Sie sind auf Seite 1von 24

December, 7th, 2015

Beam
Design
Report
Assigned By: Professor Chris Daniel

Kevin Ali

Table of Contents
List of Figures............................................................................................................. 2
List of Tables, Graphs and Charts............................................................................... 2
1

Introduction and Justification................................................................................ 3

Conceptual design................................................................................................ 3
2.1

Purpose.......................................................................................................... 3

2.2

Specification.................................................................................................. 3

2.3

Theory............................................................................................................ 4

2.4

Finite Element Method................................................................................... 4

2.5

Procedure....................................................................................................... 6

2.6

Beam 1.......................................................................................................... 6

2.7

Beam 2.......................................................................................................... 7

2.8

Beam 3.......................................................................................................... 8

2.9

Summary of Results....................................................................................... 9

2.10 Discussion.................................................................................................... 10
3

Manufacturing.................................................................................................... 10
3.1

Introduction................................................................................................. 10

3.2

Purpose........................................................................................................ 10

3.3

Procedure..................................................................................................... 10

3.4

Toolpaths...................................................................................................... 12

3.5

Verification................................................................................................... 12

3.6

Discussion.................................................................................................... 13

Testing and Validation........................................................................................ 14


4.1

Introduction................................................................................................. 14

4.2

Purpose........................................................................................................ 15

4.3

Procedure..................................................................................................... 15

4.4

Data............................................................................................................. 18

4.5

Test Results.................................................................................................. 18

4.6

Discussion.................................................................................................... 20

Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 20

List of Figures
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

2.2-1
2.4-1
2.4-2
2.6-1
2.6-2
2.7-1
2.7-2
2.8-1
2.8-2
3.3-1
3.3-2
3.3-3
3.4-1
3.4-2
3.4-3
3.5-1
3.5-2
3.5-3
4.1-1
4.3-1
4.3-2
4.3-3
4.3-4
4.3-5
4.3-6
4.3-7

Beam constraints.................................................................................... 4
Unmachined beam stress.......................................................................5
Unmachined beam deflection.................................................................5
Beam 1 Stress......................................................................................... 6
Beam 1 Deflection.................................................................................. 7
Beam 2 Deflection.................................................................................. 7
Beam 2 Stress......................................................................................... 8
Beam 3 Stress......................................................................................... 9
Beam 3 Deflection.................................................................................. 9
Mill Geometry....................................................................................... 11
Replace Component..............................................................................11
Setup.................................................................................................... 11
Drilling Toolpath.................................................................................... 12
Roughing Toolpath................................................................................12
Finishing Toolpath.................................................................................12
Hole IPW............................................................................................... 13
Roughing IPW........................................................................................ 13
Finish IPW............................................................................................. 13
testing set up........................................................................................ 14
Beam in device..................................................................................... 15
Strain indicator..................................................................................... 16
Dial Indicator........................................................................................ 16
5kg Mass............................................................................................... 17
15kg Mass............................................................................................. 17
10kg Mass............................................................................................. 17
20kg Mass + 1lb................................................................................... 18

List of Tables, Graphs and Charts


Graph 4.5-1 Strain Graph......................................................................................... 18
Graph 4.5-2 Deflection Graph................................................................................... 19
Graph 4.5-3 Stress Graph......................................................................................... 20
Table
Table
Table
Table

2.9-1 Sumary of Designs................................................................................. 10


2.9-2 Comparison of Designs..........................................................................10
3.6-1 Machine Time......................................................................................... 14
4.4-1................................................................................................................ 18

1 Introduction and Justification


Computer Aided Design otherwise known as CAD has come a long way and it
is used in almost any industry that manufactures a product or whenever a system of
some kind needs to be installed. CAD software has increased productivity for

designers as well as improve the quality of the design. It has also made it easier for
the designer to modify an electronic drawing compared to a hard copy. It has
impacted industry productivity a lot because you can easily give a way an electronic
document compared to having to photocopy a physical drawing. It also help reduce
user error because you are not physically drawing with a writing utensil. Another
major benefit of CAD is that it is possible to create designs to scale unlike physical
drawings where the designer is limited to the paper.
Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) has revolutionized the manufacturing
industry. The biggest benefits of CAM is that it creates more accurate parts as well
as making them more quickly. Since there is no machinist needed to operate any
moving parts, it has greatly increased safety of the machine operator. Cam also
makes machining parts with a lot of curves and varying thicknesses or depths much
easier to do then compared to doing it manually. Another benefit of CAM is that the
programs that the software create can be easily modified.
CAE stands for Computer Aided Engineering. It allows the designer to test
their design without it physically existing. One of the most common type of CAE is
FEA which stands for Finite Element Analysis. With CAE it saves money and time
that used to be taken up by prototyping. Prototypes are still used because software
can only go so far, it cannot test how user friendly or ergonomic it is. A physical
object tends to work out better when testing these functions. CAE has changed the
industry a lot because a lot of time is saved from doing calculations, especially on a
complex.

