California Polytechnic State University

ME404 Research Project

Winter 2008

Axial and Radial Stiness of a Diaphragm

Lente Florian Rehsft

Stefan

Author:

Supervisor:
Prof. Peter J.

Schuster

March 17, 2008

Contents
1 Project Report

1.1 Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 Main objective . . . . 1.3.2 Additional objectives . 1.4 Approximate Solution . . . . 1.5 Model Development . . . . . 1.6 Mesh Development . . . . . . 1.7 Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 Post-Processing . . . . . . . . 1.8.1 Mesh Convergence . . 1.8.2 Comparison of Results 1.9 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 1.12 References . . . . . . . . . . . 1.13 Acknowledgment . . . . . . . 1.14 Contact . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 3 4 4 4 4 5 6 8 10 10 12 12 13 14 14 14 15
16

2 Convergence Plots

2.1 Axial Stiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.2 Radial Stiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.1 Axial Stiness . . 3.1.1 Approach 3.1.2 Reference 3.1.3 Analysis . 3.2 Radial Stiness . 3.2.1 Approach 3.2.2 Reference 3.2.3 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19

3 Hand Calculations

19 19 19 20 20 20 21 22

1 Project Report
1.1 Abstract
This document describes a project, conducted by two exchange students from the Munich University of Applied Sciences. The project involves the use of FEA code software. It is going to be part of the learning experience of the ME 404 - Applied Finite Element Analysis class. The research topic is going to be a part of a CNC Lathe Spindle produced by the Spinner Machine Tools Company and used in the TD Series Turning Centers. The project is divided into two main parts. On the one hand an analysis of a membrane was performed to determine stiness of that membrane in the axial and radial directions. Results of a similar part were available. This reference model was analyzed rst, to be able to compare and validate the results of the new membrane. On the other hand a study of the inuence of dierent element types was realized as well as the benets of simplifying or adding complexity to the analysis. The element type which results into an accurate solution with a low computational time is sought. With the knowledge of the possible model variations and the element type to use, a recommendation for future analyses on similar parts is given.

1.2 Introduction
For static determinate bearing of the spindle tube a combination of two spindle ball bearing pairs are used, one xed, the other one oating. To add the ability to move axially to the rear ball bearing a membrane was used to mount it to the structure. Due to the rise in temperature of the spindle during operation, a dierence in length between the housing and the spindle rotor occurs. This elongation is compensated by the elastic axial deformation of the diaphragm (about 0.1 mm for a hot spindle). This causes, depending on the axial stiness of the diaphragm, axial loads on the ball bearings, which could inuence the expected life span, if the load is too high. This means the diaphragm preferably should be axially very exible. On the other side, the diaphragm should have a high radial stiness, to ensure small deection of the spindle axis due to radial loads. Two parts will be analyzed, and in this report referred to as the "Reference" and "Analysis" part. The reference part (TD-001-008) is a diaphragm for which the results of two FEA studies are already available, and will be used for comparison. The analysis part (TD-052-010) on the other hand is a similar diaphragm which will be tested with a setup based on the experiences gained in the analysis of the reference part.

1 Project Report

1.3 Objectives
1.3.1 Main objective

The main objective of this analysis is to calculate the axial and radial stiness of the previously mentioned diaphragm. In order to get a good prediction, we are going to conduct dierent analyses during which we vary mesh renement, element type, boundary and load conditions, as well as load application.
1.3.2 Additional objectives

Apart from getting a good prediction of the stiness in the axial and radial directions, and of the stress in the diaphragm for a given axial deection, we would like to extend the scope of the project towards a research of the inuence of the variations of setup options on the result. Because of the complex geometry, especially the huge dierences of the wall thicknesses, ne meshes will be needed. Therefore the inuence of the neness of the mesh is going to be analyzed. Furthermore dierent kinds of elements will be used to see if there are changes and what kind of changes there are in the solutions. Shell elements and the two dierent continuum elements hexahedral (bricks) and tetrahedral will be tested. Moreover dierent kinds of clamping of the part at the outer edge should be tested. By means of a simple possibility of clamping an accurate solution should be found by varying the parameters as described above. Afterwards a more complicated bolted attachment with a contact between the pilot diameter and a xed ring should be realized.

