0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
68 tayangan18 halaman
The document discusses the analysis and redesign of a tractor's front axle to reduce weight and improve manufacturability. The existing design was analyzed under 13 load conditions. Based on the results, 5 proposed redesigned axle models were created with the goals of reducing weight by around 40% and making the designs easier to manufacture. The proposed designs were then analyzed under the worst load conditions and found to have stresses within 15% of the original design while significantly reducing weight. This demonstrated that finite element analysis can be used to effectively redesign components to lower costs.
Deskripsi Asli:
Analysis and Weight Reduction of a Tractors Front Axle
Judul Asli
Analysis and Weight Reduction of a Tractors Front Axle
The document discusses the analysis and redesign of a tractor's front axle to reduce weight and improve manufacturability. The existing design was analyzed under 13 load conditions. Based on the results, 5 proposed redesigned axle models were created with the goals of reducing weight by around 40% and making the designs easier to manufacture. The proposed designs were then analyzed under the worst load conditions and found to have stresses within 15% of the original design while significantly reducing weight. This demonstrated that finite element analysis can be used to effectively redesign components to lower costs.
Hak Cipta:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Format Tersedia
Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
The document discusses the analysis and redesign of a tractor's front axle to reduce weight and improve manufacturability. The existing design was analyzed under 13 load conditions. Based on the results, 5 proposed redesigned axle models were created with the goals of reducing weight by around 40% and making the designs easier to manufacture. The proposed designs were then analyzed under the worst load conditions and found to have stresses within 15% of the original design while significantly reducing weight. This demonstrated that finite element analysis can be used to effectively redesign components to lower costs.
Hak Cipta:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Format Tersedia
Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
Analysis and Weight Reduction of a Tractors Front Axle
Dilip K Mahanty, Vikas Manohar, Bhushan S Khomane, Swarnendu Nayak
Tata Consultancy Services, India Swarup Udgata International Auto Limited,India Abstract Engineering components with optimum use of material and easy manufacturability is a direction where prior simulation through finite element method is found to be very useful. Front Axle of Tractor is one of the major and very important component and needs very good design as this part experiences the worst load condition of the whole tractor. The objective of this paper was to analyse the new design of the front axle of tractor for Thirteen (13) different Certification Test load conditions. The existing design has no field failure reports; so the results of the existing design were taken as basis for comparison with results of the proposed models. Based on the finite element analysis results, redesign was carried out for the front axle for weight optimisation and easy manufacturability. This led to five proposed designs of the front axle which were evolved based on the above objectives. The proposed designs were evaluated for selected worst load cases of the existing design. The finite element analysis of new models yielded displacements and stresses close to the existing design. The increase in stresses were close to 15 % for all five models. The increase in displacement was not significant but all the new designs conceived had met the structural requirement. It was also observed that for the proposed designs there was a significant reduction in weight (approximately 40 %) and the proposed models did not involve a lot of welding, thereby significant savings of manufacturing was observed. The components used in the assembly were also found to be cost effective like smaller diameters bearing, smaller knuckle size etc. The reduction in cost of production and weight significantly reduced the cost of the new design of Front Axle. This analysis work showcases the use of finite element analysis as a method for reduction of cost in terms of materials and manufacturing.
Introduction Front Axle of Tractor is one of the major and very important component and needs very good design as this part experiences the worst load condition of the whole tractor. The objective of this work was to analyse the current design of the tractor front axle and evaluate the proposed designs for reduction in weight and for better manufacturability. The current design was analysed for 13 different Certification Test load cases. Five different models were proposed based on ease of manufacture and weight reduction. The welding and forming operations required in the proposed models were less than the current model. Also some of the connected components like bearings, bushes etc. have been redesigned for improved performance and decrease in cost. These were done based on field feedback. The Certification load cases as defined for the project is specified below: a) Drop Test In this case a pit of 2.5 feet deep and 2 feet wide and 5 feet long is dug on a very hard ground. The tractor comes on to it at maximum speed of 35 Kmph and one of the front wheel is allowed to fall into it. The tractor engine pushes the tractor further till the end of the pit and the engine keeps on humming in this case even after tractor has reached the end of the pit for some time and finally the engine stops. This is for tractors with 35/55 HP capacity. b) Torture Test The tractor is run on a test track which is having various types of humps/road conditions. The conditions are described below: Wheel 1 Condition Wheel 2 Condition Ok Pot Hole ok Pot Hole Ok Pot Hole ok Hump Ok On a small radius Hump ok On a big radius Hump (i.e. the radius of hump vary across the width of road ) Ok On a Plane Road ok On a Slope (Like agriculture plot boundary) Ok On a V road with Humps ok On a V road with Humps (The road height is less at the centre and on an inverted V road with humps)
c) 8 Shaped Track Test The Tractor runs at 35 Kmph speed on a 8 shaped track with three medium sized humps positioned at 120 o to each other in each circle of 8. The Steering has to be turned till its locking position is reached while negotiating a curve. d) The Impact Test One side of the tractor collides head on against a rigid wall at a speed of 35 Kmph. e) Extender wide open Test The front axle extenders are fully extended and the tractor runs on either type of the V road at a speed of 15 Kmph and also on one side slope condition. f) Pit Test At speed of 30 Kmph the tractor goes in side a pit of 10 feet deep with 20 degree slope on either side and comes out. g) Worst load test In this load case all the worst load conditions, except the impact load would be applied on the axle and the analysis would be carried out. Also an extender wide open test with worst load case would be carried out.
