Sr. No Topic Page Number: MAE 577 CAD Applications Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)

MAE 577 CAD Applications
Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)
Contents
Sr. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Introduction Background
Topic
Page Number 2 2 4 11 15 17 24 30 32 33
Mathematical Modeling CAD Modeling Assembly FEM Analysis and Results Contact Stress Analysis Design Modifications Conclusions and Future Work References
Sr. No 1 2 Appendix A Appendix B
Appendix Mechanical Drawings Standard Wheel Reference Chart
Page Number 34 38
Stress Analysis of a Rail-Wheel Assembly
Introduction
The rail wheel assembly is an integral part of many systems that are intended to move in a guided path. For Eg. Trains, Cross-Trolleys for Overhead Cranes etc. The entire traveling mechanism depends upon the rail wheel assembly, without which the movement would have been very difficult. The design and analysis of the rail wheel assembly becomes a critical part, as its failure can result in a heavy damage. I intend to consider one such design for the rail wheel assembly and conduct a stress analysis on the different parts. I also intend to suggest some design modifications in the existing design and study the effects of this change on the original design. I am considering a standard design for a rail wheel assembly used in the cross trolleys of overhead traveling electrically operated cranes, capable of handling a load of 400lbs. Larger load carrying cranes have the rails and the wheel sizes proportional to the smaller ones.
Background
The rail wheel assembly has been used in practice for over years now. We see a lot of different types of wheels and rails used for specific purposes. There are different standard sizes and types of rails and wheels available according to the type of their use and the type of load applied to it. The very important criterion for considering the design is maximize the strength and minimize the weight of the assembly which can be accomplished by minimizing the material used, as it is directly proportional to the cost. There are two designs that are universally used in the industry. One consists of a shaft to which power is applied directly from the motor. The shaft is connected to the wheel with the help of a key, so that there is no relative motion between the shaft and the wheel. The shaft in turn is mounted in bearings between which it rotates. The second design consists of an axle on which bearings are mounted and on these bearings the wheel is mounted. Hence there is no rotation of the axle. The wheels rotate with respect to the axle. Usually the axle is used in places where the wheels are just meant to be dragged i.e. they are driven wheels. The shaft is used where the wheels are driving wheels and actual power is applied to those wheels. After an iterative approach and constant change in the design, wheels and rails have come to a standard design type. But is there any scope for the further improvement of this design? We know that we cannot drastically change this
design. However we can suggest some modifications that can prove cost effective without the loss of any functional requirements. These can include drilling holes in the wheel to reduce its weight or considering a design of the wheel with arms in it. However the point of interest would be carrying out a stress analysis on a couple of designs and then trying to compare with the original model.
Mathematical Modeling
This section defines how the different components were designed, and if not designed what kind of standard design was chosen. Let us consider different parts one by one. There are four major parts on which the stress analysis performed. 1. Rail 2. Wheel 3. Axle 4. Shaft
1. Rail :- The rails used for guided movement of the electrically operated overhead traveling (EOT) crane, are usually mounted on the gantry girders at different locations. Let us consider that these cross girders or the gantry girders are placed at a distance of four feet from each other. Hence we can consider a section of the rail between the two adjacent girders that acts as a simply supported beam with a load applied to it. I am considering the worst stressed case in which the load will be at the mid span. The total load carried by the rails will be equal to the sum of different loads like load lifted by the crane, weight of the wheels (2 on each rail), the cross trolley, weight of the motor and other small parts of the assembly. Usually the rails are designed for a load equal to 1.2 times the total load carrying capacity of the crane (20% overload). Hence in our case the worst load on the crane will be equal to
Load on Rail = Weight of two + weight of the Wheels = 2 x100 + 100 + 400 cross trolley
total load carried by the crane
= 700 lbs Considering 20% overload we have 700 x 1.2 = 840 lbs. This load will be at the centre of the span and applied across a line. i.e. a line load. This is because the contact between the wheel and the rail is a line contact and hence the load will be a line load. How the weight of the wheel was considered, is discussed in the following section.