1.4 Approximate Solution

The predictions of the hand-calculations were crosschecked with the results of the both available FEA analyses for the reference model. This comparison yielded the following results. Compare to data from reference analyses in axial direction:
Hand Calculation: k = 0.924 106 N m ANSYS: k =
F u

COSMOSWorks:

6000 N = 6.24 106 N m 0.96186103 m 83 N F k = u = 0.182429103 m = 0.455

106 N m

Given the assumptions we made and the range of both FEA results, the prediction by the hand-calculation is reasonable and gives a good feeling of the expected range. Compare to data from reference analyses in radial direction:
Hand Calculation: k = 1.21 108 N m ANSYS: k =
F u

COSMOSWorks:

348 N = 1.01 109 N m 0.379106 m F 1000 N k = u = 0.598891106 m =

1.67 109 N m

1 Project Report

The result of the hand-calculation may seem too low. But if we only looked at the wedge computed, we ignored additional material, which does contribute to the stiness in radial direction. If we take a look at equation 3.9, we see that for 10 Fg = 0.087 F . Since the additional material in the membrane can be treated as additional springs parallel to the wedge we considered, we can conclude that the stiness scales with the force. As parallel springs are simply added and the force is distributed evenly. For our purpose to check the results of the FE analysis, the prediction is still usable. We must just keep in mind, that it may be underpredicting the actual stiness. Hand-calculation results for the analysis model:
axial: k = 2.632 106 N m radial: k = 0.170 109 N m

1.5 Model Development

Figure 1.1: Model setup 1 through 4 Given the complexity of the part considered we used defeaturing in order to avoid bad meshes. We removed all chamfers and the recess from the model. However we did not remove the radius

1 Project Report

on the inner ring, since it is essential to the load application on the part. According to our project denition we tried four dierent model setups (see Figure 1.1): 1. Axial load application: Completely axisymmetric model. 2. Radial load application: Plane symmetric model. This model could also perform axial deformation. 3. Defeatured shell model: For this setup we tried to simplify as much as possible to decrease complexity and element number. 4. Alternate boundary condition: Using a rigid submodel of the casing in which the support diaphragm is mounted, we tried resemble the mounting position in the assembly more exactly. For the rst two setups all of the dierent available options for element types were analyzed and a full convergence study was run on each. The additional model setups were only done as a case study to get a feeling of the impact of the change in complexity and its inuence on the quality of the results.

1.6 Mesh Development

Axial Load Application

To be able to compare the answers of the analysis part with the reference part both meshes should be as similar as possible. The axisymmetric model was partitioned in a few segments. The most important region was the thin membrane of the diaphragm. Therefore a rectangular area was created for this area (see Figure 1.2). To get a high quality mesh the rest of the part was also broke down into rectangles where possible. With this method it was possible to reduce the distorted elements to a minimum. It was not possible to eliminate them completely, but to move them to areas which were not as crucial for the analysis.

Figure 1.2: segment of the diaphragm

1 Project Report

Dierent element types were tried and maintained throughout analysis with various seed sizes to get a good convergence. Furthermore the distorted elements also varied with element type. The setups of the dierent element types are summarized in Table 1.1. This table also summarizes the achieved mesh quality for the chosen seed size. The choice of the seed size is based on the convergence study as presented in the Post-Processing section. The mesh quality parameters for the 2-D mesh used in this model setup are:
b b Aspect Ratio Percentage of elements with a > 5 for quad or a > 10 for tri Skew Angle Percentage of elements outside the range 45 135 for quad or 5 170

for tri

Setup Element Shape Geometric order Integration Load 1 Quadrilateral dominated Quadratic Full 600 N 2 Triangles Quadratic Full 600 N 3 Quadrilateral Quadratic Full 600 N Reference Part TD-001-008 Setup Seed Size # of Elements # of Nodes # of dofs Aspect Ratio Skew Angle 1 0.5 3710 11717 23434 0.11% 0.32% 2 0.5 8001 16618 33236 0.05% 0.05% 3 0.5 4130 13007 26014 0.24% 0.58% Analysis Part TD-052-010 Setup Seed Size # of Elements # of Nodes # of dofs Aspect Ratio Skew Angle 1 0.5 2821 8914 17828 0.14% 0.21% 2 0.5 5562 11607 23214 0.07% 0.07% 3 0.5 2841 9006 18012 0.35% 0.80% Table 1.1: Mesh setups and qualities for axial load model
Radial Load Application

