FINITE ELEMENT METHOD LAB

(MME 3271)
on
Finite Element Analysis on a Medico-physical Resting
Accommodation (Hospital Bed)
Submitted by

ROLL REG. NO. STUDENT NAME

NO
3 210909034 Gujjati Sathvik
7 210909058 Arjun Pramod Nair
6 210909056 Mayas Raj

Under the guidance of

Guide Name : Prof Vinyas

Designation : Assistant Professor (Senior Scale)

Department : Mechanical Engineering

E mail id : vinyas.shetty@manipal.edu

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering

Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal
April 2024
1
 CONTENTS

Sl. No. Topic Page No.

1 Introduction 3

2 Literature review / working of the present system 4

3 Part Drawing/Photograph with dimensional details: 11

4 Results and Discussions 13

5 References 19

Approved

Resubmission with modification

Name of the guide Signature with date

Name of the reviewer Signature with date

2
Introduction:
A hospital bed is an independent structural unit of a hospital compartment which is used to
hold patients. Given the delicacy of the medical setup and under the set parameters, it is
important to optimise the perfect hospital bed to accommodate the patient efficiently and be
able to sustain a series of loads.
Accordingly, we received the following set of parameters to conform to design the hospital
bed/cot:
a. Hospital cot has 4 supports.

b. It needs to support the weight of 250Kgs on it.

c. It must use Circular Tube for the frame with suitable thickness and diameter.

d. It can have 3 longitudinal tube (alongside of length) and 3 lateral tubes (along width)
and 4 supports in ends of 1m height. This is further modified as mentioned in the
report.

e. Material needs to be selected in such a way that total weight of empty cot should not
be more than 50Kgs, and Total material cost shouldn’t exceed 5000Rs.

f. At any load in the given range, the strain in any location shouldn’t exceed 5%.
Accordingly, to meet these design specifications, A certain design basis was reached, with
further consultations with our mentor. The design was iteratively made in Solidworks and
simulated on Ansys Workbench 2022 using the Static Structural workbench software.

3
Literature Review and Working of Present System:
Literature Review:
Mehta et al. [1] used statistics and basic data collection to study patient handling with respect
to bed movements in a hospital. This is important to understand how better designed a particular
iteration must be in terms of handling it in real life. Aidy et al. [2] used genetic algorithms from
Palisade Evolver to study ergonomic design of hospital buildings and simulation under certain
conditions. This is significant since this idea helped us understand medical design
characteristics and ways to proceed with the same. Senavirathna et al. [3] designed a double
bed structure to address the acute bed shortage in Sri Lanka and used various design methods
along with simulation to determine parameters such as deformation etc. Additionally, a model
also was fabricated and tested to correlate experimentally. Wiggermann et al [4] used human
centric design approach to design a bed by studying the types of users and the lacking abilities
in either bed models using surveys. Catalano and Coolidge [5] studied bed design and its
evolution and indigenisation of production in a place like China. The various types of design
modifications along with additional component increments is used to study what kind of design
upgrades can be used in our project. Dzulkiflih, et al [6] studied the bed design for ergonomic
settings using the Rapid Upper Limb Analysis (RULA) method and further subjected it to
various conditions under medical standards. Reh et al [7] studied the ways and means to
improve bed designs towards a world with rising height and weight requirements, with needs
of extra strengthening of components a focus. This was used to study what parts of a bed can
be vulnerable under excessive loading. Arriyarit and Kittipichai [8] studied a novel approach
to design an optimum bed which separates the right and left legs to accommodate for certain
medical conditions such as fractures, which require both legs to be raised, including the
uninjured leg. This was useful to identify potential loopholes or to accommodate radical ideas.
Abdallah et al. [9] studied a novel pneumatic system to raise a hospital bed across different
degrees of freedom and various strategies to lift under certain conditions of loading using
simulations and pneumatic fluid scheme planning using FESTO software. Atasoy [10] used
Simply and Discrete Event Simulation to study the predictive occupancy rate of hospital beds
under modelling of diseases and occupancy times. This paper was studied to explore a route to
identify topographic optimisation in this model, which is not feasible in this case.
Modelling:
The bed was modelled in SOLIDWORKS. The whole design was made using weldment
feature. For this, the 3D sketch of the bed was modelled first. This was done by making two
planar sketches in the XY plane and a plane parallel to it. Then 3D lines were created joining
and completing the bed 3D sketch. Next, using weldment feature, a tubular frame was created
using the bed 3D sketch. Dimensions for the tube were based on 1 inch 0.065-inch wall. For
the cross supports, a rectangular tube weldment was made. The thickness of the wall was later
changed based on required dimensions. For the first iteration, the above dimensions were kept.
Based on the analysis results and review, dimension was changed to thicken the wall. After
further analysis it was decided to make it a solid design. For further refinement dimensions of
the bed were altered to reflect real world usability as intended.
Materials were selected in Ansys workbench itself based on analysis results. Upon suggestion
from the mentor, the design of the support structures was completely altered. The number of
supports was decreased from 4 to 2. For this, the whole support structure had to be re-designed.