2. Wheel :- The wheel is constantly in contact with the rail and the shaft or the axle try to compress it on the rail. Hence the rail will exert an reaction on the wheel. We apply a compressive load on the wheel from the bottom acting along the region of contact with the rail i.e. a line Load on the wheel = Total load carried by crane + weight of cross trolley = 400 + 100 = 500 lbs Considering 20% overload we get 500 x 1.2 = 600 lbs We need to calculate the weight of the wheel. We know the wheel geometry (described in the next section of the project). Mechanical drawings can be found in the Appendix A. Weight of the Wheel = Volume of the wheel x density of wheel. The wheel material considered is Steel. Steel is a standard material used for the wheels1. The cross section of the wheel is shown in figure 1.
6 3 2 5
Figure 1 : Wheel Section4
One-Half section of the wheel is shown with the axis of symmetry. The above section when rotated about 360o about the axis of rotation (shown in dash and dots) we get the actual wheel. We calculate the weight of the wheel as follows Volume of the wheel = Volume of the wheel + Volume of the hub the circular ring = x 72 x 4 + 2 x x 32 x 1 ( x 72 x 52 ) x 3 Volume of x 22 x 5
volume of the central hole
= 383.2743 Hence the weight of the wheel = Volume of the wheel x Density of Steel = 383.2743 x 0.282771 108 lbf (say 100)
3. Axle :- The load on the axle is the total load carried by the crane plus the weight of the wheel. And we also consider a safety factor of 1.2. Hence the total load becomes load on the crane + load weight of the wheel + weight of the cross trolley + weight of other parts. In this case we are considering the weight of the other parts, as we don t want our axle to fail. Considering this will give extra strength to the axle.
Load on the Axle
= 400 + 100 + 100 = 600 lbs
30% overload gives us total load
= 1.3 x 600 = 720 lbs
Note that here we are considering 30% overload instead of 20% overload as in other cases. The reason is that axle is a very critical part and the design should be proper. i.e. Considered for the worst case scenario so that we are sure that it wont fail. We need to design the axle, so that we know what the diameter of the axle is. For this we use the formula of a shaft subjected to bending (since there is no torsion on the axle)
d3
32 M b d3 32 M b
y
The axle is mounted in the boxes that actually support the axle. Hence the axle can be assumed as a simply supported beam loaded at the centre. We will assume the length of the axle as 10 between the supports. 845lbs
10
Figure 2 : Axle loading diagram
Let us calculate the axle diameter.
d3
32 M b
y
32 720 5 30000 1.4345 " 1.1278 "
We take the diameter of the axle as 2 for more safety.
4. Shaft :- The shaft is subjected to two kinds of loads 1. Bending 2. Torque The bending is due to the load carried by the crane and the weight of the wheel. The torque is due to the motor that provides motion. Hence we need to consider the shaft for both these conditions. It is obvious that the shaft has to be stronger than the axle and hence of larger diameter. The shaft that drives the wheels, is usually long and running across the two wheels, it drives. In our case the distance between the two rails is 48 . Thus we need our shaft to be greater than this length. We have to mount the wheels, place the bearings, and attach a coupling which provides the power to the shaft. Hence the total length of the shaft can be
calculated as 5 +48 +5 which gives us 58 . This is the total length of the shaft supported between the bearings. The length of the shaft beyond this does not interest us much for the FEM analysis, as it doesn t bear any load at all. The motor which we will be using for this purpose is a standard foot mounted motor1 of power 11KW, with 1400 RPM. Thus we need to calculate the load that will be on the shaft due to the torque of the motor. We know that
2 NT 60000
Where P is in KW, T is in N-m and N is in rpm. 11 1400 T 60000 11 60000 T 2 1400 75.030 N m 75.030 0.224809 39.37 664.0155 lbf in 2
The load carried by the shaft is equal to the total load carried by the crane, the wheels and the cross trolley. Thus the shaft will be loaded as follows 48 720lbf 720lbf
58
Figure 3 : Shaft loading and Torsion
Load at the two points will be = weight of wheel + weight of cross trolley + total load lifting capacity = 100 + 100 + 400 = 600 lbf We again consider the overload factor of 20%. Total load = 600 x 1.2 = 720 lbf
Hence we can design the shaft in torsion and bending as follows, We know that
M Z
We will calculate the moment M as follows M = 664.0155 + 720 x 5 + 720 x 53 = 42424.01 lbf-in M Z 30000 d3 32 42424.01 d3 32 42424.01 30000 14.40
2.43in
We take the diameter of the shaft as 4 . The reason for this is that there is going to be a fatigue failure of the shaft and we need to take that into account. Hence we would need a shaft of larger diameter.
