Question 1(a) Considering the bracket as a truss structure, construct the stiffness

matrix of whole structure.

The angle bracket can be simplified into 2D truss structure shown as below, with retaining outer
dimensions as shown in diagram above.
 For element no. 1, = 45

Substitute = 45 into expression above to determine value of 1 as below,

1 2

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2
1
1 1 1 1

1 = 2 2 2 2
2 1
1

1

1
2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1

[ 2 ]
2 2 2
 For element no. 2, = 180

Substitute = 180 into expression above to determine value of 2 as below,

2 3

1 0 1 0
0 2
2
= [ 0 0 0 ]
1 0 1 0
3
0 0 0 0

For element no. 3, = 90

Substitute = 90 into expression above to determine value of 3 as below,

1 3
0 0 0 0
3
0 1 0 1 ] 1
= [
0 0 0 0
3
0 1 0 1
 The like-numbers elements are identified to construct the global stiffness matrix.

11 1 1
1
[ 2 2] 0 0
2 1 1 1 [ ]
0 1
2 2
12 1 1
1
[ 2 2]
2 1 1

2 2
13 0 0
1 [ ]
0 1
21 1 1
1
[ 2 2]
2 1 1

2 2
22 1 1
1
[ 2 2] 1 [
1 0
2 1 1 ]
0 0
2 2
23 1 0
1 [ ]
0 0
31 0 0
1 [ ]
0 1
32 1 0
1 [ ]
0 0
33 1 0 0 0
1 [ ] 1 [ ]
0 0 0 1

Hence, the global stiffness matrix for whole truss structure of angle bracket can be
determined based on table written above. The final global stiffness matrix for given truss
structure is shown as below:

1 1 1 1
0 0
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 4 2 1 1
2 2 0 1
4 2 2 2 2

1 4 2
0
1 1
1
2 2 2 2 4 2 2

1
1 1 1
0 0
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

0 0 1 0 1 0


0 1 0 0 0 1

Question 1(b) From question 1(a), write a matrix form of equations, relating applied
forces to nodal displacements.

1 1 1 1
0 0
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 r1 x
1 4 2 1 1
2 2 0 1 0
4 2 2 2 2 r1 y
0
4 2
1 0 u
1 1
1 0
EA 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2x
l u 707
1
1 1 1
0 0 2 y
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2
r
0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3x

707
r3 y 2
0 1 0 0 0 1

Question 1(c) Calculate reaction forces, nodal displacements and stress in all members.

From matrix expression listed above, we can work out unknown line by line.

2 2
At line no.1, ( 22 22) = 1

2 2
At line no.2, ( 22 22) = 1

(4+2)2 2 2 (122)
At line no.3, ( + 22) = 0 , hence 2 =
4 7
 2 2 707
At line no.4, ( + )=
22 22 2

At line no.5, (2 ) = 3

707 707
At line no.6, 0 = 3 , hence 3 = = 353.5N
2 2

2 (122) 2 (4+2) 2
Substitute 2 = to line no.4, ( + 22) = 353.5N
7 28

Given E = 2.05 105 N/2 , A= 6 6 = 362 ,

35
2 = 353.5 (1 + 22) (205000 36) 6.4183 103 mm

35 122
2 = 353.5 (1 + 22) (205000 36) ( ) 1.6765 103 mm
7

At line no.1, 1 = 22 (2 + 2 )

205000 36 35 35 122
= 22 35
(353.5 (1 + 22) (205000 36) 353.5 (1 + 22) (205000 36) ( 7
))

353.68N

From line no.1 in comparison with line no.2, 1 = 1 , hence 1 = 353.68N

205000 36 35 122
At line no.5, 3 = (353.5 (1 + 22) (205000 36) ( ))
35 7

-353.5N

Hence, all reaction forces and displacements are listed as below:

1 353.68N 2 1.6765 103 mm 3 -353.5N

1 353.68N 2 6.4183 103 mm 3 353.5N

Since all members shared same cross sectional area of 36mm2 , therefore the stress at fixed
nodes are computed as below:

1 353.68 3 353.5
| 36mm2 | = 9.824MPa | 36mm2 | = 9.819MPa

1 353.68 3 353.5
| 36mm2 | = 9.824MPa |36mm2 | = 9.819MPa
Question 2 Construct a model for angle bracket of Solidworks and provide a figure
showing the mesh, loads and boundary conditions.

Picture below shows 3d angle projection of schematic drawing for angle bracket part.

