Air Craft bearing bracket analysis:

Introduction:

Aircraft bearing bracket analysis is fundamental for ensuring the structural integrity and reliability
of aerospace systems. Employing sophisticated computational tools such as ANSYS and Abaqus,
engineers can conduct meticulous static analyses to evaluate the behavior of bearing brackets
under diverse operational conditions. These software platforms offer robust finite element
analysis (FEA) capabilities, enabling precise prediction of stress distribution and deformation in
both linear and nonlinear regimes. In this study, we focus on static analysis, encompassing both
linear and nonlinear methodologies, to comprehensively assess the structural response of aircraft
bearing brackets. By employing ANSYS and Abaqus, this research aims to provide valuable
insights into the mechanical behavior of bearing brackets, aiding in the optimization of design
parameters and ensuring the safety and reliability of aerospace components. Through a
systematic examination of static analysis techniques, this study aims to contribute to the
advancement of aerospace engineering practices and the development of resilient aircraft
systems.

Linear analysis:

Linear analysis is a method used in engineering and mathematical modeling to study the behavior of a
system under various conditions. In linear analysis, the relationship between input and output variables
is assumed to be linear, meaning that the response of the system is directly proportional to the applied
inputs. This assumption simplifies the analysis process and allows for the use of linear algebraic
techniques to solve the equations governing the system's behavior.

Key characteristics of linear analysis include:

1. Linearity: The system's response is directly proportional to the input. This implies that doubling
the input will double the output, and so on.

2. Superposition: Linear systems obey the principle of superposition, meaning that the response to
a combined set of inputs is the sum of the responses to each individual input acting alone. This
property greatly simplifies the analysis of complex systems.

3. Homogeneity: Linear systems also exhibit homogeneity, which means that scaling the input
scales the output by the same factor.

Nonlinear analysis:
 High levels of deformation necessitate consideration of nonlinear material properties in
structural analysis.

 Nonlinear solvers are essential for modeling simulations over a period of time, as linear solvers
lack the capability to incorporate time-dependent behavior.
  Even if time-dependency isn't explicitly required, employing a nonlinear solver with a nominal
end time can yield results unattainable with a linear solver.

 The choice between linear and nonlinear solvers depends on the complexity of boundary
conditions. Linear solvers are suitable for simple simulations with applied forces and fixed
supports, while nonlinear solvers are preferred for complex simulations involving applied
velocities.

 In intricate geometry, linear solvers utilize "contacts" to automatically maintain coincident

adjacent faces throughout the simulation, regardless of boundary conditions.

 Nonlinear solvers utilize "physical contacts" to define contact behavior between specific faces,
preventing penetration but not inherently maintaining coincidence unless specified through
boundary conditions.

Nonlinear static finite element analysis:

Three types of nonlinearities exist in structural analysis:

1. Material Nonlinearity:
 This type of nonlinearity arises from deviations from Hooke's law, which describes linear
elasticity.

 Materials exhibiting material nonlinearity may enter the "plastic region" under load,
where stress and strain are not linearly related.

 Stress-strain curves are essential for characterizing material behavior under varying
loading conditions.

2. Geometric Nonlinearity:

 Geometric nonlinearity occurs when a body undergoes large deformations, leading to

nonlinear strain-displacement relations.

 Unlike linear analysis, where small deformations assume linear relationships between
strain and displacement, geometric nonlinearity considers large deformations where
these relationships become nonlinear.

3. Boundary Nonlinearity:

 Boundary nonlinearity arises in contact problems, where the interaction between

contacting surfaces introduces nonlinear effects.

 Contact problems involve scenarios where two or more bodies come into contact,
leading to changes in load distribution and stress patterns.
Geometries:
Model 1 Model 2

Model 3
Material:

15-5HP-SS stainless steel is a high-strength precipitation-hardening stainless-steel alloy commonly used

in aircraft engine bearing brackets. It offers excellent corrosion resistance, high strength, and good
toughness, making it suitable for applications in demanding aerospace environments. Its precipitation
hardening capability allows for enhanced mechanical properties, including increased strength and
durability, making it a preferred material for critical components such as bearing brackets in aircraft
engines.

strain Stress
0.005 1.00E+09
0.0077 1.07E+09
0.0094 1.12E+09
0.0115 1.15E+09
0.015 1.16E+09
0.0181 1.17E+09
0.0207 1.19E+09
0.0242 1.22E+09
0.0297 1.25E+09
0.0344 1.28E+09
0.0412 1.32E+09
0.0488 1.36E+09
0.057 1.41E+09
0.0663 1.45E+09
0.0755 1.47E+09
0.0849 1.48E+09
0.0962 1.46E+09
0.1049 1.43E+09
0.1144 1.38E+09
0.1226 1.33E+09
0.1301 1.28E+09
0.1367 1.23E+09
0.1431 1.18E+09
0.1495 1.12E+09

Loads:
The bearing bracket in an aircraft engine is subjected to various loads during operation, which are crucial
to consider for design and material selection. Two primary loads applied to the bearing bracket are axial
(fy) and radial (fx) loads.

1. Axial Load (fy): This refers to the force acting along the longitudinal axis of the bearing bracket.
In the given scenario, a negative axial load of -11120N (Newtons) is applied. Axial loads typically
result from engine thrust, vibration, or other external forces acting along the direction of the
 engine shaft. It is essential to ensure that the bearing bracket can withstand and distribute this
axial load effectively to maintain structural integrity and operational safety.

2. Radial Load (fx): This represents the force acting perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the
bearing bracket. In the given scenario, a radial load of 5560N (Newtons) is applied. Radial loads
primarily arise from the rotational motion of the engine components, such as the shaft and
bearings. The bearing bracket must be designed to withstand and support this radial load
without deformation or failure, ensuring smooth and efficient engine operation.