Other components include modeling the ball bearing sub assembly, bearing covers, outer bush (between the bearing outer race and wheel hole), inner bush (between the axle and the inner race), centre bush (between the two bearings so that there is no relative movement between them) and the bolts (used to fix the bearing cover on the wheel). The outer bush is press fitted between the inner surface of the wheel hole and the bearing outer race. The dimensions of this are taken by adjudging the distance that s available. The inner bush is press fitted between the axle and the inner race of the bearings. The centre bush is just to keep the two bearings apart during the movement so that they don t move relatively with each other. Then the bearing covers are used that keep all these parts in place when the wheel is moving. The also hole the bearings tight against the centre bush while the movement. The bushed are made up of brass and so is the bearing cover. The bearings themselves consist of the steel outer and the inner race and steel balls. The
bearing dimensions can be seen in appendix A that has the various drawings. The bearing used is a standard1 SKF 6309 deep groove ball bearing.
The bearing covers have the outer diameter of 6 that exactly aligns with the hub diameter of the wheel. There are six holes in the bearing cover and the wheel hub so that the bearing cover can be fixed to the wheel on each side with six bolts. The bolts used for this purpose are standard1 M6 bolts with the threaded diameter of 0.25 inches and a total length of 0.5 . The bolt head is hexagonal head of side 0.25 .
The bearings subassembly, the bushes, the bearing cover and the bolts have been modeled for the sake of model completeness and hence I don t intend to do a stress analysis on them. The bushed are regularly replaced by new ones after they have worn out.
CAD Modeling
The detailed modeling procedure is described as follows along with the various dimensions. However the diagrams here are simplified for the sake representation. The detailed drawings can be found in the Appendix A for further reference.
1. Rail :- The modeling of the rail was a one step procedure. The cross section was drawn and protruded over the desired length. The standard cross section3 used for the rail is shown in figure 4.
Figure 4: Rail Section
The detailed dimensions for the rail can be seen in appendix A. The load on the rail was calculated as shown earlier. The constraints were applied to the bottom two edges that were at the points where the rail is mounted on the girders. Hence the crane can be considered as a simply supported beam with a load at the midspan. 840lbs
48
Figure 5 : Rail Loading Diagram
Following is a 3D model of the rail part
Figure 6 : Rail CAD Model
10
2. Wheel :- The wheel also was modeled in one step by revolving the cross section shown in Figure 6 about the centre axis over 360o. Then a central hole was drilled in the wheel so as to accommodate the shaft or axle and the bearings. Then the six small holes were drilled on the each side of the wheel hub so as to accommodate the bolts to hold the bearing cover. The 3D view is as follows
Figure 7 : Wheel CAD Model
To reduce the weight of the wheel I drilled some holes in the wheels. If the stress in the wheel is still in the safe limits we can say that we optimized our design by saving money, volume and decreasing the weight. The wheel with drilled holes in that, is shown below
Figure 8 : Wheel with Holes CAD Model
11
3. Axle :- Modeling of the axle was again a one step protrusion to get a cylinder of the desired diameter and length. The 3D view is as follows
Figure 9 : Axle
4. Shaft :- Modeling of the shaft was exactly similar to the axle except the diameter of the shaft is greater than the axle.
Figure 10 : Shaft
5. Bearings :- The bearings subassembly required 3 parts to be created. The outer race, the inner race and the balls. Each of which were modeled using a revolve feature of ProE. After these three parts were modeled, the assembly was created and one ball was inserted between the outer and the inner race. Then this part (ball) was patterned over the entire 360o. The figure 10 shows the components of the bearing
Figure 11 : (L-R) Outer Race, Inner Race, Balls, Bearing Subassembly
6. Bushes :- The bushes were modeled as one step protrusion . The three bushes are shown in figure 12.
Figure 12 : Bushes (L-R) Outer, Inner, Center
12
7. Bearing Cover :- The bearing cover was revolved through 360o then a central hole was drilled and then the small holes for the bolts were drilled.
Figure 13 : Bearing Cover CAD Model
8. Bolts :- The bolts were made by a simple procedure of extrusion of the threaded length. Then the hexagonal bolt head was extruded on the opposite side. A small hexagonal slot was made in it, which is use to tighten the bolts. Then the outer edges were chamfered. The threading was done by helical sweep and a cylinder was finally protruded to hide the abrupt ending of the threads. The 3D view is as follows
Figure 14 : Bolt CAD Model
13
Assembly
The assembly was accomplished by bringing in all the parts one by one and placing them in the desired place by a series of aligns, mates etc. The assembled view of the rail wheel sub assembly is as follows.
Figure 15 : Assembly
Since the inner components cannot be clearly seen in the assembly view, an exploded view was made so that all the components can clearly be seen in the exploded view. The exploded view was done by simply keeping some distance between each of the components and keeping the axes aligned with each other. The exploded view of the assembly showing all the components is in figure 16.
14
Figure 16 : Exploded View
15
FEM Analysis and Results

