Straight-6

Crusher

By:
Kendrick Lau
Michael Signorelli

Lau-Signorelli 2

Table of Contents
Project Introduction............................................................................................................................. 3
Design Background............................................................................................................................... 4
Spec Sheet ................................................................................................................................................ 6
Assembly Configuration ...................................................................................................................... 7
Position Synthesis and Analysis ..................................................................................................... 11
Kinematics Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 12
Dynamic Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 15
CAD Verification .................................................................................................................................. 17
Force Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Animation .............................................................................................................................................. 22
Finite Element Analysis..................................................................................................................... 23
Piston ................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Connecting Rod ............................................................................................................................................... 27
Crank .................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Wheel ................................................................................................................................................................. 34

Optimization ......................................................................................................................................... 37
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 40
Appendix ................................................................................................................................................ 41
2D Drawings .................................................................................................................................................... 41
Exploded Views .............................................................................................................................................. 48

Lau-Signorelli 3

Project Introduction
Recycling is an important aspect of todays society and its purpose cannot be overlooked, as
its effects are widespread. It is one of the simplest things a person can do to make an
impactful difference. Among its effects, recycling saves the environment by reducing the
reliance on landfills and incinerators, saves energy by providing useable materials for new
products, and also saves natural resources from being made into landfills. As such, it is not
difficult to understand why recycling has become such an important aspect of todays
society.
Beverages also play a big part in todays society as almost a quarter of all popular
beverages consumed in the US come from soda cans. It is equally important to recycle soda
cans as it is any other recyclables, but soda cans present an interesting case as they are
typically crushed to save space. This is easily done for a small amount of cans, but proves to
be a daunting task if there are too many cans. Additionally, the force required to crush a can
and the accuracy required to crush a can proportionally add to the difficulty of crushing a
can.
This is where the importance of can crushers comes into play. A properly designed can
crusher uses mechanical advantage to moderate the input from a user to a comfortable
level, as well as ensuring that a can is properly crushed. This is the motivation for this
project.

Lau-Signorelli 4

Design Background
The design motivation for the can crusher comes from a car engines design. One of the
main components of a car engine is the cylinder, where pistons move back and forth in a
chamber during the combustion process. The can crusher design is based on this engine
components design and uses the pistons to crush the cans. Mechanically, this is classified
as a crank-slider since a crank directs the pistons up- and downward motion. The crank
and piston are connected by a connecting rod, completing the crank-slider configuration. In
this scenario, the crank serves as a crank and the piston serves as the slider. The
connecting rod serves as the link between the two, while the ground is the rest of the
design.
The crankshaft, connecting rod, and pistons are all designed in the can crusher as they are
in an engine. The crankshaft is connected to an external gear and controls the overall
motion of the individual cranks. The connecting rod is made up of six parts - the rod, the
bottom connecting part of the rod, and the nuts and bolts required to connect the two. The
piston is designed as two parts the piston itself and a bolt to hold the piston in place on
the connecting rod.
In our can crusher design, the crankshaft has six individual cranks that control the pistons
in six different chambers. This allows for the can crusher to crush six cans in one process
a design cue based on the fact that cans are usually bought in a six-pack. This is also
motivated by the fact that it will save the user work by crushing six cans in one process, as
opposed to crushing cans individually, which is more time-consuming. The can crushers
six-chamber design is unlike a typical engines six-chamber design, which is designed with
a V-format; instead, the can crusher is designed in an inline format where the six chambers
form a line with each other. Visually, this is comparable to an inline-4 engine, except that
there are two extra chambers.
Further, the crankshaft is designed such that only two pistons are operating at the same
position at the same time. This is due to the 120-degree separation between the individual
cranks. As such, there are three pairs of cranks and each pair operates at the same position.
Thus, at any given time, at most two cans are crushed simultaneously. This design cue was
implemented to reduce the amount of force required to crush the cans. The position
analysis is explained further below in the Position Analysis section.
The can crusher is operated by turning a steering wheel that is internally connected to the
crankshaft. As expected, the wheel is turned in a rotational manner. Only one full 360degree turn is required to crush the cans in all six chambers.
The cans are loaded from the side by placing them into the chambers and are unloaded in
this same manner. Unloading requires some maneuvering of the steering wheel, as the
configuration does not allow for all six pistons to be located in the same position at any
given time. As explained above, this is due to the crank angles. At most, four pistons can be

Lau-Signorelli 5
positioned at the top together, and then the remaining two pistons can also be positioned
together at the top.
Finally, the rest of the can crusher is also designed to replicate an engine. For example,
there are a couple valves at the top of each chamber and a cam that spreads across the
entire configuration. Overall, the casing has a glass cover to display the internals and
operation of the can crusher.
The entire assembly is shown below.

