ABSTRACT

Given specimen is engine mounting bracket made up of aluminium high pressure cast iron which has excellent wear, corrosion resistance properties and is good against fatigue loading, air entrapment and shrinkage. This specimen is acted upon by several constant and variable forces in specific direction. For proper analysis of the given specimen with the help of ANSYS software first of all aluminium alloy having ultimate tensile stress of 280 MPA was selected from engineering data then for given specimen the geometry was imported to the software. First of all it was decided that there should be multiple analysis for a single specimen, therefore symmetry was done with the help of extrusion in geometry section. Then both these cases were modelled in the most precise way to find out proper mesh and boundary conditions. To find out proper mesh, mesh sizing and mesh refinement were done and best of two was applied for further analysis. In succeeding stages stress analysis was carried with symmetry and whole body. That gave wider range of values for comparison and therefore more understanding of actual conditions. In peak load and fatigue analysis equivalent stresses were found for given peak load and fatigue load for both symmetry and whole body. In the end it was found that for peak load the highest stress concentration region showed higher equivalent stress than the given proof stress, so the object would fail and would not survive. For fatigue loads, as this was the case of higher number of cycles having lower amplitude of cyclic load, number of cycles the object could survive was found by S-N curve with the help of endurance limit by Goodmans formula. The acquired number of cycles object could survive was very less than it was supposed to be. It was also noted that with symmetry more accurate values were found. However it was estimated that actual results lie between results of symmetry and those for the whole body. Calculated results suggested that design of the object was poor and there were many faults in the design like sharp edges, improper distribution of the material. On further research it was found that porosity is the major factor affecting the overall properties of the aluminium casting. So for the improvement of the strength of the object, modifications like adding fillets at some points and removing as well as adding some material from some areas to compensate for the overall weight have been done and some suggestions to reduce the porosity of the aluminium casting have been given.

METHOD
Given was the engine mounting bracket made of aluminium (high pressure cast). It is fixed to the chassis with bolts with the engine being supported by its centre hollow. The engine bracket has been supposed to be acted upon by some peak load and cyclic loads due to relative movement of transfer box with the chassis. Usually there is a presence of constant load, but hasnt been considered here.

Figure-1: Material selection and editing of UTL First of all material was selected by processing through engineering data, here it is aluminium (high pressure cast) having tensile stress of 280 MPA. The value of tensile stress has been changed by editing as shown in the Figure-1.

Figure2: Meshing with default parameters For proper analysis of the given specimen, first of all meshing is to be done. Meshing is the process of dividing the whole object into several parts and each part is considered separately for its analysis. These parts are known as elements and they are joined with each other by nodes. The result of each element is brought together and final result is achieved. Figure 2 shows meshing with default number of elements. After modelling with default number of elements and mesh sizing, different cases has been studied with different modes of modelling to find out the most appropriate one.

Mesh sizing and minimum element size TABLE 1 Mesh Sizing on different regions showing effect of symmetry on minimum element size
Case Mesh sizing Minimum element size(M) Without symmetry 0.004 0.003 0.0009(def ault 0.004) 0.001 ( 0.002 Sphere radius) With symmetry 0.004 0.002 0.0005(defa ult 0.002) 0.002 (0.001 sphere radius) Type of support Face on which load has been applied Inner cylindrical support (+Y and-Y)

1 2 3 4

Whole body(figure 3) Face(figure 4) Edge(figure 5) Vertex (figure 6)

Fixed at the bolt holes

Fixed at the bolt holes and elastic support

[Here one thing is to be noted that while updating new mesh sizing as shown in the table previous mesh sizing were kept unsuppressed, because results were unnecessarily high when they were kept

unsuppressed. As listed above smaller number of elements in particular region made the software to concentrate on particular region. Therefore possibility of false results increases because of too much stretching of the elements.]

Table 1 shows different mesh sizing of the given specimen under different circumstances. For the most accurate analysis element size was aimed to keep as small as possible within certain limit, beyond which more reduction in element size was not possible due to increasing complexity in calculations. More number of elements for the same body means more accurate results, so the aim was to get optimum value for element size. As shown in the table optimum element size was found by applying different mesh sizing. To reduce the element size further for more accurate analysis, whole specimen was divided in two symmetrical parts. As this was a symmetrical object it was divided in two similar parts for simplified analysis. Symmetry was done by extrusion in geometry.

Figure 3: Case 1

Figure 4: Case 2

Figure 5: Case 3

Figure 6: Case 4

[Mesh sizing]

It was found that with symmetry, element size could be reduced beyond those were for the whole body, so in later stages analysis would be done on the whole object and symmetry. Results of both of them would be compared and the most appropriate one would be considered. It has been taken care that while going for symmetry the applied load should be half of the original.

Mesh refinement
Meshing of given object was refined with the help of mesh refinement. With changing element size for the whole body, mesh refinement was done on the region shown below. Due to mesh refinement (refinement number 3) element size in selected region decreased, but it was found that with mesh refinement minimum element size achieved for the whole body was 0.008m, which was higher than that for mesh sizing (0.004m).

