties/

Aluminium Alloy - Commercial Alloy - 6061 - T6 Extrusions. (n.d.). Retrieved June 8, 2021,
fromhttps://www.aalco.co.uk/datasheets/Aluminium-Alloy-6061-T6-
Extrusions_145.ashx

Goengineer.com. (n.d.). SOLIDWORKS Material Properties in Simulation.

Ltd., T. (2021). What is the Difference Between Carbon Steel and Stainless Steel? - TWI.
https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/carbon-steel-vs-stainless-steel

Systèmes., D. (2018a). 2018 SOLIDWORKS Help - Fixtures. 1995-2021.

http://help.solidworks.com/2018/english/solidworks/cworks/c_fixtures.htm

Systèmes., D. (2018b). 2018 SOLIDWORKS Help - Mesh Quality Checks. 1995-2021.

http://help.solidworks.com/2018/english/SolidWorks/cworks/c_Mesh_Quality_Checks.h
tm?id=2fc9f85e3a324491a7c64c99a2e73eca#Pg0

Systèmes., D. (2018c). 2018 SOLIDWORKS Help - Shell Modeling. 1995-2021.

http://help.solidworks.com/2018/english/SolidWorks/cworks/c_Shell_Modeling.htm?
id=bb9c73cc4f0a4d3a80786770a244a2f1#Pg0