Figure 1. Assembly.

Lau-Signorelli 6

Spec Sheet
Height
Width
Length
Capacity of Can Crusher
Force Required to Crush Can
Torque Required to Turn Wheel
Material

722 mm
660 mm
200 mm
6 cans
450 N
61,200 N-mm
ABS Plastic for Piston
Aluminum 6061 for Connecting
Rod, Crank and Casing

Table 1. Specification Sheet.

Lau-Signorelli 7

Assembly Configuration
In order to get the crank-slider configuration of the can crusher, three separate parts had to
be created: the crankshaft with six separate cranks, the connecting rod, and the piston. The
first part of the assembly is the crankshaft with six separate cranks. It is shown below. The
casing is used as a ground and the crankshaft is connected to it. It is shown below:

Figure 2. Crank Assembly with Casing.

From there, the connecting rods are added to the assembly. The connecting rods are not
fully constrained so that they can move. However, they will be constrained such that there
are four separate conditions. First, the interior circular edge of the connecting rod must be
inserted into the circular edge of the crank. Second, the edge of the connecting rod must be
mated to the edge of the crank. Both of these constraints are shown below:

Figure 3. Constraints of Connecting Rod.

One last constraint set has to be added in order to constrain the connecting rod properly,
which is to constraint a defined point on the connecting rod to the front plane of the
assembly. By doing so, the connecting rods motion is constrained to one up and downward

Lau-Signorelli 8
motion that is parallel to the front plane of the assembly. Thus, all six cranks will be
operating in the same direction relative to each other. This is shown below:

Figure 4. Final Constraint of Connecting Rod.

Now, it is time to add the piston into the assembly. The piston is constrained using three
constraints. First, the piston top is oriented with the assembly plane that the connecting
rod is aligned with. Second, the pistons circular edge is inserted into the circular edge on
the connecting rod. Third, the pistons edge is offset with the connecting rods edge such
that it is aligned in the middle of the rod. The pistons three constraints are shown below:

Figure 5. Piston Constraints for Assembly.

Lau-Signorelli 9

To constrain the piston, a piston bolt is required. The piston bolt was constrained using two
constraints to place the bolt inside the piston and the connecting rod. First, the piston had
to be inserted inside the piston and connecting rod. Second, the pin surface had to be
aligned coincident to the piston surface. The two constraints are shown below:

Figure 6. Piston Bolt Constraints for Assembly.

Once these parts are connected, one crank-slider is completed and this process is repeated
for the other five crank sliders as well. Below is a picture of the final assembly with all six
crank-slider can crushers in place:

Figure 7. Completed Assembly of the Crank-Slider.

Lau-Signorelli 10
The remaining parts of the can crusher are added, such as the valves, the gears, and the
wheel to complete the final assembly of the can crusher. However, this is the completion of
the crank slider assembly, which is the main component of the can crusher.

Lau-Signorelli 11

Position Synthesis and Analysis

In order to find the link lengths of the crank slider, a position analysis technique was used
and backwards engineered to find link lengths. Since a crushed cans height is assumed to
be approximately 30mm while its full height assumed to be 130mm, a 100mm difference
between the fully crushed position (2 at 30 degrees) and loading position (2 at 60
degrees). With this information, the radius of the crank was set at 125mm and the
connecting rod length was to 200mm.
The following equations were used to solve for position analyses:

Since 1 is constant and equal to 0, the equations simplify. They were also then separated
into the real and imaginary counterparts:
Real Component:
Imaginary Component:
This gives the resulting equations used in the analysis:

2 []

3 []

0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360

0
-18.2
-32.8
-38.7
-32.8
-18.2
0
18.2
32.8
38.7
32.8
18.2
0

Distance from
Origin [mm]
325
298
231
156
106
81.7
75.0
8.7
106
156
231
299
325

Displacement from Loading

Height [mm]
94.3
67.6
0
-74.5
-125
-149
-156
-149
-125
-74.5
0
67.6
94.3

Table 2. Output angle and Distance as a function of Input.