The load distribution is set to be 707N on top surface while the surface with two 3mm
diameter bolt holes is set to be fixed as regarding to boundary conditions of this angle bracket.
The picture on left below shows load exertion while on right below shows the configuration
of fixture on surfaces within the bolt holes (open cylinder surface).
The picture below shows default global mesh size of 1mm applied on the angle bracket:

The picture below shows set up of local mesh control around two cylindrical surfaces of bolt
holes from angle bracket with default local mesh size of 0.5mm:

Applying 1mm global mesh size and 0.5mm local mesh size, the result mesh is shown below:
Question 3 Perform mesh sensitivity analysis to find an appropriate global/local mesh
size.

To begin mesh sensitivity analysis, the average von misses stress along cylindrical surfaces of
threaded bolt cutouts are obtained along increasing parametric distance for all local mesh
sizes range between 0.5mm and 0.04mm with unified global mesh size of 1mm.

Global Mesh Size = 1mm

Local Mesh Degree Of Computational Average Stress (#1) Average Stress (#2)
Size (mm) Freedom Time (s) (107 N/mm^2) (107 N/mm^2)
(DOF)
0.5 135231 4 3.4705 2.1258
0.4 142203 5 3.4252 2.1254
0.3 157380 5 3.5555 2.2402
0.2 207246 7 3.6110 2.3078
0.1 408081 14 3.7963 2.4252
0.09 459813 17 3.8116 2.4485
0.08 565224 20 3.8254 2.4680
0.07 641751 24 3.8652 2.4879
0.06 816771 30 3.8911 2.5165
0.05 1106391 42 3.9216 2.5337
0.04 1607997 61 3.9442 2.5544
Table 2.0.1 Tabulation of degree of freedom (manipulated by local mesh size) effect on computational
time and average Von Mises stress developed on cylindrical surface #1 and cylindrical surface #2
 Average Von Mises Stress On Cylindrical Surface #1
4.0E+07

3.9E+07

3.8E+07
Stress (N/mm^2)

3.7E+07

3.6E+07

3.5E+07

3.4E+07
0 400000 800000 1200000 1600000 2000000
Degree Of Freedom (DOF)

Graph 2.0.2 Average Von Mises stress on cylindrical surface #1 is found to be converged gradually
starting at region between 6 DOF to 8 DOF

Average Von Mises Stress On Cylindrical Surface #2

2.6E+07

2.5E+07
Stress (N/mm^2)

2.4E+07

2.3E+07

2.2E+07

2.1E+07
0 300000 600000 900000 1200000 1500000 1800000
Degree Of Freedom (DOF)

Graph 2.0.3 Average Von Mises stress on cylindrical surface #2 is found to be converged gradually once
passing through 9 DOF mark point
 Current Local Mesh Size Next Local Mesh Size Rate of increase
(mm) (mm) #1 (%) #2 (%)
0.50 0.40 1.31 0.02
0.40 0.30 3.80 5.40
0.30 0.20 1.56 3.02
0.20 0.10 5.13 5.09
0.10 0.09 0.40 0.96
0.09 0.08 0.36 0.80
0.08 0.07 1.04 0.81
0.07 0.06 0.67 1.15
0.06 0.05 0.78 0.68
0.05 0.04 0.58 0.82
Table 2.0.4 Rate of increase for average Von Mises stress developed on transition between consecutive
local mesh sizes set on both cylindrical surface #1 and #2 is determined to have clear visualisation of
indication for stress magnitude to start converge towards real value of stress magnitude.

Based on table 2.0.4, the rate of increase for both cylindrical surfaces #1 and #2 had
dramatically fall to 1% starting from transition between local mesh size of 0.10mm and
0.09mm, in which local mesh size of 0.1mm indicated to be starting point of converging for
stress magnitude towards real stress magnitude for same cylindrical surfaces #1 and #2 of
angle bracket. As computation time grows gradually with increasing local mesh size as
shown in table 2.0.1, it is concluded that the appropriate global/local mesh size to have great
balance between required computational power/time and accuracy of representation for real
Von Mises stress magnitude would be 1mm/0.1mm.

Question 4 Determine the critical area of bracket.

The critical area of bracket can be determined by observation on distribution of Von Mises
Stress as shown on figures below:

Figure 4.0.1 & 4.0.2 Picture from left to right shows critical area of stress distribution on edge of end
surface for cylindrical cutout #1 (Maximum stress area region) and cylindrical cutout #2
 The critical area of bracket is located at the edge of end surface of both threaded bolt cutouts,
in which the maximum stress is developed at end surface of upper threaded bolt cutout.