Figure 7: Mesh refinement on the edge So it has been concluded for final analysis that with the help of mesh refinement smaller element size can be achieved in selected region, but overall element size remains higher and due to that the most appropriate result wouldnt be achieved. As previously tabulated mesh sizing was found to give smaller (and well distributed) values for element size, it was estimated that with previous mesh sizing better results might achieved, therefore this meshing hasnt been considered for the stress analysis.

Type of support

Figure 8: Fixed support at the bolt holes As this was a transfer box mounting bracket and actually it has been bolted to the chassis, so its cylindrical bolt holes were kept fixed as shown in the figure 8. For getting more accurate result it has been assumed that this bracket has been bolted on a rigid chassis such as steel which would try to stop the bracket to deform in Z (downwards) direction. To demonstrate this, elastic support along with the previous fixed support, whose foundation stiffness value taken as 2.1E+11 N/M3 has been provided at the base which resisted the downward deformation of the body which is shown below (Figure 8).

Figure 9: Frictionless support with the previous fixed support

Face and edge on which the load has been applied

The engine bracket has been holding the engine through its hollow cylindrical shape as shown in the figure. Thats the reason why inner cylindrical surface was taken as the face which was going to bear the load in Y direction. Bearing load was considered as the most appropriate one, as here was the case of one body being supported by another (H.W.MORROW, 1998). There is a bush in the hole to absorb vibration due to engine operation thats the reason why load in Z direction has been applied on the edges.

Figure 11: Load applications in Y (-30KN) and Z (-7.5KN,-2.5KN, 2KN and -2KN) directions As shown in Figure 11 the mounting bracket would be acted upon by different loads in Y and Z directions. 30KN of load would be acting on the face as an off load in Y direction. There is 7.5KN of off load in Z direction. Including 2.5KN and 2KN loads which are repeating and reversing loads. All Loads were supposed to act in negative depending upon selected co ordinate system except 2KN of reversing load, as it has been considered as a reversing load, it would be acting in Z direction also.

RESULTS
Modal Analysis
Modal analysis is carried out in order to determine the vibration characteristic of given object during its designing process. It is a basic dynamic analysis. During the analysis the value of natural values have been obtained which may be used for further dynamic analysis. From this it can be estimated that under which conditions the part will fail. So to improve the life of the model to avoid unnecessary fracture modal analysis was carried out, so modal analysis is a necessary procedure prior and after the designing of the model. Total deformation-1: In this mode of deformation as shown in the figure the maximum deformation is 2.06m and the frequency is 1036.1 Hz.

Figure 12: Modal analysis-first mode Total deformation-2: In this mode of deformation the maximum deformation is 2.14 m and the reported frequency is 2030.8 Hz.

Figure 13:- Modal analysis- second mode Total deformation-3: In this mode of deformation the maximum deformation is 2.20 m and the reported frequency is 2221.9Hz.

Figure 14:-Modal analysis-third mode

Off Load Analysis (Y direction)

Off load can be assumed as a kind of load which will be applied not more than a few applications during whole life of the part and the part should be rigid enough to sustain the stresses arise due to the load application. The load may be caused by an accident, sudden application of brakes and even a pothole. Here given proof stress (220 MPA) has been considered as maximum stress. Maximum equivalent stress value should not exceed the proof stress value, otherwise it will be considered as a failure of the part. One thing is to be noted here that proof stress is considered as the stress necessary to produce 0.2% plastic strain (R.B.HEYWOOD, 1962). That means any value beyond this is going to cause plastic deformation. The motto of going through off load analysis was to find out the region of maximum stress concentration in the mounting bracket under given maximum load (30KN), as suggested earlier off load analysis would be carried out for two different supports as shown in TABLE 2.

TABLE 2 Off load analysis with symmetry and without symmetry in Y direction
MAXIMUM EQUIVALENT STRESS (MPA) FACTOR OF SAFETY (PROOF STRESS/APPLIED STRESS) <1=FAIL & >1=SAFE

ANALYSIS

FIXED SUPPORT AT BOLT HOLES

PREVIOUS SUPPORT INCLUDING ELASTIC SUPPORT AT THE BASE 227.46 223.19

1 2

SYMMETRY WITHOUT SYMMETRY

705.2(!!) 397.83

0.31 0.55

0.97 0.98

Figure 15: Analysis 1 with fixed support

Figure 16: Analysis 1 including elastic support

Figure 17: Analysis 2 with fixed support only

Figure 18: Analysis 2 including elastic support

After applying 30KN of load in Y direction, it was found that maximum stress for off load was more than allowable proof stress in both the cases and both kind of supports as shown in TABLE 2. It was found that stress concentration was at its peak on the sharp edges shown in the figures above. As the bracket was holding the transfer box, any kind of permanent change in the shape should not happen. To show it, factor of safety was calculated in the end by dividing the maximum allowable stress to the applied stress. For a safe part it should be more than one, here it was found that for all cases value of factor of safety was less than one which indicates the failure of given specimen under any applied condition.