2 Conceptual design
2.1 Purpose
There are three main purposes for the beam project. The first purpose is to provide
first-hand experience using CAD (Computer Aided Design), CAM (Computer Aided
&CNC in the creation of a unique design. The second purpose is to create a design
for a simply supported beam that meets given specifications. The last purpose is to
carry out the major steps in the product design cycle for an engineered product.

2.2 Specification
There are many specifications. The material we have to use is 6061 Aluminum. The
initial material dimensions are ten by two inches by a quarter inch. The structure
must be able to handle a five hundred pound load through the center of the plate in
the vertical down direction without having a stress of over 10000 psi. The stress can
exceed 10,000 psi only at the load points. The maximum mass of the beam has to
be 60% of the un-machined beam mass. There needs to be an un-machined border
around the part of at least 3/8. The minimum web thickness cannot exceed 1/8
which means at any spot measured on the beam there needs to be 1/8 of material.
The minimum tool diameter is 1/4"; the minimum radii should exceed the tool by .
02 to 0.30 which means the smallest radii has to be at least .145. All the slots in
the block have to be 1/8 wider than the tool, therefore the minimum slot width is .
375.
Tetra 10 must be used in the FEA with a 0.15 value. All machining must go through
the entire beam, which means that you should be able to stick an object through
the beam.

Figure 2.2-1 Beam constraints

2.3 Theory
The theoretical displacement equation is y=(P*L)3/48EI. The highest force and
stress would be half way in-between the two support points. I is the moment of
inertia which is bh3/12.

I=

b h3
12

I=

.2523
12

I =0.1667 inc h4
PL 3 /48 EI
y =
3

5009.5 /( 4810,000,000.1667)
y=
y=0.00536 inch

The max stress is of the beam is equal to the bending moment multiplied by
the distance from the z constraint. First you need the moment which is equal to the
force multiplied by the distance. The equation for max stress is Moment multiplied
by the distance divided by the moment of inertia (calculated above)

Moment =ForceDistance

max =

1187.51
.1667

Moment=2504.75

max =7123.6

Moment =1187.5 psi

max =

Mc
I

2.4 Finite Element Method


Von Mises stress is the best overall stress and it is considered one of the most ideal
stress calculations to achieve. Sharp radiuses and corners are expected to have
some of the highest stress because the force is changing its direction of where it is
going. Also thin webbing is a concentration of high stress because it cannot send as
much stress through a small cross sectional area. The larger the mesh size the more
accurate the FEA, but a large mesh is only needed in high stress areas as
mentioned before. There is a constraint on the same line the force is being applied
to. In NX this gave a warning because it doesnt like constraints on the same point
as loads, but this allowable because the constraint was not in the same axis as the
force. The constraints are there to keep the part from moving when force is applied
to it. The displacement are very similar.

Figure 2.4-2 Unmachined beam stress

Figure 2.4-3 Unmachined beam deflection

2.5 Procedure
1. In NX create a 10x2 rectangle in a sketch on the XY plane
2. Extrude the plane .25 inches
3. Create 2 datum planes at a distance of .25 away from the sides of the
rectangular prism
4. Create a bisector plane in the middle of the rectangle
5. Use the divide face command and divide the top face with the bisector plane
and the bottom face with the planes at a distance
6. In the tools tab go to more and click on specify material, specify the
appropriate material
7. Click on the file tab and the and click on advance simulation
8. Click on new fem and simulation, a window should pop up
9. In that pop op menu make sure that create idealized part is remained
unchecked
10.In the .fem file click on 3D tetrahedral and that the element size is .15
11.In the .sim click the load type icon followed by and specify an 500lb load on
the line in the center of the face in the downward direction
12.Click the constrain type icon followed by user defined constraint in the drop
down menu. Click the two lines at the bottom and make the Y and Z fixed
(last 2 drop down menu under degrees of freedom).
13.Do the same for the center line at the top except that you are only
constraining the X direction to be fixed not the Y and Z
14.Click the solve button to run the FEA

2.6 Beam 1
My first beam was based on an arch bridge. There are many high stress points with
this design, especially at the bottom of the beam. I found that this arc design was
doing a lot to help alleviate the stress from the middle triangle.