I intend to do the FEM analysis of the shaft, axle, wheel, rail, the wheel with the holes, the contact stress between the shaft and the rail and finally contact stress between shaft and the wheel. Following is the detailed discussion of how the FEM model was made and how the analysis was carried out along with the results that I got.
1. Rail :- As discussed earlier the rail is a case of a simply supported beam with central load. The total load on the rail is 840 lbs and it is acting along a line. i.e it s a line load. Now constraints were applied to the bottom edges and a load was given. Then a multi-pass adaptive iterative process was adopted for solving the equations. As it can be seen that the geometry of the rail is intricate. We can make a pre guess that the analysis will take longer to solve. This exact thing was reflected from the analysis. The meshing took very long and the total number of equations easily went up to 250000. Hence it took about 3 hours for the complete analysis to run.
In figure 17 shows the how the loading and constraints were applied to the rail in ProM. We can see the FEM stress and displacement results from ProMechanica in Figure 18.
Figure 17 : Rail ProMechanica model
16
Figure 18 : Rail displacement and stress windows from ProMechanica
It is intuitive that the maximum stress will be at the point where the rail is constrained. This stress will be tensile. We also know that there will be a compressive stress at the application of the load due to load concentration in that area. If we see the result windows carefully we see a blue portion at the centre of the rail, which is the compressive stress due to the application of load. The maximum tensile stress can be seen in figure 19 it occurs at the ends of the rail.
Figure 19 : Max Stress in Rail
The maximum stress obtained from ProMechanica is 1.538 x 104 psi. But the ultimate tensile stress of steel is 145000 psi that indicates that the rail is safe
17
under the applied load. The deflection of the centre is 5.1264 x 10-3 in, which is very small hence the rail will not deflect much. Hence we can say that the design is acceptable.
2. Wheel :- When the crane is loaded, the shaft or the axle try to press the wheel against the rail and hence there is a reaction exerted by the rail on the wheel. Because of the compressive force, the wheel is pressed against the rail. In this case we don t consider the self-weight of the wheel in designing. Hence the total compressive load on the wheel as calculated earlier would be 600lbs. We know that the centre of the wheel doesn t move except it rolls about one axis and translates about one axis. Hence a constraint was applied to the inside of the hole of the wheel. And the compressive load was applied from the bottom. This load was a line load similar to the one applied to the rail. The ProMechanica model with the loads and constraints is shown in figure 20.
Figure 20 : Wheel ProMechanica Model
It is evident that since the wheel is so robust there won t be any stress in the wheel except at the point of application of load. Also the displacement of the wheel is very small. The ProMechanica stress and displacement results are shown in figure 21.
18
Figure 21 : Wheel Stress and Displacement windows from ProMechanica
The max stress obtained in this case was 509.6 psi with a maximum deflection of 3.467 x 10-5 in. Again the wheel material is steel and steel has an allowable tensile stress of 145000 psi. Hence the wheel is safe under the applied load. But the weight of the wheel is very high. We intend to decrease the weight and hence need to suggest some modifications in the current design to suit our needs, which is discussed in detailed in the next section.
3. Shaft :- The shaft is a part which provides torque to the wheels. The length of the shaft is large, as it has to house both the wheels on it. Also it has to have a coupling at one end that will be joined to the shaft of the motor and will provide motion. Hence the shaft loading will be at two places. There will be two point loads acting at the place where the wheel is mounted and there will be a torque due to the motor. The loading diagram is shown in figure 3. After a lot of exploration in ProMechanica with various permutations and combinations I realized that the analysis of the solid model of the shaft could not be made with the torque on it. Hence I decided to adopt a simple strategy and I decided to do a beam model of the shaft. This can also help to explore the beam analysis of ProMechanica which otherwise would not have had been possible in this project.
A simple beam model of the shaft was developed by specifying various points and then applied different loads to these points. Idealizations were set to make the
19
beam model of the shaft and the desired cross section and steel was selected as the material. The torque applied to it was split into two as described earlier and two point loads were applied at a point where the wheels are mounted on the shaft. The FEM results are shown in figure 22 and 23.
Figure 22 : Beam Displacement and Stress results from ProMechanica
Figure 23 : Shaft Rotation results from ProMechanica
The max stress obtained from ProM is about 500 psi and the deflection is 2.05 x 10-4. We will now calculate the deflection of the shaft by hand and compare that with the results of ProMechanica. In the following formula, L is the length of shaft, a is the distance of load from one end, P is applied load, E is Young s modulus and I is the moment of inertia of the cross section
20
y max
Pa [3L2 4a 2 ] 24EI 720x5 [3x 58 2 4 24x30000000x 64 x 4 3.3130x10 4 in
4x5 2 ]
Here again we see some difference in the results obtained from hand calculations and the results obtained from ProMechanica (2 x 10-4 in) this is because a beam model of the shaft was made to analyze it. There were some assumptions made during the beam model that gives the difference in the results. But a difference of the order of 10-4 is tolerable.
4. Axle :- The axle bears only a point load and is smaller than the shaft in both the diameter and length. Since there is no torque on the axle we can easily do the analysis on the solid model of the shaft in ProMechanica. The loading is diagram is shown in the figure 2. The ProMechanica model with the loads and constraints is shown in figure 24.
Figure 24 : Axle ProMechanica Model
Following are the result windows from ProMechanica showing the stresses and displacements.
Figure 25 : Axle Stress and Displacement results from ProMechanica
21
The max stress in the axle is 1.054 x 104 psi that is below our allowable limits of 145000 psi; hence the axle is safe in bending. We will compare the displacement results with our hand calculations. The maximum deflection of a simply supported beam is given by
y max PL3 48EI 720 10 3 48 30000000 5.3051 10 4 in 24
64
We got 4.4642 x 10-4 in ProMechanica. Thus our results are comparable. The difference can be due to the approximation of the model in ProMechanica. However the difference is of the order 10-4 hence its acceptable
22
Contact Stress Analysis

