Camshaft Design

Force needed to turn camshaft

sprocket

Project Report
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 5

2. Task Solutions..................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Task 1: “Establish Customer Requirements” – Criteria 1.1 .......................... 6

2.1.1 Aesthetics................................................................................................... 6

2.1.2 Function ..................................................................................................... 6

2.1.3 Performance............................................................................................... 6

2.1.4 Sustainability .............................................................................................. 6

2.1.5 Cost ............................................................................................................ 6

2.1.6 Timing ........................................................................................................ 6

2.1.7 Product Parameters ................................................................................... 6

2.1.8 Relevant Regulations ................................................................................. 7

2.1.9 Standards and Guidelines .......................................................................... 7

2.2 Task 2: “Present the major design parameters” – Criteria 1.2 ...................... 8

2.2.1 Areas of Weakness ................................................................................ 8

2.2.2 Reasons of Failure ................................................................................. 8

2.2.3 Suitable Materials ................................................................................... 9

2.2.4 Manufacturing Processes ..................................................................... 10

2.2.5 Environmental Factors .......................................................................... 12

2.3 Task 3: “Obtain design information from appropriate sources and prepare a
design specification” – Criteria 1.3 ....................................................................... 13

2.3.1 Performance ......................................................................................... 13

2.3.2 Environment ......................................................................................... 13

2.3.3 Maintainability ....................................................................................... 13

2.3.4 Life in Service ....................................................................................... 13

2.3.5 Weight .................................................................................................. 13

2.3.6 Materials ............................................................................................... 13

 2.3.7 Quality .................................................................................................. 14

2.3.8 Appearance .......................................................................................... 14

2.3.9 Time Scales .......................................................................................... 14

2.3.10 Testing .............................................................................................. 14

Design Brief ...................................................................................................... 15

2.4 Task 4: “Produce and present three concept drawings from your findings” –
Criteria 1.2 ........................................................................................................... 15

Concept Design 1.............................................................................................. 15

Concept Design 2.............................................................................................. 15

Concept Design 3.............................................................................................. 15

Mindmap ........................................................................................................... 15

2.5 Task 5: Producing 3D CAD models to develop concept designs into more
feasible designs, identifying the key features used to create them, testing them
using appropriate FEA (simulation) software and analyse the results – Criterion
2.2, 3.1, 3.2, M2 and D3 ....................................................................................... 21

2.6 Task 6: Update mindmap to include alternative design solutions created

during concept design – Criterion 2.1 .................................................................. 27

2.7 Task 7: “Evaluate a CAD package that may assist in the design process.” -
Criterion 3.3 ......................................................................................................... 29

2.8 Task 8: “Produce a compliance check [ensuring] that the weighting factor for
each grading criteria is fully justified. Select the optimum design solution ensuring
that weight, and stress distribution (FEA results) is included as deciding factors.” –
Criterion 2.4 and 2.3 ............................................................................................ 30

2.9 Task 9: “Justify the magnitude of the load applied, imagines and diagrams
are included.” – Criterion M2 ............................................................................... 32

2.9 Task 10: “Present your findings regarding the fatigue life of the pulley and
how it is affected. Your presentation should last approximately 10 minutes, be of a
professional quality with minimal use of prompts.” – Criterion M3 ....................... 33

2.10 Task 11: “Critically evaluate the use of simulation software in the design
process. Your evaluation should include a comparison to other methods as well as
 advantages and limitations. Review your simulation findings and comment on the
validity of results.” – Criterion D1 ......................................................................... 33

2.11 Task 12: “Produce a time management plan in a form of Log book and
Gantt chart showing all the activities you have undertaken and the time taken for
each activity.” – Criterion D2................................................................................ 34

2.12 Task 13: “Use simulation software to justify your design solution. Clearly
show where the pulley has been restrained and the load applied. Compare the
location of the highest stress with that of the original pulley design in terms of
location and magnitude.” – Criterion D3 .............................................................. 34

3. Gantt Chart ....................................................................................................... 35

4. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 35

5. Appendices ....................................................................................................... 35

6. Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 36
 1. Introduction

In this project I aim to prove I can follow the design process from defining
customer requirements through to the final design and report.