Figure 2.6-4 Beam 1 Stress

There were almost numerous stresses at all the radiuses so I decide to go with a
completely different design. The circled area (figure 2.6-1) is where my highest
stress was. This beam also failed miserably in deflection, not to mention it was
overweight as well.

Figure 2.6-5 Beam 1 Deflection

2.7 Beam 2
My second beam turned out worst but it is the one I learned the most from I learned
that if I tilted the triangles inward to towards the force in the center the stress
decreases at the radius it was my lightest beam I have create but it still failed in
stress and displacement. Also with this design the columns seem to buckle when
the force is applied.

Figure 2.7-6 Beam 2 Deflection

Figure 2.7-7 Beam 2 Stress

2.8 Beam 3
This is my final design I went with. This is my best preforming beam and it very
different from all the others I tried. I lowered the stress in the top corners of the
beam by pointing the triangles inward. My high stress areas are at the bottom
where the two triangles meet (circled in figure below). I think this is because the
force going through the beams meet at one point and that creates a concentration
of stress there. The line the force is being applied on is a high stress point because
all 500lbs of force is concentrated there. Also unsurprisingly the maximum
deflection is in the middle which middle of the beam which is further away from the
2 support points. The shape tends to slightly buckle inward because that is where
the force is being applied in the center. I have also noticed that my two radiuses in
the top corner are my second highest force concentration.

Figure 2.8-8 Beam 3 Stress

Figure 2.8-9 Beam 3 Deflection

2.9 Summary of Results


Trial

Largest deflection
(in)
0.006
.018
.015
0.009

Maximum Stress Mass (lbs)


Von Mises (psi)
6871
.489705
19509
.2340
15983
.3269
9807
.2932

Largest deflection
(in)
-40%
60%
50%
-10%

Maximum Stress Mass (lbs)


Von Mises (psi)
-32%
60%
95%
-15%
59%
11%
-2%
-.02%

Un-machined Beam
1- Your Initial Design
2 Intermediate Design
3 Final Design
Table 2.9-1 Sumary of Designs

Trial
Un-machined Beam
1- Your Initial Design
2 Intermediate Design
3 Final Design

Table 2.9-2 Comparison of Designs

2.10 Discussion
The results mean that I made a beam that met the specified guidelines. If the
results are negative then that means that the beam surpassed specifications by that
amount. My first two beams did not meet the guidelines and the preformed very
poorly in all categories except for weight in the first one, while the un-machined
beam excelled. The final design had the best of all three and all the percentages are
negative which means it at least reaches every design criteria.

10

3 Manufacturing
3.1 Introduction
The beams created in NX 10 have been manufactured using a CNC machine
more specifically the Matsuura. The machine could only understand a programing
language known as G-code tells the machine what are of the beam to cut, and how
quickly to cut that area; the rpm and appropriate tool is also given to the machine
via G-code.
CNC stands for Computer numerical control. Usually in a CNC mill there are 3
directions that it can move X, Y and Z. Every move the mill makes is a move in one,
two or even three directions. CNC machining is very accurate at reproducing the
same part over and over again when the same program is used; if a machinist is
were to create a bunch of parts the parts will not be made as consistently as if a
CNC machine made it.

3.2 Purpose
The purpose of machining a beam using a CNC machine is to produce an
accurate part. User error is greatly reduced due to the fact the machine operator is
not directly controlling the machines movement. Also a CNC machine can create a
single part much faster than a person in a shop. Part accuracy is also kept pretty
high because the CNC machine is created with a very high tolerance and it is milling
in respect to an absolute coordinate where a person will machine with respect to a
location on the part.

3.3 Procedure
1. First the setup file needs to be opened
2. Next, the beam needs to be inserted into the setup; this is done by replacing
the part file by selecting replace component in the assembly file menu (Figure
3.3-1). Constrain the beam so that it is lined up in the corner like in (figure
3.3-2)
3. The work piece and boundary also need to be reselected after the part is
replaced
4. Point are created in the middle of any voids in the beams structure. These
points tell the machine where to drill the holes for the end mills. These points
need to be selected in the drilling operations
5. Since all the tools and operations are present, all that needs to be done is to
generate the tool paths followed by post processing using the appropriate
processor (matsuura_mill_3_in post.).
6. After the G code is posted load it up to the Matsuura mill, secure an
unmachined 10.0x2.0x0.25 inch beam inside the proper fixture. Run the
machine and wait for it finish.