Lau-Signorelli 12

Position of Crank Slider

350

Distance from Origin [mm]

300
250
200
Distance From Origin

150

Crush Zone
100
50
0
0

100

200
Input Angle [deg]

300

400

Figure 8. Displacement Graph

Kinematics Analysis
Once the position was known as a function of the input angle, the velocity could be found.
Since the kinematics rely on an input angular velocity, one was approximated. An angular
velocity of 2.09 rad/s was used because this correlates to 1 revolution in 3 seconds. The
same vector approach was used:

Using the same derivative and vector approach used in the position and velocity analyses, it
is possible to find the acceleration of the piston as a function of the input angle:

Lau-Signorelli 13

2 []
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360

Velocity of Piston
[m/s]
0
-0.205
-0.311
-0.261
-0.142
-0.0563
0
0.0563
0.142
0.261
0.311
0.205
0

Acceleration of Piston
[m/s2]
-0.891
-0.685
-0.112
0.439
0.436
0.265
0.205
0.265
0.436
0.439
-0.112
-0.685
-0.891

Table 3. Velocity and Acceleration of the Piston.

Lau-Signorelli 14

Velocity of Piston
400
300

Velocity [mm/s]

200
100
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

300

350

400

-100
-200
-300
-400

Input Angle [deg]

Figure 9. Velocity of Piston

Acceleration of Piston
600
400
Velocity [mm/s^2]

200
0
-200

50

100

150

200

250

-400
-600
-800
-1000

Input Angle [deg]

Figure 10. Acceleration of Piston

Lau-Signorelli 15

Dynamic Analysis
Since there is more than one piston revolving at a time, it is important to look at how all the
pistons interact with one another. In order to do this, three of the six (since the other three
are mirror images) pistons were analyzed and their graphs were superimposed.

Displacement Plot
350

Displacement [mm]

300
250
200

Piston 1

150

Piston 2

100

Piston 3

50
0
0

0.5

1.5
2
Time [s]

2.5

3.5

Figure 11. Displacement Plot as a function of time.

Velocity Plot
400
300
Velocity [mm/s]

200
100

Piston 1

0
-100

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Piston 2
Piston 3

-200
-300
-400

Time [s]
Figure 12. Velocity Plot as a function of time.

Lau-Signorelli 16

Acceleration Plot
600

Acceleration [mm/s^2]

400
200
0
-200

0.5

1.5

2.5

Piston 1
Piston 2

-400

Piston 3

-600
-800
-1000

3.5

Time [s]
Figure 13. Acceleration Plot as a function of time.

Lau-Signorelli 17

CAD Verification
After hand solving for the kinematics of the crank slider, the assembly was studied in
Pro/Engineer Wildfire 5.0s Mechanism package. Three different measures were defined at
the ends of each piston. The mechanism was run at the same angular velocity as mentioned
above and the graphs were compared. There were no deviations other than scaling. This
was because of where Mechanism took its reference point. Because of this all results were
valid.

Figure 14. Mechanism Displacement Plot.

Lau-Signorelli 18

Figure 15. Mechanism Velocity Plot.

Lau-Signorelli 19

Figure 16. Mechanism Acceleration Plot.