Modeling the 3D part was much more complicated. Because of the elaborate geometry of the cross-sectional area it was hardly possible to get a real good mesh. However by changing the element type it was possible to minimize the number of distorted elements. With wedges it was even possible to eliminate the distorted elements. By increasing the number of elements it was possible to get accurate results with every element. Dierent modeling techniques were used, such as medial axis and advancing front, to minimize the number of distorted elements. The technique used for each mesh element type setup was then kept xed throughout the convergence study. The setups of the dierent element types are summarized in Table 1.2. This table also summarizes the achieved mesh quality for the chosen seed size. The choice of the seed size is based on the convergence study as presented in the Post-Processing section. The mesh quality parameters for the 3-D mesh used in this model setup are:
b b Aspect Ratio Percentage of elements with a > 5 for hex or a > 10 for tet and wedges Skew Angle Percentage of elements outside the range 45 135 for hex or 5 170

for tet or 10 160 for wedges

1 Project Report

Setup Element Shape Geometric order Integration Load 4 Hexahedral dominated Quadratic Full 384 N 5 Tetrahedrals Quadratic Full 384 N 6 Hexahedrals Quadratic Full 384 N 7 Wedges Quadratic Full 384 N Reference Part TD-001-008 Setup Seed Size # of Elements # of Nodes # of dofs Aspect Ratio Skew Angle 4 7 2115 11971 35913 6.67% 24.26% 5 9 5736 11052 33156 0% 0% 6 7 2068 12826 38478 34.09% 42.99% 7 7 2961 11456 34368 0% 0% Analysis Part TD-052-010 Setup Seed Size # of Elements # of Nodes # of dofs Aspect Ratio Skew Angle 4 7 1080 6067 18201 3.70% 3.70% 5 8 5213 9759 29277 0% 0% 6 7 1040 7248 21744 11.54% 57.69% 7 7 1800 7050 21150 6.67% 2.22% Table 1.2: Mesh setups and qualities for radial load model
Additional Model Setups

For both additional model setups no convergence study was run. Completely dierent approaches were chosen, and resulted in dierent mesh techniques to use: For the simplied model, only hex and quad could be used. The integration mode was set to full to avoid hourglass modes that would occur otherwise. In the case of the complex model using real mounting position, with modeling of the screw holes, required tetrahedral elements. Since both setup were only used as additional studies, and were not used to acquire results, no convergence study were carried out, and the mesh quality was not recorded.

1.7 Analyses
A multitude of dierent analyses were run. Most of which did incorporate non linearity to some degree.
Axial Load Application

In the rst model setup only axial deection could be tested. So we did run a linear static analysis on a 2-D axisymmetric model with dierent meshes. However since from the ANSYS results available it could be seen, that the stiness would change with the deformation of the part. After plotted the results, it was clear, that this was only an optical illusion due to the scanned report. Nonetheless we decided to do an analysis with the option non linear geometry turned on and recorded the results to give a prediction of the change in stiness with

1 Project Report

increasing load. This analysis was only performed on the one mesh setup chosen according to our convergence study.
Radial Load Application

The second model setup did not involve non linearity in the rst step as well. But it was soon introduced to the problem, when the type of load application was chosen to be a rigid body, resembling the bearing supported by the diaphragm, in contact with the inner diameter. In the rst tries the force was modeled by surface traction which did pull the parallel surface along, which was not physically correct, and later on a surface pressure. The surface pressure approach was dicult given the fact, that the bearing will apply a force on the surface, which is not constant along the area. When the force then was described by a formula similar to the one used in the hand-calculations, a stiness value could not be obtained without the information on how the code would process the formula during the analysis. This information was not found in the manuals available. Nonetheless, rst deformations showed that the model was setup correctly and we did then introduce an alternative way to apply the load, by switching to non linear analysis and using contact. Using the contact algorithm on quadratic hexahedral elements resulted in the following warning: "A slave surface denition has been dened on a face of element 2 instance diaphragm-1 that contains no midface node. This may lead to convergence diculties. The element type will be converted and a midface node generated automatically." This warning could be disregarded since the code used the workaround described.

Figure 1.3: Two dierent contact locking modes Another Problem that occurred during the analyses for this model setup, was contact locking. As one can see in Figure 1.3, some nodes from the bearing surface got stuck in the surface of the diaphragm, basically pulling it along. This behavior did add stiness, and reduced the displacement for a given load. This did result in incorrect value in the convergence study. These value could be disregarded and the study continued, since the problem would only occur at some arbitrary seed sizes of the diaphragm. However, since the contact locking occurred right where the displacement value would go into convergence, we did change the seed size on the bearing to avoid the contact locking. This solution did not change the parameters 9

1 Project Report

of the convergence study, since the bearing is modeled as a rigid body, and therefore has no deformation that could change with increasing element number. Right when we were nished with the complete analysis ABAQUS had an error and exited prematurely. This abnormal end did result in a destruction of the database (Figure 1.4). Due to this setback we had to invest some time in rebuilding at least the basic database to be able to continue.