11

Figure 3.3-10 Mill Geometry


Figure 3.3-11 Replace Component

Figure 3.3-12 Setup

12

3.4 Tool paths


The Matsuura uses 3 different tools. This means that there are three different tool
paths used.
The first tool path is the drill tool path, the twist drill moves in to a spot within the
cavities of the beam. The tool drill write through the beam then retracts and moves
on to the next hole until all the hole are finished.

Figure 3.4-13 Drilling Toolpath

The following tool path is the rough drilling tool path. It starts by milling the
previously drilled hole then it works its way outward in a triangular pattern. Some
material is still left on for the finishing pass.

Figure 3.4-14 Roughing Toolpath

The final tool path is the finishing tool it only mills out the inside of the triangle
profile. This operation is repeated twice to compensate for the tool deflection.

Figure 3.4-15 Finishing Toolpath

13

3.5 Verification
When a part is machined in NX manufacturing an IPW is created. An IPW simulates
what a part will look like after a single operation. For drilling operations there will be
circulars holes in the part as shown below.

Figure 3.5-16 Hole IPW

Unlike drilling when rough milling the tool follows the outline of the part, but it
leaves a tiny bit of extra material for it to be finished. Since the roughing tool
diameter is much bigger than the minimum radius, it leaves a lot of extra material
at the corners.

Figure 3.5-17 Roughing IPW

The finishing mill IPW is supposed to be the final product of the beam. There is no
extra material left and it is supposed to be milled to the exact size.

Figure 3.5-18 Finish IPW

3.6 Discussion
Conventional milling is when the cutter is cutting in the opposite direction of at
the work piece. This type of milling is commonly used for roughing. Since the work

14

piece and the tool are going against each other the chips can be incredibly long.
The tools also wear out faster than climb milling. Climb milling is when the tool mills
going with the part; to help visualize this type of milling imagine a car doing a burn
out. The car would be pulling it self forward whiles the wheel will be spinning very
fast in a forward direction also. The benefits of climb milling is better finish and
better less power required. The biggest problem with climb milling is backlash. This
happens when the tool pulls the part in to itself. This can result in damage to the
tool and the part.
A 3/8 twist drill, 3/8 end mill and a inch end mill were used when
machining the beam. The 3/8 end mill is used for roughing, since its 3/8 it can do
the rough machining much faster than a inch end mill. A inch end mill was
used last and it just followed the outline of the part. Since its smaller than the 3/8
inch end mill it could get in to all the places where the 3/8 end mill couldnt.
After the CAM operations are done in NX it need to be converted into a format
so the machine can read it easily. This process is known as post processing. When
post processing it uses a .PUI file which converts every operation into G-code which
the machine should be able to read.
Tools
.375 twist
drill
.375 end
mill
.25 end
mill

operation
Drilling

Theoretical time
0:35

Rough Milling

5:33
0:33
3:05
3:03

Finish Milling 1
Finish Milling 2

Actual time
20:00 (approximately)

Table 3.6-3 Machine Time

The actual machining process took longer than the theoretical time this is
partially due to the fact that Jeff was adjusting and controlling the speeds and feeds.
He did this because if something was to go wrong when machining the beam he
would have adequate time to stop the machine.

15

4 Testing and Validation


4.1 Introduction
We are testing the beam by putting it in the device below.

Figure 4.1-19 testing set up

It is a common practice to test the product you created in software because


software is not perfect. The device we will be using is a strain indicator and strain
gauge. The strain gauge is attached using some kind of adhesive. When the object
is deformed the strain gauge is also deformed which changes its resistance. This
resistance is measure by using a strain indicator which converts the signals into a
number that can be easily interpreted.

4.2 Purpose
We are testing our beam to see if it preforms how the beam was designed to
perform. The beam created in NX preforms like that in a theoretical scenario while in
real life there are other variables to consider; these variables are not considered
when solving the FEA in NX. Some of these variables are imperfections in the
material how accurate the part is made to an absolute size and environment
(temperature, humidity and wind).

16

4.3 Procedure
1. First place the beam in the device as shown below, the beam should be
approximately centred in the device. The middle part of the beam should be
in contacting the center of the round portion of the bar.

