OLE button feasibility study

1. Assignment Aims

The aim of this assignment is to demonstrate that you have generated an accurate but
efficient model of the forming process described below and have a detailed understanding
of the processes involved in solving this highly non-linear problem.
2. Learning Outcomes:

The exercises here will allow you to demonstrate that you have gained sufficient knowledge
and skill to achieve the learning outcomes:
1. Have a systematic understand of the scientific principles of non-linear material
behaviour.
3. Have a comprehensive understand of the mathematical modelling and solution
techniques employed in advanced static analysis.
4. Systematically construct, manage and interpret the results from original models of
structures undergoing complex plastic, large deflection and contact induced
deformation.

3. Assessment Brief

It is important to understand that this should be individual work. The spreadsheet of data in
Brightspace gives each student separate data for the exercise. You should prepare a
recorded PowerPoint presentation with voice over to present your work. This presentation
must last no longer than 10 minutes. Your presentation should be submitted through Turn-
it-in on Brightspace giving:

A description and justification of the FEA models created and analysis procedure used
along with a summary of the data used for those models. This should be in a form
which would make it easy for another, experienced finite element analyst to continue
working with your models.
An appraisal of the results of the FEA, sufficient to provide confidence that the results
are meaningful.
A discussion of your design feasibility investigation including the selection of design
variable ranges, constraints on the design concept and conclusions from the
investigation.
You should also submit your FEA models for assessment. If more than one model has
been created, all models should be contained within a single .cae file submitted to the
assignment box on Brightspace. Instructions on how to create multiple models within
a single file are provided on Brightspace. Please use your student number as the file
name (i.e. {student_number}.cae).

4. Marking Scheme

5
1. Finite element models should give an efficient but valid solution to the problems being
analysed. (20%).

2. Finite element models and runs should be named, defined and structured in a way that
makes it easy for another expert to use and modify the models. (20%).

3. The presentation should contain a clear but concise justification of the assumptions made
in creating the finite element models and a critical appraisal of the results obtained from
these models. (30%).

4. The presentation should clearly define the feasibility study including design variables
and constraints and the extent of the feasible set identified. The results of the design
study should be discussed, demonstrating clear insight into the problem (30%).

6
5. Grading Rubric

Criterion
and Level descriptor
weighting
% available 0 - 30 31 - 50 51 - 60 61 - 70 71 - 80 81 - 100
FE models Critical fundamental errors The model runs and generates The model runs and generates The model runs and generates The FE model can be made The FE model is accurate
give valid & have been made in the results for some stages of results for all stages of results across all stages of accurate with minor across all stages of the
efficient construction of the model assembly and operation but assembly and operation but assembly and operation but modification. The modelling assembly and operation
solution. which prevent it from errors are preventing contains fundamental errors. significant changes to the approach has minimised run stages. The modelling
20% providing any results. No simulation of the full process. The model contains some model are required to time but further consideration approach has minimised run
consideration has been given There is evidence of some significant inefficiency. generate accurate results. An could be given to reducing time and storage capacity
to minimising the time and consideration being given to efficient geometric modelling storage capacity whilst still capturing all the
storage capacity. modelling efficiency but this strategy has been used. requirements. necessary data.
has been largely ineffective. However, run times could be
further reduced.
FE models FE model uses default model FE model uses mainly default A number of parts of the A sensible naming convention Consideration has been given The naming convention used
simple to tree names only. model tree names only. model tree (but not all) use a has been applied across the to using a sensible naming in the model tree is clear and
follow. bespoke naming convention majority of the model tree but convention in all parts of the intuitive with a concise
20% but this is not intuitive/well this could be more intuitive. model tree but this is unclear description in the report
defined. in places and/or not well where necessary. Individual
described in the report. models can be readily
identified.
FE model The report contains mainly An incomplete statement of Appropriate screen shots of The FE modelling strategy and Whilst the FE modelling The FE modelling strategy is
justified and irrelevant screen shots of the the modelling strategy is given the FE model and results have appropriate results have been strategy and appropriate clearly and concisely justified
appraised FE model with little or no with no justification along been selected. However, presented but the discussion results have been clearly and supported by convincing
30% structure and no justification with incomplete/irrelevant these are not discussed and of these is confused and presented, these do not give appraisal of the results.
of the modelling strategy. results. only a cursory statement of unconvincing. absolute confidence in the
the modelling strategy is quality of the analysis.
given.
Feasibility A small number of different A number of different models A number of different models A range of design variables Some justification is given for The range of design variables
study models are included. have been analysed and there have been analysed. There is has been used with some the range of design variables used is carefully selected and
30% is some discussion of the limited discussion of the justification. The majority of and constraints on the design justified. All the constraints on
results of these models. design variable ranges used design constraints have been study, with all the constraints the design study are clearly
and the constraints on the identified and justified. The being correctly identified. The identified and explained. The
design study. The results of results of the design study are results of the design study are results of the design study are
the design study are clearly presented. clearly presented. Some presented in a clear and
presented but could be insight is demonstrated when concise form. Clear insight is
clearer. discussing the results. demonstrated when
discussing the results.
Additional considerations for
the design feasibility are
included.