Lau-Signorelli 20

Force Analysis
In order to make sure the mechanism would not fail, both hand calculations and finite
elemental methods were used to verify the Factor of Safety of the mechanism. The assumed
amount of force needed to crush a can is 450 N. In order to effectively evaluate the
maximum forces in the mechanism, it is important to find the angle at which there will be
the most stress. This angle was determined to be the angle when a can begins crushing.
After performing the calculations, the mechanism was found to have a factor of safety of
8.08.
The equations used to solve the force matrix are shown below.
Link 2:

Link 3:

In order to more accurately solve for the position vectors in the above equations,
Pro/Engineer was used to find where the center of mass was located. These values are
shown below:
R_12
R_32
R_23
R_43

78 mm
47 mm
71 mm
129 mm
Table 4. Centers of mass for the links

Because the most critical loads are found at the angle when the can begins to crush, this
was the only angle that was observed. The results for this calculation can be found below.
The matrix used can be seen in the calculations appendix.
Measurement
F_43_x
F_43_y
T

Load
-450 N
-290 N
30.6 Nm

Table 5. Important results from Force Analysis

Lau-Signorelli 21
From the X and Y components of F32, it can be found that the resultant force at the
connecting rod connection is approximately 535 N at a 65 angle. This was then imported
into the FEA package for analysis.
These results also show what the required torque needed to crush the cans is. The torque
found is needed to crush one can. However, in this design, two cans are crushed at a time.
Thus, the required torque is 61.2 Nm to smash the cans. This was also imported into the
FEA package for analysis.
Knowing the required torque was extremely helpful for designing the wheel because it
helped determine the force input on the wheel. Because the wheel has a diameter of 350
mm, the required force per hand to crush the can is 87 N.

Lau-Signorelli 22

Animation
The animation was created using Pro/Engineer, Animation mode. The animation starts
with various views of the can crusher. The animation then shows the can crusher in
operation before changing into an exploded view.
The animation can be found on an attached external drive.

Lau-Signorelli 23

Finite Element Analysis

Finite element analysis was done in Pro/Engineer using Pro/Mechanica. Each part of the
can crusher was analyzed individually and the results are shown below.

Piston
The piston was analyzed using a 100 lb force on the top. Constraints were placed on both
circular edges of the piston and the piston was assigned a material of ABS plastic. The
following picture shows the setup in Pro/Mechanica of the piston for FEA.

Figure 17. Set-up in Pro/Mechanica of Piston for FEA.

Parameter
Force
Constraints
Material
Mesh refinement
techniques used
Analysis

Description
450 N on piston top
Fully constrained at circular edges
ABS Plastic
Volume Regions (3)
AutoGEM controls (2)
- Edge distribution, 30 nodes
- Edge exclusion
Static Analysis using 9 passes at
1% convergence

Table 6. FEA Set-up of Piston in Pro/Mechanica.

Lau-Signorelli 24
After setting up the piston in Pro/Mechanica, a static analysis was run. A multi-pass
analysis was set up using 9 passes with 1% convergence.
Because of the nature of the pistons geometry, the static analysis did not converge on the
first try. This is because there were a few singularities that caused a spike in analysis. When
performing FEA, this means that the mesh is not refined enough. As such, to refine the
mesh, we created volume regions and used AutoGEM controls. Three volume regions were
created around the area where the pistons shape changes. Two AutoGEM controls were
used: one to exclude the edges between the top and bottom of the piston and one to create
an edge distribution surrounding the volume regions. This created a finer mesh for
analysis. The volume regions and AutoGEM controls are shown below:

Figure 18. Volume Regions used for Piston

Lau-Signorelli 25

Figure 19. AutoGEM controls used.

Once the mesh was refined and the singularities were handled, the analysis converged
properly. As shown in the figure below, the maximum von Mises stress occurs at the
pistons circular entrance at a value of 4.349 MPa. Given ABS plastics yield strength of
35.163 MPa, the piston has a safety factor of 8.08.

Figure 20. Fringe Plot of the Piston's Von Mises Stress.

To verify that the correct VMS was achieved by the analysis, the graph of the VMS value
versus pass is shown below. The fact that the value tails off and plateaus verifies that
convergence was achieved.

Lau-Signorelli 26

Figure 21. VMS Convergence of Piston FEA.

Also shown below is the fringe plot of the displacement of the piston. This graph shows
how the piston is displaced when undergoing 100lb of force. The piston only deforms a
maximum of 0.001506mm at the bottom, which is extremely small.

Figure 22. Fringe Plot of the Piston's Displacement.

Measure
Maximum VMS
Yield Strength
Safety Factor
Maximum Displacement

Value
4.349 MPa
35.163 MPa
8.08
0.1506 mm

Table 7. FEA Results of Piston in Pro/Mechanica.