When two bodies having curved or surfaces are pressed together, point or line contact changes to area contact, and the stresses developed in the two bodies are threedimensional. Contact stress problems arise in the contact or rail and a wheel, wheel and a shaft etc. Typical failures are seen as cracks, pits or flaking in the surface material. In this project I have two main surfaces where the contact stresses would be critical. First is between the rail and the wheel and the second is the shaft and the wheel. Let us see this one by one. All the formulas used for contact stress analysis, have been taken from the book, Mechanical Engineering Design by Joseph Shigley and Charles Mischke. 1. Contact stresses between rail and the wheel :- The rail and the wheel have a line contact at the bottom where the wheel touches the rail. We intend to see that whether there is any contact stress and contact pressure developed at this contact place. We use ProMechanica s contact stress analysis to check this. For this purpose we need the view in assembly. Since other components like the bearings, bearing cover etc. are not required and moreover they make our analysis more complicated and time consuming we remove them from our analysis. Hence we consider only the rail and the wheel. Since our rail and wheel assembly is symmetric about the YZ plane and the XY plane we make a cut in the assembly about these symmetric planes in order to reduce the computation. Then we place constraints on the symmetric planes and restrict them from moving in an axis perpendicular to that plane. We constrain the bottom surface of the rail completely so that it doesn t move. Then we apply loads on the wheel edge that is left out after cutting the assembly into 4 parts. Then we establish contacts between the wheel and rail. After that we try to make a quick check. Initially ProMechanica gave a system error because of the file/directory permissions. The file/directory permissions were changed after talking to the systems administrator. Then the analysis was rerun with the hope that this would solve the problem. After the quick check it was observed that ProMechanica gave another error saying Internal Engine Error has occurred contact customer support and hence the contact analysis could not be complete. Then I tried to analyze entire model instead of cutting it into one fourths, but did not get any success. A lot of tries
23
were made to solve this problem but all went in vain. Then later on I decided to try and simplify the model a bit and hence a simple wheel was modeled. The width of the wheel was equal to the length of the contact surface (line in this case). The diameters were kept same. Then the analysis was re run on this simplified model. Again it gave the same error. Then I also tried and simplified the rail into just a parallel-piped with the width equal to the width of the contacting surface. Now the entire model looked as shown in figure 26.
Figure 26 : Simplified rail and wheel for contact analysis
The applied loads and constraints can be seen in figure 27
Figure 27 : ProMechanica Model Showing Loads and Constraints
Then the analysis was rerun and this time I was successful. ProMechanica did the analysis properly and the results for contact stresses were obtained, which can be seen in figure 28. The initial analysis was carried out with a quick check and a single load interval. The detailed analysis consisted of a multi-pass adaptive method with 5 equally spaced load intervals.
24
Figure 28 : Contact Stress and Contact Pressure results from ProMechanica
It s evident from the figure 28 that the contact pressure is zero. Why did this happen? The contact surface in this case is a line and hence the area is zero. Thus there doesn t exist any contact pressure at that surface. But it can be seen that contact stresses are developed (seen in colors in the figure 28). The red contours signify that the stress there is larger than the contact stress. The reason is that that is the point of application of load and hence there will be mode stress in that region. We will calculate our results by hand calculations and compare them with the results obtained. The formula for half width is given by
b 2F (1
2 2 )1 / E 1 (1 )2 / E2 1 / d1 1 / d 2
where , F is the load on the wheel length of the surface in contact, 1.73" in this case is the poissons ration of the two materials (both steel in this case) - 0.27 E Young' s Modulus, 30000000 psi d1 d2 diameter of the inner cylinder (shaft in this case) 4" diameter of the outer cylinder (wheel in this case) 12"
25
2 600 2(1 0.27 2 ) / 30000000 x1.73 1 / 12 0.01279
Total contact pressure is given by
2F b 2 600 9.0486 10 3 1.73 24400.789psi
Again in this case we are considering half width hence the contact pressure will be 8626.89psi. But we got zero from ProM. This is because ProM could not calculate the area of contact since the contact being a line and hence shows the pressure to be zero. This is a certain disadvantage. i.e For an external contact (where the contact region is a point of a line) we can get deceiving results.
2. Contact Stress between wheel and the shaft :- The shaft is placed inside the wheel and hence there is a reasonable contact surface to do a analysis on that. After the first analysis I decided that I will use the simplified model of the wheel here. The analysis was done in the exact similar manner as explained before. The simplified model can be seen in the figure 29.
Figure 29 : Simplified model of rail and shaft
26
The constraints we applied as similar to before i.e. on the symmetric planes and also the edge of the wheel which rests on the rail. Loads were applied on the edge of the shaft. The ProMechanica model can be seen in figure 30.
Figure 30 : Wheel shaft Contact model showing loads and constraints.
The analysis was carried out in a similar method by multi-pass adaptive process having five different load intervals. The ProMechanica analysis results can be seen in figure 31.
Figure 31 : Contact Stresses and pressure from ProMechanica Analysis
We see that in this case there was a contact pressure developed since there was a considerable contact area. The contact pressure was found to be 1.246 x 103 psi. We will now calculate the Hertzian stresses by hand calculations and try to compare the results with the results that were obtained from ProMechanica. First we need to calculate the half width of the contact surfaces and then the contact pressure that can be calculated as follows. We are making the calculations for the
27
entire wheel and hence we need to half if in order to compare with out results from ProMechanica since in ProM we have half the width of the wheel.
2F (1
)1 / E 1 (1 2 ) 2 / E 2 1 / d1 1 / d 2
where, F is the load on the wheel length of the surface in contact, 1.73" in this case is the poissons ration of the two materials (both steel in this case) - 0.27 E Young' s Modulus, 30000000 psi d 1 diameter of the inner cylinder (shaft in this case) 4" d2 diameter of the outer cylinder (wheel in this case) 12"
2 600 2(1 0.27 2 ) / 30000000 x1.73 1 / 8 1 / 12 9.0486 10 3 Total contact pressure is given by b
P 2F b 2 600 9.0486 10 3 1.73 24400.789psi
We are only considering half the wheel width so our contact pressure will be 12200.39 psi. Hence these results are comparable to our simplified model in ProM. The small variations can be due to the fact that the model was greatly simplified.
28
Design Modifications
Is there really a need to modify the existing design? All the parts are in safe limits of stress, then why should we modify the design. If we see the weight of each rail is close to 110lbs. There are in all four wheels in our assembly so the total weight due to wheels is 440 lbs, which is very high. We need to reduce the weight of the wheels as much as possible. What can we do? We can drill holes in the wheel; we can put arms in the wheel etc. What are the drawbacks of this? Arm design can prove defective, as the compression of the arms has to be considered. And what if you already have a design and you cannot afford the cost of redesigning? The simplest way to over come is drill holes in the wheel. But how many? where? And what diameter? These are the questions that arise in mind when we think of this.
I decided that 6 holes of 2 diameter should be drilled in the wheel. The new wheel model looked as shown in figure 32.
Figure 32 : Wheel with Holes ProMechanica Model
The so-called
new wheel was analyzed in ProMechanica with the exact loading
conditions and same constraints on it. Figure 33 shows the results obtained after the stress analysis.
29
Figure 33 : New wheel Stress and Displacement results as obtained from ProMechanica
The displacement of the new wheel was doubled but is of the order 10-5. The stress was increased thrice but it was of the order 103. Hence the new design was acceptable. The reduction in the weight due to the holes can be calculated as follows.
Weight of new wheel Weight of old wheel weight of holes 108 r 2 depth of holes n x density of steel 108 - 3.14159 12 5 6 0.282771 81.3494lbs
Thus a total reduction of about 27lbs (approx) was obtained per wheel. This results in about total reduction of approximately 110lbs in the total weight of the crane. It s a considerable weight reduction in the design and moreover the design is extremely safe under the applied load. Hence we can say that the new design can work efficiently.
30
Conclusions and Future work