4
The dimensions of all parts of the bed were continuously altered over 5 iterations to meet the
specified cost and weight quotas while keeping design practical and strong.
Boundary Conditions:
The entire bed is considered as a single solid body and boundary conditions are applied on it
to obtain maximum deformation, maximum stress and to check if the strain value exceeds 5%.
Further design iterations were performed to minimise the magnitude of localised stresses and
reduce overall deformation at specific regions determined by Ansys Static structural module.

The material assigned earlier was structural steel when we were performing our first iteration
but soon, we realised from the results that the factor of safety we obtained was much higher
than what we needed, and the total weight of the bed was exceeding 124 kgs which was around
74kgs off the prerequisite value. After going through research material on material properties
of different metals, we concluded selecting and finalising with aluminium. The weight obtained
was 45.055Kgs and we got a desirable FOS of 1.2879. The FOS was obtained by dividing yield
strength of aluminium (280MPa) by the maximum stress obtained on the bed. The first design
with structural steel (yield strength - 240MPa) gave us a maximum stress value of (118.79
MPa) and an FOS of 2.02 which was very high. The second design iteration with aluminium
gave us a total weight of 45.493Kgs with max stress value of 218.1MPa and the second
iteration, we tried to perform weight reduction from regions with low stress concentrations to
finally land at a total weight of 45.055Kgs and max stress value of 217.4MPa.

The cost of aluminium is approximately Rs 206 and considering our bed is 45.055Kgs, we will
be spending Rs 9281.3 which is higher than our assigned budget.
To cut manufacturing costs, we have decided to manufacture this bed using scrap aluminium
which costs approximately Rs 105/kg. Considering our bed is 45.055Kgs, we will be spending
Rs 4730.7 which is lesser than our assigned budget.

4 fixed supports were given on the 4 legs and their area was chosen to be the surface which is
in contact with the ground since the displacement of those selected areas are zero. The bed
must support 250kgs on it and hence we have considered a uniformly distributed pressure load
on the 3 horizontal members on the bed. We did not take force as our boundary condition since
it would be applied to only the centre of mass of the object instead of a uniformly distributed
load. The magnitude of pressure was calculated by considering force as 250*9.81 (mass of
bed*acceleration due to gravity) divided by combined cross sectional area of the 3 horizontal
members since the weight of the human is assumed to be evenly distributed over the 3
horizontal members. The value of the pressure is rounded off to 6020 Pa which is a higher
value than what is obtained from above calculations.

As a new design parameter, 4 supports were removed, and 2 fixed supports were given on the
ribs. The bed must support 250kgs on it and hence we have considered a uniformly distributed
pressure load on the 3 horizontal members on the bed. We did not take force as our boundary
condition since it would be applied to only the centre of mass of the object instead of a
uniformly distributed load. The magnitude of pressure was calculated by considering force as
250*9.81 (mass of bed*acceleration due to gravity) divided by combined cross sectional area
of the 3 horizontal members since the weight of the human is assumed to be evenly distributed
over the 3 horizontal members. The value of the pressure is 6387.22 Pa which is a higher value
than what is obtained from above calculations.

5
The boundary conditions chosen are as follows:

Design 1, Iteration 1

Design 1, Iteration 2

6
 Design 2

Meshing Methodology:
The meshing of all the three design iterations is done using the inbuilt meshing software of
Ansys Static Structural. The best is chosen to be cartesian using the “Method” Option since it
is finer in terms of mesh quality and the skewness rate of the mesh can be controlled, along
with other mathematical qualities like the Jacobian ratio and the Aspect ratio of individual mesh
nodes. Generating a mesh directly in cartesian is difficult, hence an edge sizing is applied on
any one edge of the design and this type is further expanded using the Cartesian option under
the “Method” option.

