Project #2

Design Report

Group 3

Team Lead

Helen Mills

Team Members

Andrew Sego

Caleb Stothers

Daniel Martin

Julia Reed

Steve Chantasirivisal

Submitted: July 11, 2016

Submitted to
Professor Aram G. Khachatourians
ME386/L Computer Aided Analysis & Design
Department Mechanical Engineer, CSUN
Summer 2016

I. Introduction
 The objective of this project was to design a fully machined bracket that meets the given design

requirements with the lowest mass possible. The Aluminum Alloy 1060 bracket will be fixed to a wall by

four fasteners at given locations with a 500 N uniform force downward load at the tip. The design limits

correspond to a maximum Von Mises stress of 23 MPa, a maximum displacement of 0.06 millimeters

displacement at the tip, and a minimum factor of safety of 1.25. The geometry requirements include a

mass limit of 170 grams, maximum volume of 63,000 cubic millimeters, and maximum surface area of

20,000 square millimeters. In terms of dimensions, parameters were specified to keep the bracket within a

50 mm height from the bottom plate and a 87 mm length margin from the back plate, with a width of at

least 50.80 mm. All of these requirements needed to be met for the design to be acceptable. Once the

design met these baseline requirements, optimization was conducted to achieve the lowest mass possible

within the specified limits.

II. Description of Design

In designing the bracket part, the first step involved meeting the specified requirements. The

CAD model started by drawing a 2D sketch with the proper requirements and extruding the length and

height dimensions (50 x 87 mm) to create the 50.8 minimum plate thickness (see Figure 1 below). This

thickness was used as a starting point and was changed as needed during the optimization process.

Figure 1 - Initial Dimensioning

With the initial dimensions set, work was then completed on meeting the applied force, stress,

and displacement limits. To counteract the bending moment that acts on the bottom section of the plate

1
due to the 500N load at the tip, a large gusset was placed down the center of the top face of the plate

(Figure 2).

Figure 2 - Central Gusset Detail

As required in the design specifications, four 6mm holes were sketched and cut from the back face of the

plate. To simulate the geometry of a fastener, split lines were created to mimic the effect of washers on the

plate (Figure 3).

Figure 3 - Simulated Washer Geometry

5mm bolts will be used for all 4 holes. 11mm washers will be used for the top holes, and 15mm oversize

washers will be used for the bottom. The dimensions of the washers and fasteners were based off of off-

the-shelf hardware and can be found in the McMaster-Carr catalog.

2
 Following the creation of the fastener and washer geometry, a top gusset was created to affix the

middle gusset to the back plate (Figure 4). The starting point for the top gusset dimensions was to bridge

the back section of the plate to the middle gusset edge with equal length to maintain a 45 o angle on either

side. Maintaining these equal lengths allowed for maximum support against the load acting on the gusset

end. The thickness of the top gusset was determined by the limited space between the top face of the

middle gusset and the 11mm split lines. Additionally, a tip gusset was created above the face that the load

was applied, connecting to the middle gusset as well. As with the top gusset, an equilateral shape was

used for the tip gusset to maximize the ability of the plate to support the load.

Figure 4 - Top and Tip Gusset Detail

The initial design was then finalized by creating additional split lines on the back face and tip

section of the plate to simulate the load and restraint areas on the model. Following the initial modeling,

steps were then taken to optimize the plate to meet the geometry and design criteria. Material removal

was an initial approach to reducing unnecessary volume while retaining its strength capacity and safety

factor. Large sections (particularly the bottom face of the plate) and smaller sections (the bottom edges of

the back face) of the part were cut, and 4mm fillets were created along every internal corner (except for

the 2mm bottom fillet on the top gusset). These fillet sizes were chosen to adapt well to the common radii

used during the ball end milling process needed to machine this part. Figure 5 below gives the final

design geometry for the plate.

3
 Figure 5 - Final Design Geometry

III. Results

With the final design geometric model completed, work then began on analyzing the part to determine if

meets the specified design criteria. The first criterion that was met had to do with the dimensioning and

geometry of the bracket. Figure 6 below captures the SolidWorks interface that details the bracket and its

geometric properties.

Figure 6 - SolidWorks Properties Window

It was reported from the SolidWorks interface that the total mass of the part was 120.45 grams, the total

volume was 44,609 mm3, and the surface area was 16,924 mm2. According to the design constraints, the

maximum mass was to be 170 grams, the maximum volume was to be 63,000 mm3, and the maximum

surface area was to be 20,000 mm2. Comparing these values clearly showed that the geometry of the

optimized bracket fell below the maximum criteria.

The next step in the process was to determine if the bracket met the structural specifications. As

mentioned previously, under a 500 N uniform load at the bracket tip and using 1060 aluminum as the

4
material, the part must exhibit a maximum Von Mises stress of 23 MPa, a maximum tip displacement of

0.06 mm, and a minimum global factor of safety of 1.25. The first parameter that was verified was the

stress distribution across the part. After applying the correct loads and restraints on the bracket, default

and fine meshes were utilized to verify convergence of stress data. Due to the relative complexity of the

geometry, the fine mesh was particularly studied and its stress results are displayed below in Figure 7.

Figure 7 - Stress Singularities at Split Line Locations using Fine Mesh

As can be observed in Figure 7 above, stress singularities had developed on the bracket. The key

feature of these stress singularities was that they were only located in the regions where split lines on the

geometric model were created. As mentioned above, these split lines were included to simulate the

geometry of the load application and the fastener/washer restraints. Nonetheless, their inclusion resulted

in stress singularities with values well above the maximum allowed: most of the singularities were

measured at nearly 34 MPa. At first, this was seen as a failure in the design model and further

optimization seemed required. It was then realized that, since these singularities were only located on split

lines, the Von Mises stresses were a result of errors in the mathematical modeling of the bracket.