It is evident that all the components designed are in the safe stress limits. Also the total load of the crane was reduced by about 110 lbs. And there is a further chance of reduction by analyzing other components in detail. The contact pressure, calculated by ProMechanica, was accurate in case of internal contact and we saw that it matched the hand calculations. However in case of external contact ProMechanica failed. This is because ProMechanica will analyze the pressure at the contact at that particular instance. However there exist no contact area in that region at that moment. The contact is just a line and hence the area is zero. However the contact is developed when the wheel compresses against the rail due to the application of the load. i.e. the line contact no longer remains a line contact but becomes an area contact and hence there exists a contact pressure in that region which was calculated from the Hertzian formula. ProMechanica failed to take this change into account and calculated the pressure considering just the line contact.
All other designs calculated by hand i.e. shaft, axle were safe for the applied load. Hence the overall design can be assumed to be a successful design.
In the future I intend to do a more comprehensive stress analysis in which I wish to analyze the flange of the wheel that can tear apart due to pressing against the rail. I also wish to analyze effects of drilling holes in the central web of the rail, which can further prove to be weight efficient. Thirdly I plan to analyze the bearings for contact stresses and whether they can sustain the load applied to them. The case of more interest would be analyzing the shaft for fatigue failure. Here we see that the more we analyze its going to be less. We can also carryout a sensitivity analysis so as to decide the diameters of the holes that were drilled in the wheel and their exact position so that they serve two purposes first of reducing the weight and second of reducing the stress. And lastly the effect of different rail sections can be considered and the stress in them can be found out for comparison.
31
References 1. PSG Design Data Book, PSG College of Engineering, Coimbatore, India. 2. Mechanical Engineering Design, Joseph Shigley & Charles Mischke. 3. http://www.akrailroad.com/rail_cross_sec.html 4. http://www.irwincar.com/crnwhl-refchart.html
32
Appendix A
1. Rail
Mechanical Drawings
2. Wheel
33
3. Wheel With Holes
4. Shaft used for contact analysis
34
5. Axle
6. Bearing
35
7. Inner Bush
8. Center Bush
36
9. Outer Bush
10. Bearing Cover
37
Appendix B
Standard Wheel Charts
Standard Crane Wheel Cross Reference Chart