Lau-Signorelli 27

Connecting Rod
The connecting rod was analyzed using a 267.5 Newton force on the piston connection.
Constraints were placed at the rod to crank connection and on the neck. The material
assigned to the connecting rod is Aluminum 6061. The following picture shows the setup in
Pro/Mechanica of the piston for FEA.

Figure 23. Set-Up of Connecting Rod in Pro/Mechanica for FEA.

Parameter
Force
Constraints

Description
267.5 N at rod to piston connection
Fully constrained at rod to crank connection; constrained
at the neck to prevent extension
Material
Aluminum 6061
Pro/Mechanica
Rigid links (2)
Techniques Used
- One for load
- One for constraints
Modeled as a half-model to take advantage of symmetry
AutoGEM controls (1)
- Edge exclusions
Analysis
Static Analysis using 9 passes at 1% convergence
Table 8. FEA Set-up of Connecting Rod in Pro/Mechanica.

Lau-Signorelli 28
A few FEA tricks were used to set up the connecting rod in Pro/Mechanica. Rigid links
were used to translate the force and the constraints onto the connecting rod. At the piston
connection end, a force was placed on a point in space and connected to the connecting rod
by a rigid link. At the crank connection end, a constraint was placed on a point in space and
connected to the connecting rod by rigid link. Both of these rigid links transferred the force
and constraints to the connecting rod.
Additionally, the connecting rod was modeled using symmetry. Because the force and
constraints are symmetrical about an axis, the connecting rod can be modeled as a halfmodel, as long as the force is modeled at half magnitude.
AutoGEM controls were also used at singularity points to ensure analysis convergence.
Similar to the pistons FEA, the mesh was not refined enough without AutoGEM control.
Once the mesh was refined, the analysis properly converged. The results are below.
As shown in the figure below, the maximum von Mises stress occurs at the connecting rods
neck at a value of 21.99 MPa. Given Aluminum 6061s yield strength of 206 MPa, the piston
has a safety factor of 9.36.

Figure 24. Fringe Plot of the Connecting Rods von Mises Stress.

To verify that the correct VMS was achieved by the analysis, the graph of the VMS value
versus pass is shown below. The fact that the value tails off and plateaus verifies that
convergence was achieved.

Lau-Signorelli 29

Figure 25. Convergence Plot of the Connecting Rod's FEA.

Also shown below is the fringe plot of the displacement of the connecting rod. This graph
shows how the effect of the force on the connecting rod. As can be seen, the connecting rod
deforms as expected to the right at a magnitude of 0.1609 mm.

Figure 26. Fringe Plot of Connecting Rod's Displacement.

A summary of the results is shown below:

Measure
Maximum VMS
Yield Strength
Safety Factor
Maximum Displacement

Value
21.99 MPa
206 MPa
9.36
0.1609 mm

Table 9. FEA Results of Connecting Rod in Pro/Mechanica.

Lau-Signorelli 30

Crank
The crank was analyzed using a 61200 N-mm torque on the end. Only one crank was
analyzed, since the cranks are all the same. As such, constraints were placed on the cranks
next to the analyzed crank. The assigned material of the crank is aluminum 6061. The
following picture shows the setup in Pro/Mechanica of the crank for FEA.

Figure 27. Set-up in Pro/Mechanica of Crankshaft for FEA.

Parameter
Force
Constraints
Material
Pro/Mechanica
Techniques Used

Analysis

Description
6.12e4 mm-N torque placed on shaft
Fully constrained on middle two cranks
Aluminum 6061
Weighted link (1)
- To transfer the torque to the surface of the
shaft
Filleted edges (24) at each crank connection
to get rid of singularities
Static Analysis using 9 passes at 1% convergence

Table 10. FEA Set-up of Crank in Pro/Mechanica.