7
 Assignment task
Using an interference fit to create a part: a feasibility study
Introduction
Electrified overground railways typically supply electrical power to the trains through a wire contacting the
pantograph attached to the top of the train. The system of cables and tubes above the railway track,
through which power is supplied, is known as the overhead line equipment (OLE). Within the OLE there are
a number of swivel joints, designed to loosely locate parts such that they are free to rotate around one axis
and have limited rotational movement about the other two axis. The male part of this joint is normally a
mushroom button, as shown in Figure 1. The base is clamped to a galvanized steel tube using one or more
U-bolts, as shown.

Figure 1. Swivel clamp button (new style shown)

A number of loads may be applied to the button. The most severe load-case is judged to be a load applied
along the axis of the button, pulling it away from the base. Traditionally, the button and base are cast as
one piece from iron and then galvanized. This can lead to porosity in the material which, if close to the
stress raiser under the button, can result in failure due to the tensile axial load.
A new type of mushroom button has been proposed where the button and base are separate parts,
machined from EN 1.4301 304 stainless steel bar. This eliminates the problem of porosity in the material
but requires a method of attaching the button to the base. It has been proposed that this could be
achieved by shrink fitting the button into the base and then relying on friction and the interference fit
generated to withstand the axial force. Figure 2 shows a partial cross section of the assembly with the
interference zone highlighted.

8
 Figure 2. Interference zone on new clamp

Figures 3 and 4 show the dimensions of the base and button. The button shaft diameter, D, and base
thickness, T, are unique for each student and are supplied on Brightspace.
Engineering task
Before taking the design concept to the prototype stage an investigation is to be carried out using ABAQUS
to see if it is feasible. The width of the base, W, and degree of interference, i, can be changed. The
questions to be answered through the Abaqus analysis are:

• Will the interference fit generate excessive stresses in the base?

• Will the interference fit be sufficient to withstand an axial load of 7 kN applied to the button?

Another question to be answered to determine the feasibility of the concept is:

• Can the two parts be assembled, without force, with a temperature differential no greater than
500K?

At this stage of the feasibility study, machining tolerances may be ignored although you may wish to
comment on these in your conclusions.
Analysis tips

• Stress raising effects under the head of the button can be ignored.
• As the axial load is applied to the button, the base will be pulled away from the tube. Contact
between the base and the tube can therefore be ignored.
• Applying a displacement rather than a load often allows non-linear problems, where rigid body
motion may be possible, to be solved. The force generated by the displacement can be found from
the reaction forces reported.
• Once the peak axial pull-out force has been reached, the analysis can be terminated: there is no
need to continue the analysis until the button has been completely removed.
• No more than 9 different models should be used when investigating the feasibility of the concept.
9
 Figure 3. Base (dimensions in mm)

Figure 4. Button (dimensions in mm)

10