1.

0 INTRODUCTION

Computer-aided engineering (CAE) is the use of computer software to simulate performance in
order to improve product designs or assist in the resolution of engineering problem for a wide
range industries. This includes simulation, validation, and optimization of product, processes,
and manufacturing tools. A typical CAE process comprises of pre-processing, solving, and post-
processing steps in the pre-processing phase, engineers model the geometry and the physical
properties of the design, as well as the environment in the form of applied load or constraints.
Next, the model is solved using an appropriate mathematical formulation of the underlying
physics. In the post-processing phase, the results are presented to the engineer for review.
CAE application supports a wide range of engineering disciples or phenomena including stress
and dynamics analysis on components and assemblies using finite element analysis (FEA). Finite
element analysis (FEA) has become commonplace in recent years, numerical solution to even
very complicated stress problem can now be obtained routinely using FEA. The method is so
important that even introductory treatment of Mechanics of Material should outline its principle
feature. A company is able to verify a proposed design will be able to perform to the clients
specifications prior to manufacturing or construction. Modify an existing product or structure is
utilized to qualify the product or structure for a new service condition. In case of structural
failure, FEA may be used to help determine the design modification to meet the new condition
There are generally two types of analysis that are used in industry; 2-D modeling and 3-D
modeling. While 2-D modeling conserve simplicity and allows the analysis to be run on a
relatively normal computer. It tends to yield less accurate results. 3-D modeling, however,
produces more accurate result while sacrificing the ability to run on all but the fastest computers
effectively. Within each of these modeling schemes, the programmer can insert numerous
algorithms which may make the system behave linearly or non-linearly. Linear system are far
less complex and generally do not take into account plastic deformation. Non-linear systems do
account for plastic deformation, and many also are capable of testing material all the way to
fracture
Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1

2.0 MODEL DESCRIPTION ..................................................... 3

3.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION ........................................... 12

4.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................ 15

5.0 APPENDIX ........................................................................ 16












2.0 MODEL DESCRIPTION


Figure 1 the jet ink printer engine part needs to analyze

As a Junior Research and Development Engineer at a multinational company based in Penang,
Malaysia and my company has just secured a project of developing an ink jet photo printer
machine from US based multinational company. As a member of the RND design team, I was
required to analyze and design various sub system used in the machine and their structure. The
report of the analysis need to be submitted to Senior Engineer for review.


Figure 2 critical part need to analyze

The first analysis is using 3-D modeling analysis using CATIA software. The data that I used is
student no 2 data. The critical part of the model is the beam. Therefore the beam itself needs to
be analyzed. Both end of the beam is welded to the sheet metal housing walls. There are total of
153 nodes in the analysis. The element type is TE4 which have 332 elements. The material used
in the analysis is shown in table below:

Table 1 material properties
After beam analyze is done, the result of various computation is obtain. There are also result for
principle stress, von mises and etc. is obtain

The result of analysis is shown below:
Based on the boundary condition given, the structure computation is:
Number of nodes : 153
Number of element : 332
Number of D.O.F : 459
Number of contact relations : 0
Number of kinematic relations : 0
Linear tetrahedron : 332

The load computation obtains after analysis. Applied load resultant:
F
x
= 1 . 250e-013 N
F
y
= -5 . 854e-014 N
F
z
= -1 . 450e+003 N
Mx = -1 . 088e+001 Nxm
My = -1 . 088e+002 Nxm
Mz = 3 . 454e-015 Nxm

The stiffness computation result is:
Number of lines : 549
Number of coefficients : 6498
Number of block : 1
Maximum number of coefficients per bloc : 6498
Total matrix size : 0 . 08 Mb

The constraint computation result is:
Number of constraints : 54
Number of coefficients : 0
Number of factorized constraints : 54
Number of coefficients : 0
Number of deferred constraints : 0
The result of factorized computation is:
Method : SPARSE
Number of factorized degrees : 405
Number of supernodes : 106
Number of overhead indices : 2067
Number of coefficients : 8964
Maximum front width : 42
Maximum front size : 903
Size of the factorized matrix (Mb) : 0 . 0683899
Number of blocks : 1
Number of Mflops for factorization : 2 . 815e-001
Number of Mflops for solve : 3 . 788e-002
Minimum relative pivot : 6 . 915e-003

The minimum and maximum pivot is shown in table below:

Table 2 minimum and maximum pivot

Table 3 minimum pivot

Translational pivot distribution is shown as below:

Table 4 pivot distribution
The direct method computation, Strain Energy: 9.065e-005J

Table 5 direct computation








The force is given in the middle of the beam. The static case solution for the beam which is
deformed mesh is shown below;

Figure 3 on deformed mesh, on boundary and all over model

Figure 4 Von Mises over all models
Figure 4 above show that the beam is analyze and the value of Von Mises stress is obtained from
the analysis. The red colors indicate the maximum stress fell by the beam at the end of the beam.


Figure 5 translational displacement vector
Figure 5 shows that all the node in the beam is analyze. Translational displacement vector or the
deflection of beam data obtains during this analysis. The red indicate the highest deflection to the
beam which occur at the middle of the beam.