In order to set up the torque onto the crankshaft, it was necessary to use a weighted link.
This is because the torque is on the surface of the crankshaft, thus necessitating the use of a

Lau-Signorelli 31
weighted link. To do this, a torque was placed on a point and then it was connected to the
surface using a weighted link.
After setting up the piston in Pro/Mechanica, a static analysis was run. A multi-pass
analysis was set up using 9 passes with 1% convergence.
Because of the nature of the cranks geometry, the static analysis did not converge on the
first try. This is because there were a few singularities that caused a spike in analysis. In
this case, the singularities are present in the connections between the cranks since the
edges are sharp. As such, the solution was to fillet the edges between all six cranks. This led
to 24 rounds, and this feature is shown in the figure below:

Figure 28. Rounds in Crankshaft for FEA.

The following figures show the analysis results. As shown in the figure below, the
maximum von Mises stress occurs at the cranks connections. The VMS has a maximum of
7.346 MPa. Given Aluminum 6061s yield strength of 206 MPa, the piston has a safety
factor of 28.0.

Lau-Signorelli 32

Figure 29. Fringe Plot of the Crankshafts Von Mises Stress.

To verify that the correct VMS was achieved by the analysis, the graph of the VMS value
versus pass is shown below. The VMS appeared to converge around Pass 3 but continued to
teeter around 7.00 MPa before finally converging in Pass 9.

Figure 30. VMS Convergence of Crankshafts FEA.

Also shown below is the fringe plot of the displacement of the crankshaft. This fringe plot
shows how the crankshaft is displaced when undergoing force. The crankshaft only
deforms a maximum of 0.1449 mm at the extremity, which is extremely small and naked to
the eye.

Lau-Signorelli 33

Figure 31. Fringe Plot of the Crankshafts Displacement.

A summary of the results is shown below:

Measure
Maximum VMS
Yield Strength
Safety Factor
Maximum Displacement

Value
7.346 MPa
206 MPa
28.0
0.1449 mm

Table 11. FEA Results of Crank in Pro/Mechanica.

Lau-Signorelli 34

Wheel
The wheel was analyzed using a 61200 N-mm torque. The wheel is an extension of the
crank, and as such, undergoes the same amount of torque. Constraints were placed on the
back of the wheel and the assigned material of the wheel is aluminum 6061. The following
picture shows the setup in Pro/Mechanica of the wheel for FEA.

Figure 32. Set-up in Pro/Mechanica of Wheel for FEA.

Parameter
Force
Constraints
Material
Pro/Mechanica
Techniques Used
Analysis

Description
6.12e4 mm-N torque distributed along entire
wheel
Fully constrained in the center
Aluminum 6061
Weighted link (1)
- To transfer the torque to the surface of the
entire wheel
Static Analysis using 9 passes at 1% convergence

Table 12. FEA Set-up of Wheel in Pro/Mechanica.

In order to set up the torque onto the wheel, it was necessary to use a weighted link. This is
because the torque is distributed all across the wheel, thus necessitating the use of a
weighted link. To do this, a torque was placed on a point and then it was connected to the
wheels edge using a weighted link. This properly distributed the torque throughout the
entire wheel.

Lau-Signorelli 35
After setting up the piston in Pro/Mechanica, a static analysis was run. A multi-pass
analysis was set up using 9 passes with 1% convergence. The results of the analysis are
shown below.
The following figures show the analysis results. As shown in the figure below, the
maximum von Mises stress occurs at the wheels connections to the center. The VMS has a
maximum of 6.617 MPa. Given Aluminum 6061s yield strength of 206 MPa, the piston has
a safety factor of 31.1.

Figure 33. Fringe Plot of the Wheels Von Mises Stress.

To verify that the correct VMS was achieved by the analysis, the graph of the VMS value
versus pass is shown below. This analysis converged very easily, considering that the graph
plateaued from pass 4 to pass 8.

Figure 34. VMS Convergence of Crankshafts FEA.

Lau-Signorelli 36
Also shown below is the fringe plot of the displacement of the wheel. This fringe plot shows
the complete deformation of the wheel as it undergoes a distributed torque. As expected,
the wheel undergoes maximum displacement on the entire round.

Figure 35. Fringe Plot of the Wheels Displacement.

A summary of the results is shown below:

Measure
Maximum VMS
Yield Strength
Safety Factor
Maximum Displacement

Value
6.617 MPa
206 MPa
31.1
0.003453 mm

Table 13. FEA Results of Wheel in Pro/Mechanica.