Standard Wheel Section Number WCL-121 WCL-122 WCL-123 WCL-151 WCL-152 WCL-153 WC-151 WCL-181 WCL-182 WC-181 WC-182 WCL-211 WC-211 WC-212 WC-213 WCL-241 WC-241 WC-242 WC-243 WC-244 WC-271 WC-272 WC-273 WC-274 WC-301 WC-302 WC-303 WC-361 WC-362 WC-363 Irwin Car Wheel Interchange Number ICEW-121 ICEW-122 ICEW-123 ICEW-151 ICEW-152 ICEW-153 ICECW-151 ICEW-181 ICEW-182 ICECW-181 ICECW-182 ICEW-211 ICECW-211 ICECW-212 ICECW-213 ICEW-241 ICECW-241 ICECW-242 ICECW-243 ICECW-244 ICECW-271 ICECW-272 ICECW-273 ICECW-274 ICECW-301 ICECW-302 ICECW-303 ICECW-361 ICECW-362 ICECW-363 Wheel or Tread Dia. 12" 12" 12" 15" 15" 15" 15" 18" 18" 18" 18" 21" 21" 21" 21" 24" 24" 24" 24" 24" 27" 27" 27" 27" 30" 30" 30" 36" 36" 36" Flange Dia. Rim Width Wheel (lbs) 4" 4-1/2" 5" 4" 4-1/2" 5" 5-1/2" 4-1/2" 5" 5-1/2" 6-1/2" 5" 5-1/2" 6-1/2" 7-1/2" 5" 5-1/2" 6-1/2" 7-1/2" 8" 5-1/2" 6-1/2" 7-1/2" 8" 6-1/2" 7-1/2" 8" 6-1/2" 7-1/2" 8" Tread Width Hub Length Hub Diameter Nominal Weight of Finished 130 150 175 205 230 250 285 310 345 385 460 440 455 560 665 560 575 705 845 1020 695 860 1020 1155 1005 1200 1345 1470 1685 1910
14" 14" 14" 17" 17" 17" 17" 20" 20" 20" 20" 23" 23" 23" 23" 26" 26" 26" 26" 26" 29" 29" 29" 29" 32" 32" 32" 38" 38" 38"
2-1/4" 2-1/2" 3" 2-1/4" 2-1/2" 3" 3-1/4" 2-1/2" 3" 3-1/4" 4" 3" 3-1/4" 4" 4-7/8" 3" 3-1/4" 4" 4-7/8" 5-1/2" 3-1/4" 4" 4-7/8" 5-1/2" 4" 4-7/8" 5-1/2" 4" 4-7/8" 5-1/2"
5" 5-1/2" 6" 5" 5-1/2" 6" 6" 5-1/2" 6" 6" 7" 6" 6" 7" 8" 6" 6" 7" 8" 8-1/2" 6" 7" 8" 8-1/2 7" 8" 8-1/2" 7" 8" 8-1/2"
6" 6" 7" 8" 8" 8" 9-1/2" 9" 9" 10-1/2" 10-1/2" 10" 11" 11" 12" 10" 11-1/2" 11-1/2" 13-1/2" 15" 11-1/2" 13-1/2" 13-1/2" 15" 13-1/2" 13-1/2" 15" 13-1/2" 13-1/2" 15"
38