The results were indicating that because of higher number of elements (due to smaller size), final stress values for peak load analysis were more accurate in case of symmetry. It has been concluded that by symmetry more accurate results can be achieved. As far as supports are concerned, stress values for both kind of support were different. They were lower when elastic support was provided this is because when elastic support was included it provided rigid base which was found to be more realistic result. However it was predicted that the actual result should lie between these two different stress values.

Table 3 Off load analysis in Z direction

MAXIMUM EQUIVALENT STRESS (MPA) FACTOR OF SAFETY (PROOF STRESS/APPLIED STRESS) <1=FAIL & >1=SAFE

ANALYSIS

FIXED SUPPORT AT BOLT HOLES

PREVIOUS SUPPORT INCLUDING ELASTIC SUPPORT AT THE BASE 340 269.9

3 4

SYMMETRY WITHOUT SYMMETRY

351.5 261.3

0.63 0.84

0.64 0.82

Figure 19: Analysis 3 with fixed support

Figure 20: Analysis 3 including elastic support

Figure 21: Analysis 4 with fixed support

Figure 22: Analysis 4 including elastic support

Fatigue analysis
Given bracket has to bear cyclic loads during its life. These loads dont cause sudden failure, but they initiate crack where there is a stress concentration. This crack propagates slowly and cause failure below materials ultimate strength after certain number of cycles (M.J. Iremonger, 1987), so it is important to analyse the fatigue to calculate how many number of cycles the object can survive before failure. Given engine mounting bracket was acted upon by repeating and reversing loads. For repeating load the load varies from zero to maximum and for reversing load the load varies from negative to positive (tension to compression). Selecting the safer side analysis has been carried out by giving preference to higher stress values from both kinds of supports for both symmetry and whole body which is fixed support. First of all fatigue analysis for repeating load was done.

TABLE 4 Fatigue analysis for repeating load

ANALYSIS (cont.) MAXIMUM MINIMUM MEAN STESS STRESS(MPA) STRESS(MPA) STRESS(MPA) AMPLITUDE( MPA) SYMMETRY WITHOUT SYMMETRY 130.3 89.9 0 0 65.15 44.9 65.15 44.9 EQUIVALENT NUMBER OF STRESS(MPA) CYCLES

5 6

92.54 56.40

7E05 1E10

Figure 23: Analysis 3

Figure 24: Analysis 4

Figure 23 and Figure 24 shows the area of maximum stress concentration. Repeating load analysis was carried out by finding maximum stress value for 2.5KN, as it was clear that for repeating load minimum stress value was 0. Mean stress values and alternative stress values were calculated by formulas given below. Mean stress= (maximum stress + minimum stress)/2 Alternative stress= (maximum stress minimum stress)/2 For repeating load equivalent stress must be calculated, therefore it was calculated as shown below, Equivalent stress= Alternative stress/ [1-(Mean stress/ Ultimate tensile strength)] From equivalent stress number of cycles for repeating load was found as shown in TABLE 3.

TABLE 5 Fatigue analysis for reversing load

ANALYSIS (cont.) MAXIMUM MINIMUM MEAN STESS STRESS(MPA) STRESS(MPA) STRESS(MPA) amplitude(M PA) SYMMETRY WITHOUT SYMMETRY 104.29 71.90 (-)104.29 (-)71.90 0 0 104.29 71.9 NUMBER OF CYCLES

7 8

2E05 1.5E07

Figure 25: Analysis 5

Figure 26: Analysis 6 For reversing load two loads of same magnitude (2KN) were applied in opposite directions, from indicating maximum stress values all needed stress values were derived as described earlier. However for reversing load there was no need for calculating equivalent stress value as alternative stress has been used for finding out number of cycles as shown in TABLE 5. This bracket had one application of repeating load with 5 applications of reversing load per cycle, therefore to find out maximum number of cycles the object can survive, Miners rule was used. Calculations suggested that with symmetrical analysis the bracket would withstand 3.78E 05 cycles and with whole body analysis the bracket would withstand 8.88E 05 cycles. Taking minimum cycles for safety out of this two, symmetrical analysis had to be followed.

Conclusion It has been concluded that the model will fail under the application of off loads in both Y and Z direction. Fatigue analysis suggests that the object is safe for obtained number of cycles. The analysis with ANSYS depends largely upon boundary conditions and sizing of mesh. Apart from that symmetry turned out to be a useful function in such symmetrical objects. Number of elements can be increased with a view of getting more accurate result. Modal analysis is very important because from that the natural frequency of the object can be obtained. It can be said that the object will fail if the induced frequency is same as its natural frequency. Therefore the designers always design the object such as it may never face applied frequency which is same as natural frequency. Recommendation The object is a failure under an application of given offload. Main reason is stress concentration in varying cross sectional regions. This can be improved by applying fillet or increasing the fillet radius. Stress concentration at the edges of bolt holes can be reduced by making the edges smoother because smoother edges prevent sudden change in cross sectional area of that region. References Davis, J, R. (1994) Aluminium and Aluminium Alloys. Ohio: The Materials Information Society. Heywood, R, B (1962),