I will do this by:

 Preparing a design specification against customer requirements

 Prepare a design report that provides an analysis of possible design
solutions, an evaluation of costs and an indication of how the
proposed design meets the customer’s specification
 Using appropriate IT technology including CAD and simulation
software.

This will all help me appreciate that design involves synthesising parameters
that will affect design solutions, analyse and evaluate possible design solutions, and
understand how computer-based technology is used in the engineering design
process.

In tasks 1 to 4 (items 2.1 – 2.4) I aim to satisfy Learning Outcome 1:

“Be able to prepare a design specification to meet customer requirements.”

In tasks 5 – 9 (items 2.5 – 2.9) I aim to satisfy Learning Outcome 2:

“Be able to analyse and evaluate possible design solutions and prepare a final
report.”

In tasks 10 – 12 (items 2.10 – 2.12) I aim to satisfy Learning Outcome 3:

“Understand how computer-based technology is used in the engineering

design process.”

In my report I have laid my tasks out differently from how it’s shown in the
assignment sheet, grouping together tasks that are related to create a more
structured report showing the different stages I went through in the design process
and not the different assignment tasks. I have included (next to the task number and
aim) the criterion numbers of the assignment tasks which I am answering in each
report task.
 2. Task Solutions

2.1 Task 1: “Establish Customer Requirements” – Criteria 1.1

2.1.1 Aesthetics

 It must look aesthetically pleasing without sacrificing functionality in any

way
 It must clearly show, by markings, the range of settings for tuning

2.1.2 Function

 The product must match the same gear specification (gear ratio etc) as
per the original design
 It must be lightweight but strong
 It must allow a fair amount of adjustability, and this should be able to be
done easily and quickly.

2.1.3 Performance

 The product must be able to at least match up to the performance of

the current design, however still overcome the issue that caused the
function-fatal fracture in the part.

2.1.4 Sustainability

 Produce products and use manufacturing processes which require less

energy, and are energy-efficient.

2.1.5 Cost

 The final price of the product should not exceed the budget of £200.00.

2.1.6 Timing

 By the end of June 2014, the product should be designed and already
in manufacture.

2.1.7 Product Parameters

 It should fit the current mounting arrangement as described in the

relevant technical documentation.
 2.1.8 Relevant Regulations

 The design should comply with End-Of-life Vehicles Regulations 2003:

Part III (Prohibition of Heavy Metals):

“This part of the legislation requires that the producers shall ensure that
materials and components of vehicles which they put on the market on or after
3rd November 2003 do not contain lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent
chromium, unless used for certain applications and within the concentrations
set down in Schedule 1 of the Regulations.”

 It should also pass the approval of the VCA’s System and Component
Type Approval.

 The manufacture should comply with all 6 legislation of the ‘Engineering Six-
Pack’ under Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974: Commented [DA1]: Talk about the engineering six-pack
legislation COSHH, PUWER etc that all engineering
o Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 manufacturing company’s should comply with.

o Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

o Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
o Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
o Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992
o Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992

2.1.9 Standards and Guidelines Commented [DA2]: Research HSE guidelines that might
apply and any engineering standards that should be complied
with during the whole design/manufacture and product life-
BS 8888:2011 and associated drawing standards cycle process.
2.2 Task 2: “Present the major design parameters” – Criteria 1.2

2.2.1 Areas of Weakness Commented [DA3]: Expand on other areas of weekness.

The biggest area of weakness is the thin wall that supports the gear teeth and
this seems to be where the crack has propagated from (see Figure 2.2.2 1).

There seems to be no other areas of current weakness or possible areas of

weakness.

2.2.2 Reasons of Failure

After close inspection the ultimate reason for failure was the cracking of the
camshaft gear at its thinnest wall thickness:

Crack Propagation

End of crack

Figure 2.2.2 1

Improper Fitting
One theory for why this component failed is that it was fitted
incorrectly – the pulley was fitted non-concentric to the camshaft so its
axis of rotation is off. This would result in the part incorrectly moving in
side to side motion relative to the belt, causing more wear at some
points than others.

This would, in turn, create more stress at these points making

more stress than the component was designed to handle.
 Fatigue
Another theory is that the component failed due to general
fatigue during its life span. It could be that the component was never
designed to last as long as it did and inevitably failed. Cracking was the
most likely way that component would have failed.