7
For the first two iterations, since they are very similar, the same mesh grid was used, to reduce
computation time. The mesh size is determined using “Grid Independence Study”. The mesh
size was taken as a parameter and other parameters were studied for variation. All these selected
parameters are detailed below:

Using these parameters and conducting a grid independence study, the following graphs are
obtained:

From these graphs, we see that at 0.003 m, the deformation becomes very stable, and the
equivalent strain shows very less variation, hence a mesh size of 0.003 m or 3mm is chosen.
Accordingly, the number of elements is 410398 and number of nodes are 1902337.
The meshes created are like this:

Mesh for Design 1, Iteration 1

8
 Mesh for Design 1, Iteration 2
For the new design, the geometry is quadrilateral in nature and hence it makes sense to use the
cartesian method, like the ones in the previous designs. the Grid Independence Study is
conducted here also since the design has changed fundamentally. Accordingly, the following
parameters are considered:

Accordingly, the following grid independence graphs are generated:

Here, we see that at 0.007m, the deformation and max strain are stabilized with very minimal
variations. Hence, the mesh size of 0.007m or 7 mm is chosen. Accordingly, the number of
elements is 92744 and number of nodes are 580222.

9
The mesh created looks like this:

Mesh for Design 2

10
Part Drawing/Photograph with dimensional details:

11
Initial iteration-
• Bed outer frame- 1 inch diameter
• Cross support- 25.4x150mm, fillet radius- 7mm
First submission iteration-
• Bed frame outer- 1 inch diameter
• Cross support- 25.4x150mm, fillet radius- 7mm
Current iteration-
• Bed outer frame- 1 inch diameter
• Cross support- 10x150 mm, fillet radius- 2mm
• Support- 120x45 mm, fillet radius- 2mm
• Floor support- 50x5 mm, fillet radius- 2mm

12
Results and Discussion:
Case 1: Hospital Bed Iteration 1:

Fig: Total Deformation

In Fig, deformation is seen to be maximum (33.763 mm) at the central rib of the bed even
though the pressure distribution was equal across all the three ribs. This signifies that material
needs to be either strengthened or lower amounts of deformation is preferable to prevent design
failure. The frame shows how it is designed to maximise deformation distribution throughout
the frame of the bed, especially the connecting rods between the extreme frames and supports.
This is beneficial since the frame can withstand extreme deformation and the frame is able to
support the weight on the bed. The least deformation is observed in the fixed supports at the
supports. This is a positive sign since very minimal deformation at the supports proves a solid
and stable design under maximum loads. However, the vertical frames at the bed ends seem to
undergo a sort of sagging movement under the load, hence the increased deformation values at
those frames, making them potential design change options.

Fig: Equivalent Elastic Strain

13
In Fig, total equivalent elastic strain is seen to be of maximum distribution at the rods joining
the central rib while the maximum numerical value is observed at the three-way joint of the
smaller vertical bed frame. This shows that the rod is expected to undergo a maximum strain
of 0.352%, which is a significant reduction from the maximum of 5% imposed in this problem,
thus proving scope for more design experimentation and more flexibility. The minimum elastic
strain is at the larger vertical frame on the other end of the bed, this is important since this is
the location where a potential patient would place their head, which requires less strain and
deformative tendency and hence this is a sign of a safe design from a medical perspective. The
supports also have lower strain comparatively than the connecting frames or the vertical
support frames, which shows stable fixed supports at the bed ground locations.

Fig: Equivalent Stress

In Fig, the maximum equivalent stress distribution is obtained at the connecting rod frames of
the central rib, like the equivalent elastic strain. The maximum equivalent stress is seen at the
upper end of the larger vertical frame, at the joint of the three frame rods. This is a bit
concerning since this is the region of the upper body of a patient and the maximum stress at
this point would weaken the structure and endanger the upper body region of the patient,
especially in delicate cases. The larger vertical frame at the head has minimum equivalent stress
which is a positive aspect but the sagging action at that end also is a concern, thus strengthening
the frame there to prevent excessive sagging is preferrable.

14
Case 2: Hospital Bed Modified Iteration:

Fig: Total Deformation

In the above figure, the new iteration has a maximum deformation of 33.76mm, which is a little
reduced from the previous iteration. However, it is observed that the central rib undergoes
maximum deformation under distributed pressure load, like the previous iteration. The overall
total deformation distribution remains the same however the curvature developed in this new
simulation reduces the stress on the vertical frame supports. The minimum deformation is still
faced by the fixed support only, with no major changes.

Fig: Equivalent Elastic Strain

The maximum elastic strain is seen as 0.364%, this is a bit of an increase from the previous
iteration, the reason being a little reduced radius of the frame tubes. Additionally, the central
rib connecting fibres are the major strain undergoing elements in the frame, like the previous
one. This indicates a major plateauing of design parameters for this design. The maximum

15
strain is still seen at the intersection of the shorter vertical support frame and the rigid frame
intersection down the bed. This shows that the failure points have become independent of
material reductions and thus this design is exhausted in these terms.

Fig: Equivalent Stress

The maximum stress is induced near the lower vertical frame support of the bed. This is an
important design development since the previous iteration had maximum stress near the larger
vertical frame which is the potential spot where the head of the patient would be placed. This
design change shifts the maximum stresses towards the bottom lower vertical frames, thus
making the design different in terms of stress handling given the changes in geometric
parameters.