Boundary conditions:

In Finite Element Analysis (FEA), boundary conditions play a critical role in defining how a structure
interacts with its surroundings or constraints. They are essential for accurately simulating real-world
behaviors and predicting the structural response under different loading conditions. Here's a brief
introduction to the specified boundary conditions you've mentioned:

1. Fixed Displacement for Bolt Holes (dx=dz=0):

 This boundary condition specifies that the displacement in the x and z directions
(typically, along the horizontal and vertical axes) is zero at the bolt holes.

 It implies that the bolt holes are fixed or constrained from moving in the x and z
directions, meaning they are unable to translate in those directions.

 This boundary condition is commonly applied to simulate situations where bolts or

fasteners rigidly connect two or more components, preventing relative movement in
specific directions.

2. Fixed Displacement for Surface in Contact with the Support (dy=0):

 This boundary condition specifies that the displacement in the y-direction (usually the
vertical direction) is zero for the surface in contact with the support.

 It indicates that the surface is fixed or constrained from moving vertically, meaning it
cannot undergo any vertical displacement.

 This boundary condition is often applied to model scenarios where a structure is

supported or resting on a rigid surface or support, preventing any vertical movement or
deformation at that location.

Ansys:

ANSYS Mechanical is a leading finite element analysis (FEA) software solution that empowers
engineers and designers to simulate and analyze mechanical systems with precision. Boasting a
user-friendly interface, it offers intuitive tools for setting up complex simulation models
efficiently. From preprocessing tasks like geometry creation and meshing to defining material
properties and boundary conditions, ANSYS Mechanical streamlines the entire simulation
workflow. Leveraging advanced solver technology, it supports linear and nonlinear analyses
across various physics domains, including structural mechanics, thermal analysis, and fluid-
structure interaction. After running simulations, the software provides robust post-processing
tools for visualizing and interpreting results, enabling engineers to gain valuable insights into
structural behavior, heat transfer, vibration, and more. With its comprehensive capabilities and
seamless integration with other ANSYS products, ANSYS Mechanical stands as a cornerstone tool
for engineers seeking accurate and reliable mechanical simulation solutions.

Material properties:
Meshing:

In ANSYS Workbench Student Version, meshing serves as a fundamental process in finite element
analysis, pivotal for accurately simulating structural, thermal, and fluid systems within the constraint of
32,000 nodes. This limit shapes the meshing strategy, urging users to carefully balance model complexity
and mesh resolution to ensure efficient simulations. The meshing process begins with geometry import,
where CAD models are translated into discretized elements, typically tetrahedral or hexahedral, through
ANSYS Workbench's meshing tools. Quality assurance follows, focusing on element size, aspect ratio, and
skewness to maintain mesh integrity. For fluid flow or thermal analyses, boundary layer meshing near
solid boundaries is crucial. Mesh control techniques allow for refinement in critical areas, optimizing
mesh resolution where needed. Throughout, users must be mindful of node count, avoiding excess
complexity to remain within the node limit. By adhering to these practices, ANSYS Workbench Student
Version users can harness the power of meshing to conduct accurate simulations, despite the imposed
constraint.

Model 1 Model 2

Model 3
Field variables:
Von mises stress:

Using von Mises equivalent stress in your analysis provides a simplified yet effective approach to assess
the structural integrity of components under complex loading conditions. Unlike traditional stress
measures, von Mises stress accounts for both tensile and compressive stresses while condensing the
three-dimensional stress state into a single scalar value. This simplicity facilitates easier interpretation
and comparison of stress levels throughout the structure. Moreover, von Mises stress serves as a reliable
predictor of yielding or failure in ductile materials, making it applicable to a wide range of engineering
materials. Its conservative estimation of failure compared to other stress measures ensures a margin of
safety in structural design. Additionally, von Mises stress exhibits less sensitivity to mesh refinement,
allowing for consistent results across varying mesh densities. Overall, utilizing von Mises equivalent
stress in your analysis offers a robust and practical means of assessing structural performance and
ensuring component reliability.

Total deformation:

Using total deformation in your analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of how a structure
responds to applied loads. It accounts for all types of deformations, including both elastic and plastic
deformations, offering a holistic view of the structural behavior. By visualizing and analyzing total
deformation, engineers can pinpoint areas of high strain or displacement, identifying potential weak
points or areas requiring reinforcement. This information is invaluable for assessing the structural
integrity, safety, and performance of components under real-world operating conditions. Additionally,
total deformation aids in design optimization efforts, allowing engineers to refine designs to minimize
deformations and improve overall structural efficiency. Overall, incorporating total deformation analysis
enhances the accuracy of finite element simulations and enables informed decision-making in
engineering design and analysis processes.
 Post-processing:
Von mises equivalent stress:

Model 1

Model 2
 Model 3

Conclusion:
Max equivalent Von Mises stress for model 1: 1.15 GPa

Max equivalent Von Mises stress for model 2: 1.61 GPa

Max equivalent Von Mises stress for model 3: 996 MPa

Yield strength: 1GPa

In both the first and second models, it's evident that the maximum von Mises equivalent stress
surpasses the yield stress threshold, indicating an imminent failure.
Total deformation:
Model 1
 Model 2

Model 3

Conclusion:
After analyzing the total deformation of the three models using FEA, it was found to be 0.12%. This result
verifies the small displacement hypothesis, indicating that the deformations within the structure are
sufficiently small to justify linear elastic behavior. Thus, our analysis is deemed accurate and reliable.