Therefore, these stress values were deemed negligible and were ignored. To find the actual maximum

5
stresses in the model, the probing tool included in SolidWorks Simulation was utilized. Figures 8 and 9

capture the actual locations of the maximum stresses, and Table 1 summarizes these maximum values.

Figure 8 - Isometric and Bottom Views with Stress Probing Results

Figure 9 - Top and Rear Views with Stress Probing Results

Table 1 - Maximum Von Mises Stress Values and Locations

View Max Von Mises Stress Value Location

6
 (MPa)

Isometric 19.22 Top gusset corner

Bottom 16.62 Top gusset corner

Top 20.72 Top gusset corner

Rear 21.40 Tip gusset

By comparing the maximum stresses at these key locations, it was determined that the greatest stress

magnitude was applied across the tip gusset, with a Von Mises stress value of 21.40 MPa. This section,

therefore, became the maximum stress location for the bracket, and was used to calculate the minimum

factor of safety as well. At this tip gusset location, the default and fine meshes used were compared to

determine if the above stress value was convergent and reliable. Table 2 details the calculated values.

Table 2 - Maximum Von Mises Stress Mesh and Convergence Data

Max von Mises Stress (MPa)

Left Side, Tip Gusset Right Side, Tip Gusset

Default Mesh 21.118 20.943

Fine Mesh 21.395 20.928

Convergence Errora (%) 1.29 0.07

a
Convergence Error = |( current value previous value )/( current value)| x 100

By comparing the iterations of each mesh, it was determined that the highest convergence error

was only 1.29%. This fell well below the often used 5% convergence criteria. With this in mind, it was

observed that the measured value for maximum Von Mises stress of 21.40 MPa satisfied the design

criteria.

The next parameter that needed to meet the design specifications was the displacement at the load

application area. Using both a default and fine mesh, Figure 10 below details the displacement of the

7
bracket using a fine mesh. Table 3 summarizes the results with both mesh sizes, along with the calculated

convergence data.

Figure 10 - Displacement Results using Fine Mesh

Table 3 - Maximum Deflection Mesh and Convergence Data

Max Deflection (mm)

Default Mesh 0.058

Fine Mesh 0.058

Convergence Errora (%) 0.00

a
Convergence Error = |(current value previous value)/( current value )| x 100

Since no appreciable difference in value was observed in the displacement data between the two meshes,

the convergence error was essentially zero. This confirmed the maximum displacement value at the tip

gusset to be 0.058 mm. Since the maximum allowable value was at 0.06 mm, the optimized bracket fell

just under this value and satisfied the specified design criteria for displacement.

The final parameter that was verified was the minimum factor of safety. Unlike the previous

parameters, the minimum factor of safety for the bracket was determined analytically and was dependant

on the maximum stress value of the part. Eq. 1 (the maximum Von Mises stress failure criterion) below

was used to find this factor of safety value.

8
 limit
FOS= (1)
VM

Using the yield stress for 1060 aluminum as reported by SolidWorks (27.57 MPa) and the maximum

stress found at the tip gusset (21.4 MPa), a minimum factor of safety of 1.29 was calculated. Comparing

this value to the specified criterion showed that the factor of safety for the bracket was greater than the

minimum allowed value of 1.25.

With the above results and analysis completed, a final step in the design process was to verify that

the meshes used corresponded to the bracket geometry by checking the aspect ratio. Lastly, since all

design specifications were satisfied, the data was collated and summarized. Table 4 below displays the

mesh details including the observed aspect ratios concluding a quality mesh, while Table 5 summarizes

the measured parameters and shows how design goals were met.

Table 4 - Mesh Details

Mesh Type: Solid with Curvature-Based Mesh

Mesh Quality: High

Default Mesh Fine Mesh

Max Element Size (mm) 2.00 1.50

Max Aspect Ratio 9.64 9.63

% of Elements with Aspect ratio < 3 99.6 99.7

Table 5 - Results Summary

Material: Alloy 1060

Load: 500N (applied as described in the requirements)

Parameters Design Requirements Design Results Met Requirements?

Max von Mises Stress (MPa) < 23 21.395 Yes

9
Max Deflection (mm) < 0.060 0.058 Yes

Min FOS > 1.25 1.29 Yes

Max Mass (grams) 170 120.45 Yes

Max Volume (mm3) 63,000 44,609 Yes

Max Surface Area (mm2) 20,000 16,924 Yes

IV. Lessons Learned

Solidworks Simulation allowed the team to perform dozens of iterations fairly quickly. The

ability to see the effects that large or small changes to the geometry had on stress and deflection in near

real-time was invaluable. This type of quick iterative optimization process would have been impossible a

decade ago and its usefulness to the design engineering field is obvious. However, this project highlighted

some of the challenges inherent in the use of Solidworks Simulation. One particular issue that was

encountered was the stress singularities that resulted from modeling errors. Discrepancies between the

mathematical models constraints and real world fixture conditions created the stress singularities that

were observed in the areas in which split lines were mapped on the CAD model. To deal with this issue,

the SolidWorks Simulation probing tool was used to find the actual maximum stress in the component.

The overall lesson learned was to fully investigate stress concentrations to determine if in fact those

singularities truly exist or are due to errors in FEA model. It was also observed that if these errors were

not found and assessed, certain data that was derived from the FEA results could have been affected and

deemed unreliable. Knowledge and experience were able to show the stress concentrations for what they

really were and more realistic results were obtained, leading to a better, more applicable solution.

10