what is the impotence of features like fillets, chamfer and draft in casting component in fea...
DESCRIPTION
for detail out put results of FEA analysis refere following link having heading:- BASE- MODEL RESULTS WITH AND WITHOUT FEATURES 1st design change RESULTS WITH AND WITHOUT FEATURES 2nd design change RESULTS WITH AND WITHOUT FEATURES 3rd design change RESULTS WITH AND WITHOUT FEATURESTRANSCRIPT
• four MODELS WERE TESTED WITH & WITHOUT FEATURES.•THESE four MODELS WERE BASE MODEL & three DESIGN CHANGE MADE named as 1st design,2nd design and 3rd design.•All models were verified under same LOADING and boundary CONDITION.
THE COMMON MATERIAL USED FOR ANALYIS
NameYoung’s modulus
Shear modulus
Poison's ratio
density
aluminum 1.0e5 3.846e4 .3 2.80e-9
THE FOUR CAD & FEA MODEL WITH AND WITHOUT FEATURE
BASE MODEL
THE BASE MODEL WITH FEATUREMASS= 6.3410E-04 MASS= 6.3479E-04
THE BASE MODEL WITHOUT FEATURE
MASS= 6.2889E-04 MASS= 6.2879E-04
1ST DESIGN CHANGED MODEL
THE 1ST DESIGN MODEL WITH FEATURE
MASS= 5.8300E-04 MASS= 5.8288E-04
THE 1ST DESIGN MODEL WITHOUT FEATURE
MASS= 5.7650E-04 MASS= 5.7639E-04
2ND DESIGN CHANGED MODEL
THE 2ND DESIGN MODEL WITH FEATURE
MASS= 5.9021E-04 MASS= 5.9020E-04
THE 2ND DESIGN MODEL WITHOUT FEATURE
MASS= 5.8361E-04 MASS= 5.8350E-04
3RD DESIGN CHANGED MODEL
THE 3RD DESIGN MODEL WITH FEATURE
MASS= 6.1844E-04 MASS= 6.1859E-04
THE 3RD DESIGN MODEL WITHOUT FEATURE
MASS= 6.1210E-04 MASS= 6.1192E-04
The mass comparison of cad model
vs fea model
The mass comparison of cad model vs
fea model
LOAD AND BOUNDARY
CONDITION FOR based and all
CHANGED MODEL
THE DEFERENT METHODS FOLLOWED WERE Load Applied Through Rbe-2 ElementLoad Applied Through Rbe-3 ElementDistributive Load/Bearing Load Applied Circumferentially With Uniform Along The Length.Distributive Load/Bearing Load Applied Circumferentially With Uniformly Distributive Along The Length.
Load Applied Through Rbe-2 Element
Load Applied Through Rbe-3 Element
Distributive Load/Bearing Load Applied
Circumferentially With Uniform
Along The Length.
LOADING AND BOUNDARY CONDITION
LOADING(1000N)
TOTALLY CONSTRAINED
CIRCUMFERENCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF LOAD
ALONG THE LENGTH LOAD IS UNIFORM
Distributive Load/Bearing Load
Applied Circumferentially
With Uniformly Distributive Along
The Length
LOADING AND BOUNDARY CONDITION
LOADING(1000N)
TOTALLY CONSTRAINED
CIRCUMFERENCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF LOAD
ALONG THE LENGTH LOAD IS DISTRIBUTIVE
FEA models DISPLACEMENT & VONMISES STRESS RESULT with respect to load and boundary condition
base model displacement & vonmises stress result/different loading methods followed
1st design changed model displacement & vonmises stress result/different loading methods
followed
2nd design changed model displacement & vonmises stress result/different loading methods
followed
3rd de model displacement & vonmises stress result/different loading methods followed
CONCLUSION
Displacement result of all modelbase model displacement result
methods with feature without featuresRBE-2 3.64E-02 3.56E-02RBE-3 4.04E-02 3.56E-02
uniform along the length 2.22E+00 2.18E+00distributive along the length 2.47E-01 2.43E-01
1st design change of base model displacement resultmethods with feature without features
RBE-2 4.55E-02 4.58E-02RBE-3 4.83E-02 4.86E-02
uniform along the length 2.61E+00 2.60E+00distributive along the length 2.90E-01 2.89E-01
2nd design change of base model displacement resultmethods with feature without features
RBE-2 3.75E-02 3.78E-02RBE-3 4.03E-02 4.05E-02
uniform along the length 2.17E+00 2.17E+00distributive along the length 2.41E-01 2.41E-01
3rd design change of base model displacement resultmethods with feature without features
RBE-2 3.74E-02 3.78E-02RBE-3 3.99E-02 4.02E-02
uniform along the length 2.14E+00 2.16E+00distributive along the length 2.38E-01 2.40E-01
Vonmeses stess result of all modelbase model vonmises stress result
methods with feature without featuresRBE-2 1.67E+01 1.59E+01RBE-3 1.67E+01 1.59E+01
uniform along the length 9.70E+02 9.68E+02distributive along the length 1.08E+02 1.08E+02
1st design change of base model vonmises stress resultmethods with feature without features
RBE-2 2.34E+01 2.15E+01RBE-3 2.34E+01 2.15E+01
uniform along the length 1.25E+03 1.14E+03distributive along the length 1.39E+02 1.26E+02
2nd design change of base model vonmises stress resultmethods with feature without features
RBE-2 2.28E+01 1.65E+01RBE-3 2.28E+01 1.65E+01
uniform along the length 1.21E+03 8.74E+02distributive along the length 1.35E+02 9.71E+01
3rd design change of base model vonmises stress resultmethods with feature without features
RBE-2 1.86E+01 1.65E+01RBE-3 1.86E+01 1.65E+01
uniform along the length 9.89E+02 8.79E+02distributive along the length 1.10E+02 9.77E+01
As per the results:-1.All the models with stand 1000N within elastic limit without any +ve value of displacement.2.The region in geometry showing response to the loading is +ve and having freedom of optimization relative to loading.3.The main objective shows in these modes is with or without feature the design can with stand load but the stress concentration will vary.4.The base model shows that it is the optimal model in this case. It does not need draft in vertical stiffener and in circular bearing portion.5.It motivates to do further analysis with dynamic loading and with critical model were the design constrain is implemented..6.Very confusing results related to RBE-2 and RBE-3 element used for application of point load of 1000. it may be good for model done in shell element or in beam element.
With thanks, manas ranjan ray
CAD/CAE Professional