Sr. No Topic Page Number: MAE 577 CAD Applications Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Sr. No Topic Page Number: MAE 577 CAD Applications Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

MAE 577 CAD Applications

Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)

Sr. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Introduction Background

Sr. No 1 2 Appendix A Appendix B

Appendix Mechanical Drawings Standard Wheel Reference Chart

Stress Analysis of a Rail-Wheel Assembly

MAE 577 CAD Applications

Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)

Stress Analysis of a Rail-Wheel Assembly

MAE 577 CAD Applications

Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)

total load carried by the crane

Stress Analysis of a Rail-Wheel Assembly

MAE 577 CAD Applications

Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)

Stress Analysis of a Rail-Wheel Assembly

MAE 577 CAD Applications

Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)

volume of the central hole

Load on the Axle

= 400 + 100 + 100 = 600 lbs

30% overload gives us total load

= 1.3 x 600 = 720 lbs

Stress Analysis of a Rail-Wheel Assembly

MAE 577 CAD Applications

Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)

Let us calculate the axle diameter.

32 720 5 30000 1.4345 " 1.1278 "

We take the diameter of the axle as 2 for more safety.

Stress Analysis of a Rail-Wheel Assembly

MAE 577 CAD Applications

Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)

Stress Analysis of a Rail-Wheel Assembly

MAE 577 CAD Applications

Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)

Stress Analysis of a Rail-Wheel Assembly

MAE 577 CAD Applications

Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)

Stress Analysis of a Rail-Wheel Assembly

MAE 577 CAD Applications

Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)

Figure 4: Rail Section

Following is a 3D model of the rail part

Figure 6 : Rail CAD Model

Stress Analysis of a Rail-Wheel Assembly

MAE 577 CAD Applications

Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)

Figure 7 : Wheel CAD Model

Figure 8 : Wheel with Holes CAD Model

Stress Analysis of a Rail-Wheel Assembly

MAE 577 CAD Applications

Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)

Figure 11 : (L-R) Outer Race, Inner Race, Balls, Bearing Subassembly

Figure 12 : Bushes (L-R) Outer, Inner, Center

Stress Analysis of a Rail-Wheel Assembly

MAE 577 CAD Applications

Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)

Figure 13 : Bearing Cover CAD Model

Figure 14 : Bolt CAD Model

Stress Analysis of a Rail-Wheel Assembly

MAE 577 CAD Applications

Adwait Joshi (2954-1696)