16
Case 3: Radical New Design:

Fig: Total Deformation

In this radical new design, we can see that the total deformation is more pronounced and
distributed across the ribs compared to previous iterations of Design 1. The maximum
deformation here is 9.35 mm under the same analogous load. This is a very significant
reduction of deformation compared to design one, which makes this bed safer under the design
constraints mentioned above. The maximum deformation is still observed to be at the central
rib albeit much more reduced. The human mannequin placed on this new design demonstrates
the loads over a silhouetted body figure. Furthermore, the minimum deformation is seen near
the base of the new supports, indicating safety of support structures under the said load.

Fig: Equivalent Elastic Strain

17
Here, the elastic strain is more distributed, shifting from the frame of the bed to the ribs,
especially near the contact area of the support and rib. This is hard to determine since excess
strain on the side ribs compared to the previous designs cane be counterproductive in terms of
strength under load. Additionally, the maximum strain is observed to by 0.1211%, which is
way lower than previous designs and hence makes the strain on the ribs seem miniscule and
safe.

Fig: Equivalent Stress

The stress distribution is observed on the side ribs, compared to on the frame as observed in
previous designs. This is better since the maximum stress occurs on a larger area compared to
previous designs, hence distributing stress over the ribs is desired. Additionally, the maximum
stress is observed on the intersection of the rib and support, which is concerning since that joint
maybe mated with the rib through methods like welding or riveting, which induces some
unknown parameters when exposed to shock loads. The maximum stress here is around 61MPa,
which is a major reduction from the previous maximum stress values, which makes this design
desirable in terms of safety and resilience to load.

18
Conclusions and References:
In conclusion, the following points are observed after various simulation runs:
• The 2nd iteration of the 1st design is the safest considering the maximum stress location,
deformation study and mathematical parameters set for solving. However, the
deformation and stress values are very high and thus are not a suitable option in a long
run and thus must be tested using a prototype.

• The 2nd design is the best design of the three major designs since deformation is reduced
significantly, along with a severe reduction in pressure handling. However, the joints of
the ribs and supports is a matter of concern since exact loading conditions and exact
stress behaviour around such joints is hard to predict and requires better computational
power and solving capabilities which are currently limited/not available.
References:
1. Mehta, Ranjana K., et al. “Ergonomic Evaluation of Hospital Bed Design Features
During Patient Handling Tasks.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol.
647–652, no. 6, 1 Nov. 2011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2011.07.005
2. Aidy, Ahmed, et al. “Structural Design Optimization of Flat Slab Hospital Buildings
Using Genetic Algorithms.” Buildings (Basel), vol. 2195, no. 12, 12 Dec. 2022,
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122195.

3. Senavirathna, Ravindu. “Designing of a Low Cost, Adjustable, Two Storey Bed for
Hospital Use.” Ruhuna, 8 Apr. 2020,
www.academia.edu/42458906/Designing_of_a_Low_Cost_Adjustable_Two_Storey_
Bed_for_Hospital_Use.

4. Wiggermann, Neal, et al. “Human-Centered Design Process for a Hospital Bed:

Promoting Patient Safety and Ease of Use.” Ergonomics in Design, vol. 4–12, no. 2,
19 Jan. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804618805570.

5. “Evaluation and Design of a Hospital Bed to Be Manufactured and Used in China.”

CORE Reader, core.ac.uk/reader/212970296.

6. Dzulkiflih, et al. “Automatic Patient Bed Comfort Structure Analysis Based on the
RULA Method.” E3S Web of Conferences, vol. 02008, 1 Jan. 2023,
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202345002008.

19
7. Réh, Roman, et al. “Analysis to Improve the Strength of Beds Due to the Excess
Weight of Users in Slovakia.” Sustainability (Basel), vol. 624, no. 3, 24 Jan. 2019,
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030624.

8. Ariyarit, Atthaphon, and Rung Kittipichai. “The Optimization Design of Hospital Bed
Structure for Independently Separating Left and or Right Leg Using Genetic
Algorithms.” Applied Mechanics and Materials, vol. 4276–4283, 24 Oct. 2011,
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.110-116.4276.

9. Abdallah, Omar & M., Abubacker & Suresh Babu, Veerasamy. (2019). Design and
Analysis of Pneumatic Operated Bed for Hospitals. International Journal of Industrial
Engineering. 3. 102-109.

10. Atasoy, Dincer. “Analysis of Hospital Bed Requirements Using Discrete Event
Simulation and Mathematical Modeling.” arXiv.org, 23 Mar. 2022,
doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.12737.

11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214785315004563 - For

boundary conditions of human in 2nd Design.

20