Stress Concentration
Stress concentration is the likely cause of this crack, and this
could be for several reasons:

 Substandard manufacturing methods: the component was

manufactured in such a way that it allowed for
contaminants and areas of weakness. This could have
made an area(s) of weakness and allowed for stress
concentration

 Poor design: the design could have allowed for stress

concentration, this could be areas of thin walls for
example. This could have been overcome by testing using
virtual stress calculators and computer simulations to
highlight these problems.

Crack Propagation
Either of the previous 3 or a combination of more than one could
have resulted in the crack propagation. I will have to consider all of
these things when deciding on manufacturing methods and designs.

2.2.3 Suitable Materials

What it is now: Aluminium Alloy T6

The material is going to be the same. Other materials may be used also as
well as the Aluminium Alloy T6.

Reasons for this are:

 this aluminium alloy is very light

  it is relatively cheap compared to other materials that have to same
properties and is widely available
 it is fairly easy to machine, however not as easy as some steels
 although it is a soft material in general, T6 is hard enough for this
application and is more than capable of taking the general stress
and strains this product will undergo.

Other materials I could have chosen could be:

 Mild/Low Carbon Steel – this is a strong material and could easily

cope with the constraints put on this product such as heat and wear.
It is however quite a bit heavier than aluminium alloys and is more
expensive, but easier to machine.
 High Carbon Steel – this has the properties as MCS however it is
quite a bit stronger and heavier which can cause a problem when
there is weight constraints. Price is also an issue and although it
isn’t too expensive, it will however affect the manufacturing costs by
a fair amount.

2.2.4 Manufacturing Processes

There are 3 main suitable manufacturing processes for producing a

product such as this:

Die Casting

The advantages of using die casting are that it has high

dimensional consistency and accuracy of 0.1 mm for the first 2.5 cm
and 0.02 mm for each additional 10mm. Also, there is very low material
wastage.

For aluminium, cold chamber casting would have to be used

because of it low melting point, this is because the molten aluminium
would pick up iron in the chamber and produce impurities in the final
product.

The main disadvantage of die casting is its expensive

overheads. It is ideal for mass production of small parts such as pulleys
but initial costs such as tooling put the manufacturing process as a
disadvantage straight away compared to other methods.

Forging

Forging is a possibility; however it isn’t ideal at all. For this type

of component it isn’t the most suitable process but it does have its
advantages. It wouldn’t be ideal for aluminium but it would be for steel.

It does produce very strong parts; this is due the grains being
deformed during the forging process which causes the grains to follow
the general shape of the part.

Similarly to die casting, there are significant overheads and can

be quite expensive. Die casting is a more preferred method however
this is an option.

CNC Machining

The advantages of CNC are:

 high accuracy and tolerances

 it can be a 24/7 operation

 high consistency due to being computer controlled

 less chance of human error

 availability of trial runs using virtual software

 faster lead time

The main disadvantages are:

 Costs are slightly higher than conventional manufacturing

methods

 Considerably higher waste of material – contributes to

higher costs
CNC machining looks like it’s the most promising method of
manufacture as it has more advantages than the other processes.
2.2.5 Environmental Factors

Sustainability

I should consider sustainability when researching and design for

this component. When considering manufacturing processes, CNC
comes out on top of the other two processes because it has a relatively
low carbon footprint, smaller than that of the other two processes
because they are more conventional heavy duty dirtier manufacturing
methods that produce more pollution to the environment when being
used.

In terms of design, I should consider my choice of materials,

because these affect the processes which then in turn affect the
environment.

Recyclability

Again, with my choice of materials recyclability is a big factor.

Materials such as aluminium are very easily recycled and can be
melted down and used again for other uses.

Other materials however are not so easily recyclable such as

steel and composites such as GRP.

Energy Usage

Energy usage takes an important role in the carbon footprint of

processes, and should be taken into account when choosing the
manufacturing methods.
2.3 Task 3: “Obtain design information from appropriate sources and prepare a
design specification” – Criteria 1.3

2.3.1 Performance

The performance of this part must exceed that of the previous design.