Question 5 Provide Von Mises stress plot of the bracket, showing the Maximum stress
annotation.

Figure 5.0.1 & 5.0.2 Detailed close-up view of Von Mises stress plot with maximum stress annotation for
global mesh size of 1mm and local mesh size of 0.1mm
Top View

Front View

Bottom View

Left Right
View View

Rear View

Figure 5.0.3, 5.0.4, 5.0.5, 5.0.6, 5.0.7 & 5.0.8 Demonstration of Von Mises plot with maximum stress
annotation from different perspective view of angle bracket
Question 6 Compare the results obtained from Solidworks and those calculated in
question 1 and discuss potential reasons for the observed difference.

Based on manual FEA calculations done in question 1, the stress developed on fixed nodes
are approximately 9.8 MPa while the displacement for node no.2 is found to be
approximately 6.63 103 mm (node stress and displacements are tabulated on table 6.0.1
and 6.0.2). By obtaining simulation data based on preferred global/local mesh size of
1mm/0.1mm, the average displacement for surface of angle bracket (represent node #2 in
manual calculation) is found to have value of 5.3458mm 103 mm which is less than value
of node displacement from manual FEA calculation. On the other hand, the average stress
value for surface of angle bracket (represent node #1 and node #3 in manual calculation was
evaluated to be 19.63 MPa which is much greater than manual FEA calculation.

1 353.68N 2 1.6765 103 mm 3 -353.5N

1 353.68N 2 6.4183 103 mm 3 353.5N
Table 6.0.1 Tabulation of reaction forces and nodal displacements by manual calculation

1 353.68 3 353.5
| 36mm2 | 9.824MPa | 36mm2 | 9.819MPa

1 353.68 3 353.5
| 36mm2 | 9.824MPa |36mm2 | 9.819MPa

Table 6.0.2 Tabulation of stress developed on nodal of truss structure of angle bracket

Displacement of node #2 = 2 2 + 2 2 = (1.6765 103 )2 + (6.4183 103 )2

Displacement of node #2 6.63 103 mm

Average displacement
5.3458mm 103 mm

Figure 6.0.3 Simulation of node displacement with preferred global/local mesh size of 1mm/0.1mm.
 Average stress
19.63 MPa

Figure 6.0.4 Simulation of average node stress with preferred global/local mesh size of 1mm/0.1mm.

The key difference based on manual FEA calculations and simulation data is that manual
FEA calculation is executed on basis of multiple assumptions as well as simplifications,
while simulation data deals with greater complexity of given model, in which the design
parameters of model would introduce greater randomness and interdependence present
among computed nodes of given model. The manual FEA calculations simplify model into
two-dimension truss elements which only external horizontal and vertical dimensions are
considered. Hence, the connection between outer horizontal and vertical dimensions are
assumed to be fixed single dimensionless nodes, as compared to the fixed constraints set on
simulation model are cylindrical surfaces present as threaded bolt cutout. While manual
calculation presumes even cross sectional area for entire model, simulation action took
account of actual design parameters that would affect computational stress and strain
developed by given load conditions such as fillet radius and depth of threaded bolt cutout.
Besides that, the simulation of Von Mises plot on model can be affected by stress singularity
developed around sharp edges of angle bracket model. As the local mesh size set to be
smaller over simulation periods, the stress developed along ninety-degree edge surfaces of
bolt cutout would be increase infinitely and defer greater from nominal stress value. It is
important to note that the displacement computed based on simulation data does not affect by
stress singularity problem, thus explains that the simulated displacement value does not defer
as much simulated stress value compared to manual calculation values. Hence, it is
acceptable that the Von Mises stress based on simulation data would result in greater values
compared to manual calculated values.
Question 7 How confident are you that the FEA results are correct? Why?

FEA results may defer from outcome performance of actual model due to difference in
complexity introduction but it is confident enough to declare that the FEA results are correct
in sense of representing model response under given load conditions. The simulation
outcomes can be compared with manual calculations to verify if both outcomes are
complementing each other or not.

