This page contains the findings for conducting FEA on the Tie Rod.

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

Loading conditions: (from this Google Sheet)

Material:

4130N chromoly, from VR3

LOADING CASE AS OF 20191220:

Fnormal = -38.169N

LOADING CASE BEFORE 20191220:

Fx = -1.58 N

Fz = 113.09 N

Date	Max Stress and Max Deformation	Notes/ What I learned	Questions after doing the analysis / next steps
05 Dec 2019	Version 1: OD = 5/8", ID = 1/8", wall thickness = 1/4" Max stress = 135.04 MPa Max deformation = 1.0079 mm Min safety factor = 3.2212 Version 2: OD = 5/8", ID = 1/4", wall thickness = 3/16" Max stress = 165.36 MPa Max deformation = 1.0336 mm Min safety factor = 2.6306 Version 2: OD = 1/2", ID = 1/8", wall thickness = 3/16" Max stress = 229.86 MPa Max deformation = 2.4137 mm Min safety factor = 1.8925	Failure will most likely occur at sharp edge inside M8 dowel hole Although Version 2 (reducing the thickness while maintaining the same OD) caused the difference between the tie rod ID and the dowel hole diameter to be even smaller (0.825 mm), this had a higher safety factor than Version 3 (reducing the thickness while maintaining the same ID). This implies that ,overall, it is important for the cross-section to have a higher second moment of area.	CHANGE THE DOWEL HOLE TO A TAP DRILL Is there a maximum acceptable ID based on the difference between the dowel hole diameter and the tie rod ID? Like a recommended inner diameter based on manufacturing standards? Can the ID get any larger? Can the OD get any smaller? What tubing sizes are available?
19 Dec 2019	Max stress = 7.602 MPa SF = 15	The analysis was changed to treat the tie rod as a two force member instead of a beam in bending. This is more accurate and makes the loading far lighter. MVP reached; this is the smallest feasible tie rod

Browser not supported