It should have all features of the previous design such as the ability to be
tuned as well removing the areas of weakness that were present in the
previous part.

It must be able to operate normally where it’s operating temperatures

range from 0 to 200°C.

2.3.2 Environment

This products impact on the environment must be minimal.

All processes chosen should be justified for their impact on the

environment.

The part must also be recyclable when it reaches its end-of-life.

2.3.3 Maintainability

The product must be able to be cleaned with normal cleaning fluids.

It must be easily removed by the end user, with no experience or special

tooling needed.

2.3.4 Life in Service

The products life span in service must be at least 5 years.

2.3.5 Weight

The products overall weight, including fixings must not exceed 182g.

2.3.6 Materials

The product must be manufactured solely from T6 aluminium.

 All material must be free from defects before machining.

2.3.7 Quality

The final product must comply with the tolerances on the production
drawings, and where no tolerance is shown it must comply with an
acceptable machining tolerance.

All general dimensions must have a standard tolerance of ±1mm.

The product must be checked at all stages of manufacture after each

manufacturing process.

2.3.8 Appearance

The product must have a look of professionalism and reliability.

It must be clearly marked with the customer’s name and logo as agreed by
the customer.

2.3.9 Time Scales

The final product must be ready by June 2014.

2.3.10 Testing

The product should be tested for one whole life-cycle (5 years).

It should be representative of the conditions which it will operate.

 Design Brief

“A failed timing belt pulley from a Renault Clio Williams 2.0 litres 16v has been
returned to the company for investigation. You have been tasked with investigating
possible causes of failure. Your findings will assist in the re-design of the pulley with
the aim of increasing product service life, without changing the current mounting
arrangement and the overall weight of the pulley.”

2.4 Task 4: “Produce and present three concept drawings from your findings” –
Criteria 1.2

Concept Design 1

In this concept, to improve the area of weakness I decided it’d be a good idea
to include a fillet near the area of the crack propagation. This is a simple and small fix
that could easily solve the problem, without adding much cost to the production. A
simple change like this wouldn’t impact on the cost of the component in any way.

Concept Design 2

This design is based on adding small ‘webbing’ features that add support
between the two walls. These would be placed near the areas of weakness as
described earlier in this report. This wouldn’t add much cost to the production if die
casting was chosen, however it might add some cost if CNC or forging were to be
chosen. The webbing would be part of the same piece of material to increase the
strength.

Concept Design 3

This concept is the simplest one and could prove the most effective solution.
The main idea is to increase the wall thickness all around the gear especially where
the fatal crack was. The aim is to decrease the area of weakness, however this
would result in more weight which could void the design against the specification.

Mindmap

In my mind map I looked at 4 main areas: Materials, Manufacturing Methods,

Design and Fasteners.
 For materials I looked at Aluminium and noted that it was light, easily
machinable and cheap. I also looked at two types of steel – HCS and MCS. I noted
that both of these are fairly heavy and probably too heavy for this application;
however they are both very strong. I looked at acrylic which is also cheap, easily
machinable, could be injection moulded, but I also noted that it is quite brittle and
weak. I also considered Carbon Fibre, which I thought would be the ideal material for
the job, however although it is light and strong, it is also very expensive to buy and
manufacture. Finally I looked at Nylon, which could also be injection moulded and is
very cheap but was also very weak.

The 4 manufacturing methods I looked at, 3 of which were from my research,

were: CNC, Forging, Die Casting and Injection Moulding. As you can see I
highlighted the advantages and disadvantages of each as I described previously in
this report, but highlighted other aspects such as whether they were geared towards
batch or mass or one of amounts.

In the design section, I looked at the 3 main features of the gear:

 its ability to be adjusted/tuned

 the cut-outs (areas of no material)
 the spokes (the 3 branches that support the pulley).

For each of these I looked at what advantages and disadvantages they had
and how they could be changed (if at all). Also I looked at tolerances, the effects of
changing the tolerances to higher tolerances and how that would impact the product.