Figure 6 principle stress
Figure 6 show that the beam is analyze to find out the value principle stress. The red indicate the
maximum point of stress which occurs at the end of the beam.



Figure 7 estimated local error

Figure 7 show that the local error experience by the beam there are not much area that feel the
maximum error.






The result of various elements can be concluding into the table below:
Von Mises Stress /
Nm
2
Translational
Displacement vector /
mm
Stress Principle
Tensor symbol /
Nm
2
Estimated local error /
J
3.11e+007 0.02480 4.03e+007 0.000127
2.83e+007 0.02230 3.22e+007 0.000114
2.54e+007 0.01980 2.41e+007 0.000101
2.26e+007 0.01740 1.60e+007 8.87e-005
1.97e+007 0.01490 7.97e+006 7.61e-005
1.68e+007 0.01240 -1.12e+005 6.35e-005
1.40e+007 0.00992 -8.19e+006 5.08e-005
1.11e+007 0.00744 -1.63e+007 3.82e-005
8.22e+006 0.00496 -2.44e+007 2.56e-005
5.36e+006 0.00248 -3.24e+007 1.29e-005
2.49e+006 0 -4.05e+007 2.79e-007

Table 6 data and result

The value from the table above is from maximum to minimum. The maximum value is at the top
of the table and the minimum value is vice versa. The colour indicates the stress act to the
surface of the beam. The red colour indicate the stress is high and it stress is reducing until the
blue colour which is the colour of less stress acting to the beam.

The maximum value of Von mises stress is 3.11e+007 Nm
2
. The maximum deflection of the
beam is 0.0248 mm and the maximum principle stress is 4.03e+007 Nm
2
. The bar will not fail if
the load is applied to it because both of the maximum value Von Mises and Principle stress does
not exceeding the value of yield strength of the steel.




3.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

From the result obtain through the FEA analysis, my next task is to increases the stiffness of
beam so that it can reduces the deflection of the rectangular support bracket. My team required
coming up with at least 3 different concepts to increase the stiffness of the bracket without
compromising the dimension, we need to produce the Morphological chart to find out the best
concept.

Table 7 morphological chart

The analysis is done to the entire 3 concept to find out which one is the best concept. The
concept is using the same material as the original beam. FEA analysis is done using CATIA
software. The analysis is done in 3-D modeling to make the analysis easier. The result of analysis
is shown in table below:

Types of beam hollow I shape Cut up hollow
No. nodes 272 293 305
No. of element 771 785 759
No. of D.O.F 816 879 915
Stiffness computation
No. of lines 816 879 915
No. of coefficient 13467 13917 14124
Max no. of coefficient
per bloc
13467 13917 14124
Sub-Function Concept
1 2 3
Feature Hollow I shape Cut up hollow
Material Steel Steel Steel
Quality Durable tough Flexible
Performance Medium in weight stable Light in weight
Constraint computation
No. of constraints 96 102 108
No. of factorized
constraints
96 102 108
Factorized computation
No. of factorized
degree
720 777 807
No. of supernodes 123 156 164
No. of overhead
indices
4500 4644 4773

Table 8 result of computation
After the result of computation is obtain, the solution for the static case will be recorded at table
below:
Type of beam Hollow I shape Cut up hollow
Maximum value of
Von Mises/ Nm
2

6.59e+007 3.79e+007 9.36e+007
Maximum
Translational
displacement vector/
mm
0.0291 0.0178 0.0477
Maximum principle
stress / Nm
2

6.58e+007 4.84e+007 9.19e+007
Estimated local error /
J
0.000301 0.000107 0.000556

Table 9 the value of solution case


From the value in table 9 above, I found out that the I shape beam resist the deflection higher
than hollow beam and cut up hollow beam. Even though the stiffness of I beam is less than cut
up hollow beam it can resist the deflection better. Thus the most suitable design for the beam is
the I shape. The value of Von Mises stress is below than the yield strength for the all beam, the
beam will not fail when the load is applied. It is same goes with the maximum stress, the
maximum stress of all beam is lower than the yield strength of steel. The material will not fail is
the is applied into the beam.















4.0 CONCLUSIONS

From the original beam, the deflection of beam occurs is 0.0248 mm. to reduce the deflection, I
must come out with 3 new concept design. The first design is the beam with hollow inside. When
the analysis I found out that the deflection of beam is higher than the original beam which is
0.0291 mm. the second concept, the I shape beam has a deflection of 0.0178 mm. this is lower
than original beam by 0.007 mm. the third concept has a 0.0477 mm deflection which is far
higher than the original beam
Out of the three concept design produce, the most suitable design should be used as a beam that
support the load application is the second concept which is the I shape beam. This is because, the
beam can take the load with minimum deflection comparing to the other two design. All of the
design will not fail if the load is applied to it but the deflection of the individual beam makes the
different. The I shape beam deflect less follow by the hollow beam and lastly cut up hollow. The
beam will not fail whatever failure theory is applied to it whether Von Mises or Maximum shear
stress. This is because both the value of Von Mises stress and Maximum Stress is not exceeding
the yield strength of the material used which is steel.












5.0 APPENDIX


Figure 8 the von mises result analysis of 3 concept design


Figure 9 displacement vector of 3 concept design