Figure 1.4: CAE database error

Additional Model Setups

Our third model setup used the same way of load application as described above, and thus was non linear per se. Whereas the fourth model did include even more non linearity due to the additional contacts used in the mounting of the outer diameter in a rigid submodel of the casing. Apart from the non linearity, both analyses were static and were solved using the ABAQUS/Standard code. The only problem occurring in the last model setup on top of the previously described ones, we think originated from the additional non linearity in the problem. Figure 1.5 shows the deformation of the part, which makes no physical sense.

Figure 1.5: Shrinking diaphragm

1.8 Post-Processing
1.8.1 Mesh Convergence

Convergence studies were made for all dierent setups. Because of the great number of plots, just a few are shown in this chapter. The remaining plots can be found in Chapter 2. Figure 1.6 shows a representative plot of the axisymmetric model. All element types converged. However the number of elements which were needed to get good results varied. For the 3-D 10

1 Project Report

models it was more complicated to get convergence. The best results with small number of elements were achieved with wedges. One plot for wedges in the reference model is shown in Figure 1.6. For further analyses we decided on one element type that produced accurate result at a low computational time. Those element type were quadrilateral dominated mesh for the 2-D analysis with very rened partitioning and wedge elements for the 3-D analysis.

Figure 1.6: The selected setups for axial and radial deection The convergence of models with hex and tet elements were a bit weird. The model seems to converge but at some seed size there are outliers. This can be seen in Figure 1.7. This phenomenon is due to the contact locking between the rigid body and the diaphragm. By varying the seed size of the bearing it was possible to delete this outliers and to get the correct answers, as previously described in the Section 1.7. Figure 1.7 also shows the convergence of the reference model with tet elements. There appear already numerical errors due to the high number of elements.

Figure 1.7: The selected setups for axial and radial deection Table 1.1 and 1.2 shows the necessary number of elements for the dierent element types to get good results. Even if there were a high number of distorted elements in some setups all results converged to nearly the same value. However by looking at the number of degrees of freedom (dof), and therefore the computational time, it is useful to choose a setup with less dofs for further studies.

11

1 Project Report
1.8.2 Comparison of Results

The results from the hand-calculations as well as from previous analyses for the reference part are shown in the following tables (Tables 1.3 and 1.4). Part Result Hand-Calc ANSYS COSMOSWORKS TD-001-008 6.34 106 0.924 106 6.24 106 0.455 106 7 6 TD-052-010 2.49 10 2.632 10 Table 1.3: Axial stiness comparison (unit:
N m)

Part Result Hand-Calc ANSYS COSMOSWORKS TD-001-008 5.71 108 1.21 108 1.01 109 1.67 109 TD-052-010 6.32 108 0.17 109 Table 1.4: Radial stiness comparison (unit:
N m)

1.9 Results
The axial stiness found for the reference part matches the values from the ANSYS study pretty well (Tables 1.3 and 1.4). To nd the stiness for dierent loads the NLGEOM option was used in ABAQUS to see the inuence of the nonlinear geometry. As seen in Figure 1.8 the stiness increases slightly for increasing loads. This is due to the diaphragm for small displacements having mostly bending load. For larger displacements you have to account for the tension in the membrane as the inner diameter does not expand, due to its thickness.

Figure 1.8: Hardening spring behavior due to non linear geometry

12

1 Project Report

The radial stiness does not match the results from the reference analysis as good as the radial stiness. It is about the half compared to the ANSYS analysis and the COSMOS analysis is even higher. Nonetheless the radial stiness is clearly higher than the axial stiness. Hence the main function of the diaphragm as described in the introduction can be fullled. The dierent setups were assigned to the analysis part and the same analyses were performed. The results for this part are also shown in Tables 1.3 and 1.4. The axial stiness is more linear for the new part than for the reference part, because the bending stiness outweighs the tension stiness of the membrane, as a result of the smaller ratio of outer diameter minus inner diameter over the thickness. For both parts the inuence of dierent element types were tested. The results, concerning the stiness, vary hardly. However the number of elements, which were needed to get good results, is very dierent. In general, setups with triangles and tetrahedral need much more elements than setups with quadrilaterals, hexahedrals or wedges. On the other hand their ability to reproduce even complicated geometries is a great benet for this analysis. This is why we found that the mixture of both element types as in the quadrilateral dominated mesh or with wedges, that have quadrilateral and triangular faces, is the best approach for the geometry researched.