Node 2 Node 2

Node 2
Node 2

2 1.6765 103 mm
2 6.4183 103 mm

Figure 7.0.1 Comparison of displacement sequences from simulation results and nodal displacements

From figure 7.0.1 above, the animation frames of displacement for angle bracket model
matches with description given by manual calculation in terms of direction. The tip of angle
bracket is displaced downwards and its vertical edge is found to be deformed slightly slanted
under simulated load conditions. Based on manual calculations, the magnitude of vertical
displacement for node #2, in which it is intended to represent the tip of angle bracket, is
greater than magnitude of horizontal displacement for node#2. Since the simulation outcome
shown on figure 7.0.1 falls on expectation given by the manual calculations, therefore the
FEA result based on nodal displacement are predicted to be nearly accurate compared to
actual displacement of tip of angle bracket.
Above verification method can be implied similarly on verifying the FEA results regarding
on reaction forces developed on fixture region of angle bracket. At figure 7.0.2, the transition
of node displacements demonstrates the absence of given fixture point to determine the
possible of reaction forces in resisting such deformation when it is present on angle bracket
model. Under given load conditions, the absence of upper fixture region has caused the
focused region that represents node #3 moves right on horizontal direction and downwards at
same time from its origin position. On the other hand, the absence of lower fixture region has
caused the focused region that represents node #1 moves left on horizontal direction and
downwards at same time from its origin position. Hence, the resisting reaction force for node
#3 should be pointed upwards and to the left, while the reaction force for node 1 should be
pointed upwards and to the right. Since the manual calculations have matched the expectation
of reaction forces based on reasonable interpretation on simulated model reactions, therefore
FEA result based on reaction forces is predicted to be near the magnitude of actual reaction
forces developed on cylindrical region of angle bracket.

Fixture Node 3 Fixture Node 3

Absence of lower fixture region (represents node #1)

Fixture Node 1 Fixture Node 1

Absence of upper fixture region (represents node #3)

1 353.68N 3 -353.5N
1 353.68N 3 353.5N

Figure 7.0.2 Simulation behaviour for absence of one fixture points.

Part 2: A new design is required for the bracket to withstand a load which is 50%
higher than that used in the initial design. The design goal is to minimise the mass of the
bracket, while the maximum von-Mises stress is less than 320 MPa.

Question 8 How does any increase in fillet radius or beam thickness change the
maximum stress in the body? Which parameter has a greater effect on the maximum
stress?

Changes in fillet radius or beam thickness will eventually influence maximum load capacity
of angle bracket, thus changing the value of maximum Von Mises stress around edge surface
of bolt cutout. However, beam thickness has greater effect on maximum stress compared to
fillet radius, which this assumption would be further backed up by outcome of design study
shown on question 9. To understand the difference of changing either one of design
parameters in influencing stress distribution for overall stress bracket structure, it is important
to interpret the relationship between those parameters and overall cross-sectional area of the
structure.

Increasing beam thickness will eventually expanding the cross-sectional area across all three
major beams of angle bracket, in which it would drastically decrease internal stress of those
beams at given load condition. A simple way to understand this principle is to observe the
difference in Von Mises stress plot for multiple designs of angle bracket with increasing
beam thickness as shown in figure 8.0.1.

On the other hand, changes in fillet radius are related to transitional cross sectional area in
which it involves redistribution of internal stress as it travels from fixed cross-sectional area
of beam to larger area region where two beams are connected to one another. A smaller fillet
radius would allow cross sectional area to increase gradually until reaching merged region
between two major beams, thus reducing possibility of excessive stress concentration since
the internal stress can redistribute evenly due to smooth transition in shape. Although the
maximum cross-sectional area of merged region connecting two beams would increase due to
raise in fillet radius, the potential risk of stress concentration occurrence around the fillet
edge would counteract the effect of increasing cross-sectional area in reducing maximum
stress of angle bracket. The explanation can be further demonstrated through figure 8.0.2 as
shown below.

Figure 8.0.1 Increasing beam thickness at fixed fillet radius would decrease max stress drastically
 2 2 2
1 1 1

Figure 8.0.2 Increasing in fillet radius would lead to greater shape transition of critical region for
slanted part of angle bracket at a given height, thus increasing possibility of stress concentration occur
around the edge of bottom fillet, although it is generally increasing cross-sectional area specifically at the
merged region of two connected beams.

Figure 8.0.3 Increasing fillet radius at fixed beam thickness would decrease max stress drastically

To sum up, the increase in beam thickness would influence more on reducing maximum Von
Mises stress compared to increase in fillet radius.

