Improving Snapfit Design (Part 3) - Prospector Knowledge Center

1 of 4

http://knowledge.ulprospector.com/1248/pe-snapfit-3/

Improving Snapfit Design (Part 3)

February 19, 2007 by Guest Author

By Chul Lee, BASF

This is the 3rd article in a series of 5 articles by BASF Engineering Plastics on Snap-Fit design. The hope is to assist design engineers achieve
better results using improved principles and procedures for snap-fit design, application, processing and fabrication.

PART 3: IMPROVING SNAP-FIT DESIGN: IMPROVED CANTILEVER DESIGN and GUIDELINES TO AVOID COMMON DIFFICULTIES

IMPROVED CANTILEVER DESIGN

The classical cantilever beam strain formulas discussed in Part II of Improving Snap-Fit Design work well when a flexible cantilever beam is
anchored to a rigid wall, such as wood to stone. In such cases, deformation of the cantilever under a given load is the primary cause of movement
at the tip of the cantilever. However, the typical plastic snap-fit design involves a snap-fit finger attached to a flexible wall usually a plastics plate
with thickness in the 3 mm range. When applied to these conventional plastic snap-fit designs, however, the classical formulas fail to account for
the amount of deflection from the beam/wall interface. They simply neglect the effect of deformation in the wall itself a factor that becomes more
significant with somewhat more flexible wall materials, such as wood, composites and thermoplastics. The classical formula does predict
deflection fairly well when a beam length-to-thickness ratio is greater than 10:1, but the calculated deflection deviates further from actual values
as the ratio gets smaller or when the beam, in other words, gets stubbier.

To obtain a more accurate prediction of the total allowable deflection for short beams in snap-fits, the design engineer must apply a magnification
factor to compensate for the classical formulas shortcomings. Doing so allows the design engineer to take full advantage of a materials straincarrying capability and, therefore, to enjoy greater design flexibility.

Magnification Factors
BASF Plastics has developed a method for determining these magnification factors for a variety of snap-fit beam/wall configurations, including
beams with either uniform or tapered cross sections (graphically depicted in Figures IV-1 and IV-2).

4/18/2016 7:47 PM

Improving Snapfit Design (Part 3) - Prospector Knowledge Center

2 of 4

http://knowledge.ulprospector.com/1248/pe-snapfit-3/

BASF has verified the results of this method both by finite element analysis and actual part testing.

Improved Formulas
To determine maximum strain at a given snap-fits base, design engineers can now use the improved formula which incorporates a corrective
magnification factor (See Figure IV-3). BASF also provides formulas for determining the Push-on and Perpendicular Mating Forces (Figure IV-3).

To review examples that employ these formulas to determine accurate solutions for two different snap-fit designs, see Figures IV-4 and IV-5. The
first example incorporates allowable strain and coefficient of friction values for a specific grade of BASF Ultradur PBT; the second example, for a
grade of BASF Ultraform POM. Refer to BASFs Snap-Fit Design Manual Page IV-4 for tables providing allowable strain and coefficient of
friction values for eight different materials appropriate for snap-fit designs.

4/18/2016 7:47 PM

Improving Snapfit Design (Part 3) - Prospector Knowledge Center

3 of 4

http://knowledge.ulprospector.com/1248/pe-snapfit-3/

U-shaped and L-shaped Designs

Design engineers interested in the application of these formulas to U-shaped and L-shaped
snap-fit designs and a more detailed discussion can refer to BASFs Snap-Fit Design Manual,
Pages V-1, -2, -3 and -4.

Conclusion
The formulas developed by BASF represent a significant improvement over the classical
cantilever beam deflection and strain formulas. Working with BASFs improved formulas, design
engineers can now more accurately calculate and predict the forces encountered and allowable
deflection limits for different configurations of cantilever-type snap-fit assemblies. With the
greater degree of certainty these formulas provide, design engineers can get the most of their
materials and their designs.

GUIDELINES TO AVOID COMMON DIFFICULTIES

Before finalizing any snap-fit design, the design engineer should review three basic considerations:

Stress Concentration
Creep/Relaxation
Fatigue

The single most common cause of failure in snap-fits is the concentration of stress caused by a
sharp corner between the snap-fit beam and the wall to which it is attached the normal point
of maximum stress. One solution is to incorporate a generous fillet radius at the juncture
between the beam and the wall, either on both sides of the beam or particularly on the beams
tensile stress side (See Figure VI-1).

