MSXIV Centerlink Analysis Fall 2019

Owned by Ambreen Ahmed (Unlicensed)
Last updated: Apr 26, 2020 by Emily Guo

This page contains the findings for conducting FEA on the centerlink.

NOTE: due to technical issues, only images of the most recent simulation are present.

Loading conditions: (from this Google Sheet) 


LOADING CASE:

Fx = -1.58 N

Fz = 113.09 N


DateMax Stress and Max DeformationNotesNext steps
 

Max stress = 55.3 MPa

Max deformation = 0.8305 mm

Min Safety factor = 7.95

  • FEA was not iterated as it was assumed that this part was finalized.
  • iterate to reduce safety factor; reduce wall thickness
 

Version 1: wall thickness = 1/4"

Max stress = 55.406 MPa

Max deformation = 0.83252 mm

Min safety factor = 7.94

Mesh convergence = 0.085959%


Version 2: wall thickness = 3/16"

Max stress = 83.589 MPa

Max deformation = 1.0467 mm

Min safety factor = 5.2638

Mesh convergence = 3.6415%


Version 3: side wall thickness = 1/8", top/bottom wall thickness = 3/16"

Max stress = 70.596 MPa

Max deformation = 0.89468 mm

Min safety factor = 6.2326

Mesh convergence = 0.015431%


  • V1 was the same as the version of the centerlink analyzed previously (on 12/03/2019). The mesh convergence was tested.
  • V3 had less stress than V2, likely because it had a higher I.
  • Iterate further
  • Look into actual tubes supplied from VR3. This is in their solid modelling guidelines, page 23.
 

Version 1: 0.75" square tube, supplied by VR3

Max stress = 293.66 MPa

Max deformation = 4.8922 mm

Min safety factor = 1.4983

Mesh convergence = 3.9141%


Version 2: 1" square tube, supplied by VR3

Max stress = 204.48 MPa

Max deformation = 2.6166 mm

Min safety factor = 2.1518

Mesh convergence = 1.8331%


  • V1 failed, V2 passed. The requirement is SF> 2.
  • All dimensions are from the Solid Modelling guidelines from the VR3
  • Based on the information in the google sheet, anything with a higher I and a thicker wall thickness should be acceptable to spec.