The final section I looked at was the fasteners – what was used to mount the
two sections together. After completing this mindmap it became more clear that in
the design brief ‘hole arrangement’ actually covered these fasteners as well, as it
actually meant the whole centre section of the pulley. This made this section of my
mindmap redundant.
2.5 Task 5: Producing 3D CAD models to develop concept designs into more
feasible designs, identifying the key features used to create them, testing them
using appropriate FEA (simulation) software and analyse the results –
Commented [TA4]:
Criterion 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, M2 and D3 Test the 3 created designs using Finite element analysis
(Simulation software) to determine the highest stress
locations.
Creating the 3D Models: Commented [TA5]:
Identify the key features you have used to generate your 3D
To first start off the design process, I needed to model the models and show how you have used them.

original design based of a drawing given to me. For this I used Commented [TA6]:
Using computer aided design software (SolidWorks), produce
a 3-D solid model of the camshaft pulley. Present your
Autodesk Inventor, and created the model using various 3D modelling drawing as a 2-D drawing with enough information so that the
pulley could be manufactured.
techniques such as simple extrusions and extrusion cuts to form the
basic shape and circular patterns for the teeth around the edge and
also any repeating pattern on the inner cuts and creating work features
such as planes for sketching on and axis’s for revolves, amongst other
program-specific functions such as ‘Derive’ which allows me to create a
model for the casting and then another one linked to that, where I
perform the cuts and general machining processes.

Out of the 4 models I have created (one original pulley and 3

concept designs) these are some of the features I have used to create
the models:

Extrusion

Figure 1: Creating the Sketch that I will extrude

 Figure 2: Extruding the sketch to form the basis of my model.

Mirroring

Figure 3: After I had made one cut I saved time by mirroring it through the XY Plane
 Sketching using Construction Geometry and Projected Geometry

Figure 4: Here I have used some construction geometry to place the slot, I recreated exactly how it was
drawn for simplicity. I also used projected geometry, where I used the centre point of the pulley to
position the slot correctly.

Testing the model:

After modelling the initial ideas, I went through several iterations
of adjusting the models and looking at the FEA results (stress lower
than original) and CAD theoretical weights (182g ± 10%) to create the
final models.

Firstly I set up the models with

the correct constraints:

I applied fixed constraints to where

I knew the model wouldn’t move –
in this case, where it would be
mounted to the camshaft.
Realistically, the pulley wouldn’t be
fixed exactly but this is where it
would be constrained and is good
enough for a simple FEA test as
opposed to a dynamic test, and also the whole interior faces of the slot wouldn’t be
constrained, just where the bolts are. The fixed faces are shown in blue.
 Figure 5 Application of fixed, inward and torque forces.

I then applied forces that would simulate those that would act on the
pulley. As it is a belt pulley only about a quarter of the external face and teeth
would actually be under force at any one time, so I only applied the forces to
about one quarter of the teeth (9 teeth).

I applied an inwards force to each tooth which simulates the tension in

the belt pushing in on exterior walls towards the centre of pulley of 60N. I
also applied a torque force on those teeth of a combined force of 60N; this
simulates the belt pulling the pulley around against any resistance in the
mechanisms.

For the purpose of these tests this would do, as it shows a very
rounded simulation of typical forces acting on the pulley; as long as the same
test is used on all designs then I’ll be able to create a good comparison
between them.
 Results:

After testing the models using the above testing case, these are the
results showing the maximum stress values and min and max stress areas:

Figure 6: Original Design

This is the original design, and as you can see it has a max stress value of 22,819
KNm2 and the area of max stress is around the mounting holes where the part will be
constrained to the camshaft. The min value is 3540 Nm2 and is the main stress value
around the unaffected parts of the pulley.

Figure 7: Concept 1

This is the design where I added the ‘webbing’ with aim of redirecting the stress onto
the base and dissipating it through many fillets. Here you can see the max value is
22,948 KNm2 which is higher than the original but the stress around where the crack
started is lower, which is the focus. This high stress is around the mounting area and
the min value is 3,775 Nm2 around the rest of the pulley.

Figure 8: Concept 2

This is the design where I increased the base wall thickness reducing the stress
there and reduced the teeth wall thickness as this is where there is the lease stress.
Here you can see the max value is 16.332 KNm2 again around the mounting area
and the min value is 7,335 Nm2 around the rest of the pulley.