Another cause of failure is that, over time, creep and stress relaxation can gradually reduce the
retention force between the two components connected by a snap-fit. In some cases, lower
retention force can lead to leakage from a formerly tight seal; in others, excessive play that creates noise and vibration (or BSR Buzz, Squeak
and Rumble). Ways to minimize the effects of creep and stress relaxation include designing a low-stress snap beam, incorporating a 90 return
angle to avoid bending, or increasing the land length in the area of a large return angle (See Figures VI-2 and VI-3).

4/18/2016 7:47 PM

Improving Snapfit Design (Part 3) - Prospector Knowledge Center

4 of 4

http://knowledge.ulprospector.com/1248/pe-snapfit-3/

The third major cause of snap-fit failure is fatigue, or repetitive loading, primarily in applications involving hundreds or thousands of cycles. The
first, most obvious, way to avoid fatigue failure is to choose a material known to perform well in fatigue situations. Compare different materials
S-N curves, which show expected number of cycles to failure at various stress levels and at different temperatures. A second way based on S-N
curves is to select a sufficient design stress level at the applications correct exposure temperature. In the real application, the frequency of cycles
is usually a lower number than in testing, thereby providing a margin of safety for the design.

Conclusion
There are a number of ways to overcome stress concentration, stress relaxation or creep, and fatigue. A well thought-out design, plus the right
choice of material, will allow your application to benefit from all the advantages of snap-fit design.

Materials Selection
Part 4 of the five-part series Improving Snap-Fit Design provides an overview of materials appropriate for snap-fit design and guidelines for
selecting the material best suited to your applications. The complete series of articles includes:

Part 1: Introduction and Overview of General Applications and Types

Part 2: Principles of Classical Beam Theory and Design
Part 3: Improved Cantilever Design and Guidelines to Avoid Common Difficulties
Part 4: Materials Selection

About the Author

Chul Lee,
Applications
Technology Leader
BASF
Email:
chul.lee@basf.com
Website:
http://www.basf.com
/group/corporate/en/

Chul Lee, an Applications Technology Leader at BASF, has been involved with plastics applications and developmental activities for the past three decades.
Working out of BASF Corporations Wyandotte, Michigan facility, Chul has a wealth of experience in various areas of plastics research, including service life
prediction research for the plastics pipeline industry, and application of CAE technology for plastics product development. Chuls current endeavors in the
field are focused on the development of plastics joining technology, such as vibration welding, laserwelding and mechanical fastening.During the last 10
years, Chul has been actively involved in applications development work pertaining to the automotive and industrial market segments. Concentrating on
application developments for the automotive powertrain market, including plastic air intake manifold developments and oil supply systems, Chul has
coordinated BASF Global Research on Joining Technologies, such as vibration welding, laserwelding, snap fits, mechanical fastening and adhesive joining.
Results of Mr. Lees research is often disseminated both internally and in the public domain by virtue of participation in seminars and publication distribution
at major technical conferences.Chul, a Ph.D. graduate from the University of Michigans Mechanical Engineering department, has published many papers
on various technical development topics. His academic specialization in the field of Fracture Behavior of Plastics Materials enables his astute research and
subsequent publication of a multiplicity of topics, ranging from Snap Fit Design, Ribbing Design Optimization, Vibration welding optimization, and NVH
(Noise Vibration and Harshness) experiments and simulations of air intake manifolds, and Laserwelding. Chul is also responsible for several patents, such
as a patent on NVH, multiple patents on vibration welding, and currently has a patent pending on stone impact resistant ribbing design.

The views, opinions and technical analyses presented here are those of the author, and are not necessarily those of UL, ULProspector.com or
Knowledge.ULProspector.com. While the editors of this site make every effort to verify the accuracy of its content, we assume no responsibility for
errors made by the author, editorial staff or any other contributor. All content is subject to copyright and may not be reproduced without prior
authorization from Prospector.

Filed Under: Design

Tagged With: BASF

Copyright 2016 Prospector Knowledge Center

Find Ingredients Faster on ULProspector.com

4/18/2016 7:47 PM