Figure 4.3-20 Beam in device

2. With the beam in place connect the wires to the corresponding colored
terminals and tighten them to finger tight. Only connect the wires to the top
terminals the bottom ones should remain without a wire connected to
them(see fig)

17

3. Adjust the strain dial until it reads 0000 for the strain followed by adjusting
the balance knob until the gauge needle is at zero.

Balance
Indicator

Strain
Indicator
Balance
knob

Figure 4.3-21 Strain indicator

18

Strain
Dial

4. Next the dial indicator needs to be placed under the center of the beam and
adjusted so that it reads zero.

Figure 4.3-22 Dial Indicator

5. Attach the 5 kg with the hook to the bar, adjust the strain dial until the
balance indicator is at zero. Record the results from the dial indicator and the
strain from the machine.

Figure 4.3-23 5kg Mass

19

6. Repeat step 5 for 10kg plus the hook, 15 kg plus the hook and 20kg plus 1 lb
plus the hook.

Figure 4.3-24 15kg Mass


Figure 4.3-25 10kg Mass

Figure 4.3-26 20kg Mass + 1lb

4.4 Data
weight
160 lbs
270 lbs
380 lbs
500 lbs

Strain in/in
130
318
533
779

Table 4.4-4 Raw Data

20

Deflection in
0.0035
0.0055
0.0075
0.0095

4.5 Test Results

Strain vs Applied Load

Graph 4.5-1 Strain Graph

The strain went up very linearly when load was applied to the beam. it maxed out at
779 in/in.

Deflection vs Applied Load

Graph 4.5-2 Deflection Graph

The deflection also went up in a very linear pattern. The max deflection value is .
0095 inches which is much higher than the FEA value of 0.0088 inches.

21

The results gathered from the strain gauge is in micro inch per inch; to convert this
value into the appropriate stress unit we need to multiply this value by the
modulus of elasticity. This value is 100000 psi for aluminum.

779

in
=7.7910105

stress=Youngs Modulusstrain

stress=7.7910510106

stress=7790 psi

Calculat
ed
Stress
1300
3180
5330
7790

Stress vs Applied Load

Graph 4.5-3 Stress Graph

4.6 Discussion
The theoretical results and the FEA results were different with the biggest
difference being the deflection. The deflection in the FEA 0.0088 inches while

22

the tested result is 0.0095 inches. The difference in these values are about 8%
which is a pretty big discrepancy. There can be many factors that could have
effected the theoretical results like if the dial indicator isnt calibrated
appropriately. Also there could be user error as well, an example of this is not
placing the dial indicator in the exact location.
The actual stress was also higher than the theoretical stress but it wasnt by
much. The theoretical stress was 7749 psi and the tested value obtained 7790;
there is less than a 1% difference between the two values. It could be possible
that the strain gauge wasnt exactly centered, if it was then there would by a
higher chance of getting a number closer than the theoretical value. Also the
beam could be applying the force slightly off center as well this can cause one
side of the beam to be more strained than the other. The strain indicator could
also be out of calibration which could cause the values to appear higher than
they actually were.

5 Conclusion
CAD and CAE software are very good at making simulating a part of some
sort. Since everything is done electronically using these software packages the
user can have infinite possibilities of creating and testing whatever they want.
The user can create a product that is absolutely massive in size in a CAD
program yet in can take up virtually no space up at all; likewise the user can
apply a ridiculous amount of force on a product and test by doing a FEA
simulation and yet get fairly accurate results. CAM software can virtually
manufacture a part no matter how complicated, it can do it all for the user with
minimal effort.
The only drawback to CAD and FEA is that it isnt going preform the same in
the real world as the electronic one. Products are not designed and
manufactured in a way that they are in software. For example if a two inch
drilled hole in apart in cam is exactly two inches but in the real world that two
inch drilled hole might be off by as little as microscopic amount. Likewise with
the CAE software if a load is applied at the same spot your no exactly where the
location of most stress is but in real life that may not be always the case. The
location of the maximum stress will most likely by slightly off but still in the
general area when compared to the FEA. Not to mention the fact that the
stresses in the FEA will have a slightly different value compared to the real life.
Not to mention that these kinds of programs do no account for user errors as
well when designing and testing the part. Therefore CAD, CAM, CAE software are
really good at doing what they are designed to do but they are still not going to
get it 100% right representation of the products that you design and test in real
life.

23