1.10 Discussion
Finding the solution for the axial stiness was pretty straight forward and we got good results pretty soon. To use the axisymmetric model was denitely the right approach. As we experienced with the radial model it is much more complicated to get a good mesh for a 3-D model. Nevertheless a possible next step to check the axial stiness would be to set up the 3-D model from the radial stiness to measure axial deection and compare the results to the axisymmetric model. This step would also improve our skills in 3-D modeling and meshing. Getting good results for the radial stiness of the diaphragm was more complicated. After changing a few things in our setup we got a nice convergence of the model. Furthermore we got pretty similar results for dierent element types. Hence the solutions look reasonable. However they still vary from the ANSYS solution. Our solution is about half of the value found with ANSYS. To make sure that all assumptions we did for our symmetric model are correct, a new whole model can be set up in a next step. However the computational time increases with that step, this is why we chose the symmetric model in the rst place. The simplied shell element model did not produce accurate results. Much more time would be needed to improve it in a way that it results in good solutions. It is disputable if it is protable to invest that time. If more similar parts have to be analyzed this can be a possible step to minimize the computational time. To improve the model with the more realistic clamping of the outer ring a lot of work is required as well. The model gets more complex by adding more non linearity. It is more dicult for the code to solve that problem. Therefore it is hard to get good results out of this model. Furthermore it is disputable if the results are more accurate. Especially since the introduction of the screw holes on the model raised the requirement of a very ne mesh. This

13

1 Project Report

will result in a very long computational time, and one can argue if this approach is needed on this kind of part.

1.11 Conclusions
This project was especially appealing to us, because of its two components: First the application of the FEA knowledge gained in class on a project together with industry, on parts that features a challenging geometry as well as possibilities to vary the boundary conditions and loads. Secondly the research component, in which we get to investigate the behavior of the FEA system, and to give a recommendation for future analyses on similar parts. We were able to set up models for the two dierent parts. Good results for the axisymmetric model to nd the axial stiness were achieved very early. The use of quadrilateral dominated meshes is the best solution for this task given the geometry of the cross-sectional area. On the 3-D model the meshing and the load application were varied to be able to nd the radial stiness of the part. Both meshing and load application turned out to be tricky. Hence it is a good idea to think about the problem and look for assumptions which can be used to simplify the problem. Because of the non axisymmetric force we needed a 3-D model to nd the radial stiness. For our parts the wedges were the best elements to set up a mesh for the 3-D model. Furthermore a visible check of the deformed model proved to be the main key in the process of eliminating errors in the analysis. Reducing element number by using shell elements for the membrane may require more time for the model setup. Adding more complex boundary conditions did not improve accuracy, only the possibility of errors.

1.12 References
Warren C. Young & Richard G. Budynas - Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain, 7th

Edition, McGrawHill Bryan J. Mac Donald - Practical Stress Analysis with Finite Elements, 1st Edition, Glasnevin Publishing Abaqus 6.7 Manual, DSS Simulia

1.13 Acknowledgment
We would like to thank Spinner Werkzeugmaschinen GmbH and especially Dipl. Ing. Ulrich Spinner for providing us with the project proposal and all the information needed. The advice of Prof. Peter Schuster was a great help for us. His ideas to work around many issues that came up during the analysis were really appreciated.

14

1 Project Report

1.14 Contact
Florian Rehsft, orian.rt@gmx.de Stefan Lente, stefan.lente@gmx.net

15

2 Convergence Plots
2.1 Axial Stiness

Figure 2.1: TD-001-008 (quad dom)

Setup

1 Figure 2.2: TD-052-010 (quad dom)

Setup

Figure 2.3: TD-001-008 (tri)

Setup

2 Figure 2.4: TD-052-010 (tri)

Setup

16

2 Convergence Plots

Figure 2.5: TD-001-008 (quad)

Setup

3 Figure 2.6: TD-052-010 (quad)

Setup

2.2 Radial Stiness

Figure 2.7: TD-001-008 (hex dom)