Lau-Signorelli 37

Optimization
Optimization was performed in Pro/Engineer on the piston. The piston was chosen because
of the simplicity of the force and its location relative to the can. The design optimization
chosen was to hollow out the center. In Pro/Mechanica, the set-up is the same as it was in
FEA with one exception, which is that a half-model was used. This changed the constraints
to symmetry constraints and changed the force to half magnitude. The AutoGEM controls
were maintained from the FEA. The set-up is shown in the figure below.

Figure 36. Optimization Set-up of Piston.

Parameter
Force
Constraints
Material
Pro/Mechanica
Techniques used

Analysis

Description
225N on piston top
Fully constrained at circular edges
ABS Plastic
Volume Regions (3)
AutoGEM controls (2)
- Edge distribution, 30 nodes
- Edge exclusion
Symmetry half-model
1. Static Analysis using 9 passes at 1%
convergence
2. Optimization

Table 14. Optimization of Piston in Pro/Mechanica.

Once the piston was set-up, a static analysis was run using multiple passes at 1%
convergence. The results of this analysis run were used in the optimization run. The

Lau-Signorelli 38
optimization parameters was performed to ensure a safety factor of above 2.5. This meant
that the lowest VMS allowed is 14.0 MPa, with the hollow cuts dimensions as the limiting
factors. The optimization parameters are summed up in the table below.
Parameter
Safety Factor
von Mises Stress
Material
Limiting Dimensions

Description
Limited to 2.5 at the lowest
14 MPa
ABS Plastic, Yield Strength of 36MPa
Height and width of hollow cut

Table 15. Optimization Parameters of Piston in Pro/Mechanica.

The optimization analysis ended up hitting the limits upon its completion. The optimized
model is shown below, with the optimized hollow cut at the largest size.

Figure 37. Optimized Piston.

To ensure the optimization was done correctly, FEA was performed on it. The results are
shown below.

Lau-Signorelli 39

Figure 38. von Mises Stress of Optimized Piston.

As can be seen in Figure 38, the maximum VMS now occurs at the connection of the hollow
cut at a magnitude of 7.981 MPa. This results in a safety factor of 4.5, which is still above
the optimization requirements. This means that the hollow cut does not create adverse
effects on the piston.

This picture shows the displacement of the optimized model and verifies that the
displacement is still under 1.0mm. This further ensures that the piston is designed
properly, even with the optimized design and the hollow cut.

Lau-Signorelli 40

Conclusion
The can crusher is based on a car engines design and uses the standard piston design as
the basis of a crank-slider. The can crusher has six chambers for a total can capacity of six
cans. It is a practical design that takes into account both human factors and engineering
reliability. For example, the can crusher was designed to crush six cans in one process, and
with the proper mechanical advantage so as to maintain a comfortable amount of effort.
Additionally, as it was designed, the can crushers lowest factor of safety is 8.08 before
optimization. This safety factor is attributed to the piston, which is made of ABS plastic. All
other parts are made of Aluminum 6061 and have safety factors above that.
As such, this can crusher is a practical long-lasting alternative to the can crushers currently
on the market. It is a novelty item for people who appreciate cars and it does not sacrifice
anything in its design. If this can crusher were to be manufactured, there may be a few
designs that can change during the iteration process, but theoretically, this can crusher is a
great design as is.

Lau-Signorelli 41

Appendix
2D Drawings

Figure 39. 2D Drawing of Casing.

Lau-Signorelli 42

Figure 40. 2D Drawing of Piston.

Lau-Signorelli 43

Figure 41. 2D Drawing of Connecting Rod, Top.

Lau-Signorelli 44

Figure 42. 2D Drawing of Connecting Rod, Bottom.

Lau-Signorelli 45

Figure 43. 2D Drawing of Crankshaft.

Lau-Signorelli 46

Figure 44. 2D Drawing of Gear.

Lau-Signorelli 47

Figure 45. 2D Drawing of Wheel.

Lau-Signorelli 48

Exploded Views

Figure 46. Exploded View of Assembly.

Lau-Signorelli 49

Figure 47. Exploded View of Connecting Rod