Question 9 - Find the optimal geometry by changing both the beam thickness and the
fillet radius according to the information in table 1. Plot the results on a stress vs. beam
thickness graph, with separate lines for each fillet radius value. Display the optimal
geometry in a table.

The distributed load is set to 1060.5N which is 50% more than current load. In given design
scenarios, the optimization on angle bracket with preferred global mesh size of 1mm and
local mesh size of 0.1mm has failed entirely. Hence, the angle bracket is set to have global
mesh of 1mm and local mesh size of 0.2mm for optimization to carried out successfully
among given design scenarios. The failure of conducting optimization with preferred mesh
size is due to stress singularity occur at the sharp edge of end surface of threaded bolt cutout
as shown in figure below, in which stress magnitude will increase infinitely as the mesh size
getting smaller and smaller.
Figure 9.0.1, 9.0.2 & 9.0.3 As the local mesh size adjusted to be smaller and smaller around the surface
of threaded bolt cutout, the magnitude of maximum Von Mises stress grows infinitely due to sharp edge
developed around the edge corner of threaded bolt cutout.

Figure 9.0.4 Set up of simulation study with 1060.5N (50% additional load) and global/local mesh size of
1mm/0.2mm

Figure 9.0.5 Set up of design study with different beam thickness and radius fillet to find optimal
geometry design with minimum amount of mass while not exceeding 320MPa (320N/ )
 Figure 9.0.6 Outcome of different design studies followed by demonstration of optimal design scenario

Maximum Von Mises Stress For Multiple Scenarios With Distinct Design Parameters
Fillet Radius 2.0mm 2.5mm 3.0mm 3.5mm 4.0mm
Beam Thickness

2 mm 3434.30MPa 3002.2MPa Simulation 1935.90MPa 1794.20MPa

Failed
3 mm Simulation Rebuild 805.94MPa 624.94MPa 588.93MPa
Failed Error
4 mm 479.59MPa 468.13MPa 444.14MPa 437.50MPa 435.87MPa
5 mm 374.73MPa 374.95MPa 368.67MPa 381.86MPa 341.34MPa
6 mm 314.95MPa 320.63MPa 298.24MPa 284.37MPa 297.52MPa
Table 9.0.7 Maximum Von Mises stress developed under different fillet radius and beam thickness.

Mass Of Angle Bracket For Multiple Scenarios With Distinct Design Parameters
Fillet Radius 2.0mm 2.5mm 3.0mm 3.5mm 4.0mm
Beam Thickness

2 mm 1.33429g 1.36934g - 1.45915g 1.51728g

3 mm - - 2.08101g 2.13341g 2.19386g
4 mm 2.61017g 2.64644g 2.69078g 2.74317g 2.80362g
5 mm 3.14999g 3.18627g 3.23060g 3.28299g 3.34345g
6 mm 3.61988g 3.65615g 3.70048g 3.75288g 3.81333g
Table 9.0.8 Mass of angle bracket under different fillet radius and beam thickness.
 Max Von Mises Stress Versus Beam Thickness
3500

3000

2500
Stress (N/mm^2)

2mm fillet radius

2000
2.5mm fillet radius
3mm fillet radius
1500
3.5mm fillet radius
1000 4mm fillet radius
Stress Limit
500

0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Beam Thickness (mm)

Graph 9.0.9 Maximum Von Mises stress developed versus beam thickness for different fillet radius

From graph 9.0.9, the design scenario that falls closest below 320MPa maximum Von Mises
stress limit would be having 6mm thickness of beam design at given range of fillet radius
between 2mm to 4mm, excluded 2.5mm. Since the design goal is set to minimise angle
bracket mass as much as possible, the optimal design would be 6mm beam thickness and
2mm fillet radius with minimum weight of approximate 3.61988 g as shown in figure 9.0.6
and table 9.0.8.

Question 10 - Provide the von-Mises stress plot of the optimized bracket, showing the
maximum stress annotation.

Figure 10.0.1 Modified beam bracket design with optimal beam thickness and fillet radius given by
question no.9
Figure 10.0.2 Set up of simulation study for new optimal geometry design of angle bracket with
global/local mesh size of 1mm/0.2mm

Figure 10.0.3 Von Mises Stress plot of optimized bracket with demonstration of maximum stress
 Left Right
View View

Front View

Top View

Bottom View Rear View

Figure 10.0.4 Demonstration of Von Mises plot with maximum stress annotation from different
perspective view of optimized angle bracket