Setup

4 Figure 2.8: TD-052-010 (hex dom)

Setup

17

2 Convergence Plots

Figure 2.9: TD-001-008 (tet)

Setup

5 Figure 2.10: TD-052-010 Setup 5 (tet)

Figure 2.11: TD-001-008 Setup 6 Figure 2.12: TD-052-010 Setup 6 (hex) (hex)

Figure 2.13: TD-001-008 Setup 7 Figure 2.14: TD-052-010 Setup 7 (wedge) (wedge)

18

3 Hand Calculations
3.1 Axial Stiness
3.1.1 Approach

From geometry: Due to the fact, that the thickness in the middle of the diaphragm ring is substantially bigger than in the area of interest, the sti ring won't expand, if an axial load is applied. Thus, the ring can be modeled as a plate according to Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain, Chapter 11, Table 11.2, Case 17, and will be the area of load application. Where:

y=

W a [a2 r2 (1 + 2 ln )] 16 D r

(3.1)

Figure 3.1: Axial Deformation according to Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain
W: total applied load (force) t: plate thickness : Poisson's ratio E: Young's modulus of elasticity (force per unit area) a: plate radius r0 : start of distributed load D:
Et3 12(1 2 ) F u

Evaluating this formula at r0 and solving for

k= F W 16D = = 2 2 (1 2 ln a )] u y [a r0 r

gives us the stiness: (3.2)

3.1.2 Reference

N With: t = 1.6 103 m, = 0.3, E = 2.1 1011 m2 , a = 13.0 102 m, r0 = 8.0 102 m

k=

16[ 2.110 1.610 12(10.32 ) [(13.0 102 )2 (8.0

11

] 2 ln
13.0 8.0 )]

102 )2 (1

= 0.924 106

N m

19

3 Hand Calculations
3.1.3 Analysis

N With: t = 1.6 103 m, = 0.3, E = 2.1 1011 m2 , a = 9.9 102 m, r0 = 7.0 102 m

k=

16[ 2.110 1.610 12(10.32 ) [(9.9 102 )2 (7.0

11

] 2 ln
9.9 7.0 )]

102 )2 (1

= 2.632 106

N m

3.2 Radial Stiness

3.2.1 Approach

To be able to calculate the radial stiness by hand a few assumption are necessary. First of all just the very thin middle part of the whole diaphragm is considered. The inner and outer ring are so big that they can be seen as xed. In a second step the complicated radial load needs to be simplied. The vertical load (which comes from the shaft) is changed to a radial pressure. For the calculation of the radial stiness just a small segment of 10 degrees is regarded. Therefore the pressure is integrated over this angle section. The result is a represented force vector Fg . With these assumptions a model which looks like the problem 2 of the homework # 1 is created.

= F sin = 0 = F

(3.3) (3.4) (3.5)

check:
@ = 0, F @ = 90, F

Figure 3.2: assumed load distribution Determine c:

180

c
0 180

F d = F = c [F ( cos )]180 = c [(F )(1) (F )(1)] = 2 c F 0

(3.7) (3.8)

c
0

1 Therefore: 2 c F = F c = 2 . Plug this result and equation 3.3 into equation 3.6:

Fg =

1 2

F sin d
s

(3.9)

20

3 Hand Calculations

Fg = c
s

F d

(3.6)

Figure 3.3: segment of the diaphragm From HW # 1:

u=

Fg a a ln E t b r0

(3.10)

Considering the segment of a ring as a wedge of 10 gives us:

b = 2 a tan 5

(3.11)

Figure 3.4: wedge as used in HW # 1 Evaluating this formula with b and solving for
k= Fg E tb E t 2 a tan 5 = a = u a ln r0 a ln ra 0 2 E t tan 5 ln ra 0
F u

gives us the stiness: (3.12) (3.13)

k=

3.2.2 Reference

N With: t = 1.6 103 m, = 0.3, E = 2.1 1011 m2 , a = 13.0 102 m, r0 = 8.0 102 m

k=

2 2.1 1011 1.6 103 tan 5 N = 0.121 109 13.0 m ln 8.0

21

3 Hand Calculations
3.2.3 Analysis

N With: t = 1.6 103 m, E = 2.1 1011 m2 , a = 9.9 102 m, r0 = 7.0 102 m

k=

N 2 2.1 1011 1.6 103 tan 5 = 0.170 109 m ln 9.9 7.0

22