Project 1:

Design For Deflection

Fahim Miah, Calvin Seeg, Catreena Wang, Chris Yen

Tufts University, Fall 2023
ME41 – Engineering Design II
Dr. Douglas Matson and Dr. Jannatun Nawer
Table of Contents
Page

Executive Summary 3

Introduction 3

Approach 4

Analysis 5

Solidworks FEA 5

Mesh Convergence Analysis 6

Castigliano’s Theorem 8

Test Results 10

Discussion 11

2
Executive Summary

Method Deflection [in] % Difference from 0.30-inch Goal

Solidworks Simulation (nominal) 0.299 0.333%

Solidworks Simulation (adjusted) 0.283 5.67%

Castigliano’s Theorem (nominal) 0.307 2.39%

Castigliano’s Theorem (adjusted) 0.290 3.35%

Adjusted Test Results 0.272 9.40%

Table 1: Tabulated Analysis and Testing Results

Nominal predictions were based on the manufacturer’s nominal dimensions of the

material and part, while adjusted predictions were based on actual measurements.

Introduction
The purpose of this project was to use analytical and numerical techniques to determine
the optimal design of a metal structure to deflect a given displacement under a vertical load.
Alongside achieving the desired displacement, the optimal part does not yield and is as
lightweight as possible.
In this case, the structure was to be made of aluminum 6061-T6511 and deflect 0.3 inches
under a load of 100 lbf. The analytical and numerical technique implored was Castigliano’s
Theorem and Solidworks’ Finite Element Analysis (FEA), respectively. The subsequent design
was then fabricated and tested using an Instron Tensile Testing machine.

3
Approach
Due to the easily iterative nature of Solidworks FEA, numerous designs were considered
to achieve 0.3 inches of linear elastic deflection while reducing mass as much as possible. We
immediately decided on a C-shape as opposed to an S-shape due to weight. From there, trials
were centered first around achieving the desired deflection, then preventing yielding, and finally
reducing weight. Our final tested design is drawn below with units in inches. Features include
the aforementioned C-shape to save gross weight, large fillets to prevent yielding in high stress
concentration areas, and tapers and small holes to further reduce weight.

Figure 1: Final Structure Engineering Drawing

Figure 2: Picture of Final Waterjet Part

4
Analysis
Solidworks FEA

Figure 3:Vertical Displacement Plot (Desired Value Probed)

Figure 4: von Mises Stress Plot (Maximum Value Probed)

Figures 3 and 4 show the Solidworks FEA simulation plots with a 100 lbf load applied on
the top member (meant to mimic the applied load of the Instron machine), visible by the purple
arrows. Maximum deflection was measured at the node where the force was applied. A
maximum stress of 34.13 kpsi was measured on the inside of the top curve, which was measured
to be below the yield strength of aluminum 6061-T6511 of 35 kpsi. The dark blue in the von
Mises Stress plot, representing low-stress concentrations, shows our rationale for lightweight
holes and tapers throughout the members.

5
 FEA Mesh Convergences

Figures 5 through 8 show the data taken across nine separate mesh densities from
coarsest to finest. Mesh controls were applied to the holes were adjusted with each simulation,
while the overall mesh across the main body remained constant throughout the mesh
convergence analysis. From the plots we can see that finer meshes indeed significantly increase
computation time, yet provide nearly identical critical results to coarser meshes. Maximum
deflection converged to 0.299 inches and maximum von Mises stress converged between 34.1
and 34.4 kpsi, both within a desirable range.

Figure 5: Computation Time vs Number of Nodes (Coarse to Fine)

Figure 6: Mesh Area vs Number of Nodes (Coarse to Fine)

6
 Figure 7: Deflection vs Number of Nodes (Coarse to Fine)

Figure 8: Maximum Stress vs Number of Nodes (Coarse to Fine)

7
 Castigliano’s Theorem

To verify the validity of the Solidworks Simulations, analytical calculations of the

structure were performed using Castigliano’s Theorem along the centerlines of the structure.
Moment equations were derived from the members’ free body diagrams and subsequent
shear-moment diagrams, and the moment of inertia equations were derived from the dimensions
of the structure. The bending deflection of all beams were considered, as well as the compression
deflection of the vertical portion. Analysis was performed as if the structure was solid (with no
small holes), as the details of the holes were not necessary to achieve the purpose of the
analytical solution mentioned above. Additionally, the moment of inertias calculated last were
deemed insignificant compared to the total deflection. In any case, Solidworks Simulations
account for far greater detail than any analytical solution due to the necessary assumptions made
to make calculations.

8
9
Test Results

Figure 9: Force vs. Displacement Plot of Test Results

Figure 8 depicts the actual results gathered on the Instron machine. From the raw data
points collected, our structure deflected 0.3403 inches at a load 100 lbf, for a 13.4% deviation
from the goal of 0.30 inches. After neglecting the nonlinear noise that occurred due to slight
slippage/settling during testing, the corrected testing results give a deflection of 0.272 inches, for
a 9.40% deviation. A linear relationship depicted by the figure indicates no yielding occurred,
which means we successfully designed a shape that would only deflect linear elastically. Lastly,
calculating the slope of the line in the linear region gives a spring constant of 291 lbf/in, which is
different from the nominal spring constant of 333 lbf/in by about 12.7%.

Discussion
To make the most efficient structure with the least mass, a C-shaped structure was chosen
over an S-shaped structure. This is due to the reduced material used in a C-shaped structure.
Holes were also removed from all members (top, left, and bottom) of the structure to reduce
material and cut down on unnecessary weight. They were deemed unnecessary by visualizing the
stress concentrations in the Solidworks FEA and measuring areas of each member that did not
need support. These holes were ignored when calculating Castiglianos, therefore causing a slight
difference in the Solidworks simulated displacement versus the hand calculations.
A possible reason for the difference between the calculated displacement (0.299 inches
when simulated in Solidworks) and the actual displacement when tested (0.272 in) was due to the
thickness of the aluminum material. While the standard thickness given was 0.25 inches, the

10
actual measured thickness of the tested material ranged from 0.2645 to 0.2652 in. Re-simulating
in Solidworks and recalculating Castiglian’s Theorem for the actual average thickness of the
structure yielded a predicted deflection that is much closer to the actual test results.
As previously mentioned, errors in Castigliano’s Theorem likely come from the
simplifying assumptions made, such as performing calculations along centerlines and ignoring
the change in moments of inertia due to the holes.
Overall, the structure performed to the desired specifications while also having several
features to improve the performance and reduce total weight. Tapers, holes, and curved edges
helped allow the structure to deflect within an acceptable range and prevent yielding. This was
achieved while being 74 grams.

Deflection (in) Error against Ideal Error against Instron

Castigliano’s 0.290 3.35% 6.57%

Solidworks 0.283 5.67% 4.02%

Instron 0.272 9.40% N/A

Table 2: Comparing Deflection and Error (Using Adjusted Values)

11