Figure 9: Concept 3

This is the last design where increased the existing radii size and added the extra
fillet on the opposite side. Here you can see the max value is 17.666 KNm 2 again
around the mounting area and the min value is 2,291 Nm2 around the rest of the
pulley.

2.6 Task 6: Update mindmap to include alternative design solutions created during
concept design – Criterion 2.1

After looking at the customer specification I had found out that the
fastening/fixing of the camshaft to the pulley is a given and can’t be changed
at all. This impacted design choices and rendered part of my original mindmap
that was dedicated to fasteners obsolete.

My updated mindmap finally included 3 sections – Manufacturing

Methods, Materials and Design Solutions. I included my two choices of
manufacturing – Die Casting and CNC Machining – and the only real choice of
material – Aluminium – and the 4 different approaches I made towards
increasing the strength of the pulley – decreasing wall thicknesses, increasing
body thicknesses, adding cut-outs where applicable and adding
‘webbing’/support struts.

This is my updated mindmap.

2.7 Task 7: “Evaluate a CAD package that may assist in the design process.” -
Criterion 3.3

Using CAD software like SolidWorks can speed the design process up
immensely and is most often the main tool used by design engineers to
convey ideas and create designs quickly. The main advantages of CAD are:

 It increases the productivity of the designer – it allows them to create

various designs quickly, and make modifications instantly, speeding up
development of ideas.

o This is useful in design reviews when only a small change

is necessary, it could be useful to make the correction
there and then.

 Secondly it removes the chance of human error – a designer can see

instantly see if a part is going to fit or if holes are going to line up; it
removes the need for complex analysis of drawings to check a design.

 Better collaboration – with the improvements in PLM software, it’s

becoming easier for more than one designer to be working on a project.

 Initial FEA testing can be done easily to quickly gain an overview of

how the part will react in situ. As shown in this assignment, proving one
design is better than another is critical to the development of a final
design solution.

 Speeds up creating drawings – drawings can be made easily and

updated as and when the design changes, saving days of hand
drawing.

 Animations, Videos and Images can be created to explain how the

product or mechanical solution works to a non-engineer, or to help
better sell the design to the customer.

 Despite all of these advantages, a key feature of CAD is its ability to

then send a model to a CAM machine such as a rapid prototyping
machine to create initial models that can be held (useful for
ergonomics) or a CNC machine such as a CNC milling machine or a
CNC turning machine, which can improve accuracy and speed of
creating prototype’s by huge amounts.

All of these advantages mean that the overall turnaround time for an
engineering project is reduced and less man-hours are required which means
it’s cheaper for the company and therefore cheaper for the customer.
2.8 Task 8: “Produce a compliance check [ensuring] that the weighting factor for
each grading criteria is fully justified. Select the optimum design solution
ensuring that weight, and stress distribution (FEA results) is included as
deciding factors.” – Criterion 2.4 and 2.3

I’ve chosen the following weightings to allow the main criteria (FEA,
weight and cost) to have more effect on the overall score of each design than
the lesser important criteria (sustainability):

Criteria Weighting Reason

This is one of the most important criterions as the

main reason why the original design failed was due
FEA (Stress) 3
to stress concentration so it’s critical to focus on this
before considering cost or sustainability

This is fairly important because taking advantage of

the +10% weight constraint could have knock-on
Weight 2
effects further on, for example putting extra strain on
the camshaft itself.

Sustainability is fairly unimportant compared to the

other criteria – it’s important to be environmentally
Sustainability 1
aware and take this into account, but I don’t believe
it should have a large impact on the design choice.

This is fairly important because even if the redesign

Cost 2 does solve the problem, if it costs too much then it
won’t sell and won’t be a viable replacement.

So using the above decisions and scoring between 1 and 5, I’ve scored
the three designs as follows:

Design FEA Weight Sustainability Cost Total

Concept 1 1x3=3 5 x 2 = 10 5x1=5 1x2=2 20

Concept 2 5 x 3 = 15 3x2=6 5x1=5 3x2=6 32

Concept 3 4 x 3 = 12 1x2=2 5x1=5 3x2=6 25

 For my first concept its max stress value was 22.948 KN/m2 meaning it was
considerably higher than the original design. Although the stress had been directed
to somewhere the stress could be handled better (near the mounting slots) I graded
this very low at 1 as without further testing it’s impossible to know for sure the long
term effects of this type of stress concentration. It weighed in as the lowest despite
all its extra features added (much weight was taken out through extra slots added),
so I graded it as the highest at 5. Knowing this now I could have added more material
near the high stress areas to reduce the stress which would increase its overall
score. For sustainability I’ve scored it at 5; this is because the part was designed with
having two manufacturing operations performed on it - firstly for it to be cast without
the features that would need high tolerance, and then CNC machined to create the
mounting slots. This was to reduce the amount of material wasted. For its cost I have
rated it quite low at 1 because – although not expensive – having two unrelated
manufacturing operations be performed on a part is much less cost-efficient. All of
this gave it an overall score of 20.

For my second design, it performed the best out of the three and had much
better stress levels than the original with its max stress being 16.332 KN/m2, so for
this I have rated it at 5. It weighed in at183g which is very close to the original design
however not as light as the first design, so I scored it somewhere in the middle at 3.
For its sustainability it’s a fairly simple part to produce and will undergo the same
operations as the other designs – it will be cast and then the mounting slots
machined out to reduce material waste. I have scored it a 5 also because material
waste would be equally as low. For cost however I have rated this better as a 3
because its simplicity means casting costs would be considerably less than the first
design.

For the final design, its FEA results came in at a very similar 17.666 KNm2 so I
scored it a slightly worse rating at 4. Weight-wise it weighed the most at 192.37g which
is at the top boundary of the +10% limit so for this I only gave it a 1. Likewise with all of
the designs, it has scored highly in its sustainability as due to its manufacturing
methods, material waste will be low so I also rated this one a 5. For its cost I have
gave it a 3 for the same reasons as design two – reduced manufacturing costs via its
simplicity.

Taking all of this into account, the clear choice would be design number two.
With the design choices I have made, they all follow a similar ilk in that they are all
intended to be manufactured in a similar way (cast and then machined), so the
design’s sustainability and cost are likely to be the same. The deciding factors are
the relationship between the parts weight and its stress results (a part with low stress
and low weight is ideal however as weight decreases stress levels increase) and its
effect on the cost (it’s important to create stress-reducing features that are easy to
manufacture). Design two handles these factors well, through its simplicity therefore
easy manufacturability, low cost, and sustainability.
2.9 Task 9: “Justify the magnitude of the load applied, imagines and diagrams are
included.” – Criterion M2

Having done the initial research into the mechanisms that drive the
camshaft and the components that it drives, I gained the understanding that
the camshaft is driven by the crankshaft through the camshaft pulley, with the
camshaft then rotating the cams which open and close the valves.

The rotational resistance on the camshaft pulley would come from the
springs on the valves, which is then of course multiplied by how many
cylinders the engine has.

Camshaft Rotation

Force from springs

restricting rotation

When researching, I found that somebody had stated they had needed
to apply 50 foot pounds of force to turn the camshaft to align it. (Yahoo)
Converting that to the metric Newton Meters, it came in at 68 NM so I rounded
that down to 60NM as I found out that the extra force was due to effectively
seized-up mechanisms.

For the forces on the belt (the external force pushing in on the outer
walls/teeth), it would be hard to calculate these forces without knowing
information such as the diameter of the crackshaft and whether an idler gear
is used. So for this force I used 60NM also, as a worst case.

For the initial testing of the designs however, as long as I used the
same load case on all designs, it would serve its purpose, as I am looking for
the relative difference between each designs’ stresses (ie if max stress is
bigger in one than the other).
2.9 Task 10: “Present your findings regarding the fatigue life of the pulley and how
it is affected. Your presentation should last approximately 10 minutes, be of a
professional quality with minimal use of prompts.” – Criterion M3

See presentation hand-outs attached.

2.10 Task 11: “Critically evaluate the use of simulation software in the design
process. Your evaluation should include a comparison to other methods as well as
advantages and limitations. Review your simulation findings and comment on the
validity of results.” – Criterion D1

Finite Element Analysis (or FEA) is a critical tool to a design engineer

working in the mechanical industry. Although it can be expensive to buy and also
expensive to train in, it’s advantages outweigh this.

FEA can be used on all scales; for the purpose of this assignment it was used
very roughly to get a very broad approximation of the areas of stress in the pulley
and to compare one design to another. It is very useful in applications such as this on
parts that undergo forces, and is a useful tool when deciding how best to strengthen
a part and also reduce weight by taking out section where it is quite strong.

Once a final design has been created and chosen, more accurate FEA studies
can be made, with more life-like loads applied, and with a higher accuracy (by
increasing things such as element size/meshing and also how many iterations it will
calculate to). With this information you could more confidently decide that the design
is suitable.

Within FEA there are two types of studies – Static and Dynamic. Static
testing is applying a load once to see what the one-time effect of the load is – a
snapshot in time. Dynamic testing is where you apply the load (or set of loads)
several times over a set interval and is used to see how the part performs in a
lifecycle. This type of testing is only needed when the stress due to the forces is
greater than the materials yield strength. This is because if the part only deforms
within its elastic region then it will simply return back to its original form and no
permanent deformation will occur.

In this assignment I performed a static load case on the designs as the

resultant stress didn’t exceed the materials yield strength.
 FEA is a purely theoretical study and gives an insight into the stress the part
undergoes; however, it is sometimes useful to perform physical testing on the part
either as an alternative method or as well using FEA because effects such as fatigue
can’t be predicted very well theoretically.

The advantage of physically testing the part would be that it truly reflects the
conditions the part will perform in. For example to get a true test, it would be a good
idea to get hold of the parts that form its environment – in this example I would get
hold of the engine (or the most important parts of it) and the pulley that will be used
and connect the pulley to the camshaft and drive the crankshaft for a set period of
time. In this example the specification requires 5 lifecycle-years of testing (recreate 5
years in use).

In doing so, development engineers can monitor the parts deterioration and
can predict the components lifespan, and this can provide valuable information to
design engineers which can be then be put back into the design process.

In my project the values given for the forces were based on basic online
research so from the start the test isn’t highly accurate. However for the purpose of
the assignment (to compare on design to another) it served its purpose.

The settings used during the tests were certainly not set to their highest, with
the largest mesh triangular size being 1.5mm. This meant that it generalises the
features such as the 3mm radii, meaning it wasn’t properly taken into account.

All of these accounted towards the results not being highly accurate, however
I used the same settings on each of the designs so the results are relative to each
other, allowing me to compare them.

2.11 Task 12: “Produce a time management plan in a form of Log book and Gantt
chart showing all the activities you have undertaken and the time taken for each
activity.” – Criterion D2

See attached Gantt chart from planning of activities throughout the

project.

2.12 Task 13: “Use simulation software to justify your design solution. Clearly show
where the pulley has been restrained and the load applied. Compare the location of
the highest stress with that of the original pulley design in terms of location and
magnitude.” – Criterion D3

See Task 5 for information and illustrations on loading and constraints.

The results show that the weakest point of any design is around the mounting
slots. With the current constraints however, it is hard to reinforce those areas – any
change to the positioning of the holes would conflict with one of the customer
constrains that mounting positions can’t be changed (it’d be useful to be able to
move the holes further from the edge).

The max stress values don’t exceed the materials yield strength so no
permanent deformation will occur and with the redesigns max stress value lower than
the original, the products lifespan before failure will be increased.

During further testing, should fatigue start to show around these areas then
consultation with the customer may be required to relax some constraints and come
up with a solution that suits the customer and also fixes the problem.

3. Gantt Chart

See attached sheet ‘Gantt Chart’.

4. Conclusion
In this assignment I have gone through the whole process of designing a component
– from getting the customer requirements and producing the spec, to testing the
designs using FEA.

I have learnt a lot in this assignment about the stages of design and how designs can
go through several iterations of testing and redesigning to ensure that designs are
better than the original and viable as manufacturable components.

I think I have approached this assignment well by managing my time through Gantt
charts and logbooks and setting milestones such as when all designs should be done
by etc, ensuring all Merit and Distinction criteria are met as well.

5. Appendices

See attached sheets.

 6. Bibliography

Yahoo. (n.d.). Force needed to turn camshaft sprocket? Retrieved May 1, 2014, from
Yahoo Answers:
https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130617184758AAA0bkb