Procedure The geometric model for the current configuration was created based on the drawings provided. Small fillets and blends were ignored while creating the model. The geometric model was made using Unigraphics V16.0 (See Figure 1).
Figure 1 - Solid Model of Current design The proposed models were based on the sketches, drawings and discussions with the manufacturing engineers. Five proposed models were created (See Figure 2).
Figure 2 - Solid Model of Proposed design The geometric models created in Unigraphics were imported into ANSYS V5.6 and FE meshing were carried out with appropriate type of finite elements. The current model was meshed using SOLID 45 and SOLID 92 Tetrahedral elements available in ANSYS. The inner box, outer box and the torch portions were meshed using the SOLID45 elements and the knuckle, pin, hub, bearings and bushes were meshed using the SOLID92 elements. The bearings, knuckle, hubs and the bushes were restrained by coupling nodes (See Figure 3).
Figure 3 - Finite Element Model of Current Design The proposed model was meshed using shell elements and solid tetrahedral elements. The boxes were meshed using the SHELL63 elements. SHELL63 was considered for the analysis as it saved a lot of time and effort for meshing of the proposed models with varying thickness. The knuckle, pin, hub, bearings, torch and bushes were meshed using SOLID92 elements (See Figure 4).
Figure 4 - Finite Element Model of Proposed Design Major components of the Front axle where FE meshing have been carried out were, Outer box Inner box with torch Hub Knuckle and pin Bushes and bearings. The details of the loads applied on the model were calculated and given in the appendix-A. A typical load and boundary condition is given in Figure 5.
Figure 5 - FE Model of Current Design with Boundary Conditions The individual components have been coupled together so that there is no free motion between components. The bearings and bushes have been coupled to the pin and the knuckle on the inner side and on the outer side they have been coupled with the sleeve / hub. The extender is coupled with the outer box at the end of the extender and at the bolts. In the proposed model the torch is coupled to the extender. The vertical restraints are applied on the bolts of the hub. The axial and transverse restraints are applied at the pin in case of the current model and on the sleeve in the proposed model. The loads as applied on the current and proposed model are given in Table 1 Table 1: Directional loads applied for different Certification Test Conditions
Applied Loads (N) Sr No. Load Case FX FY FZ 1. Drop Test (One Wheel in Pit) 0 12000 7584 2. Torture Test (Both Wheels in Pit) 0 24000 20120 3. Torture Test (One Wheel in Pit; Another Wheel in Hump) 0 24000 20120 4. Torture Test (One Wheel on Plane ; Another on Slope) 11427 12000 0 5. Torture Test (V Road With Hump) 4368 24000 20120 6. Torture Test ( Small Radius Hump; Big Radius Hump) 0 24000 7388.4 7. Extender Wide Open Test ( One Wheel on Slope; One on Plane ) 11427 12000 0 8. Extender Wide Open Test ( V Road with Hump) 4368 24000 20120 9. Pit Test 1640 28510 0 10. 8 Shaped Track Test 25000 24000 20120 11. One Side Impact Test (Stops in 0.1 Second) 0 12000 23751.3 12. One Side Impact Test ( Stops in 1 Second ) 0 12000 2375.13 13. Worst Loading Condition 25000 28150 20120
The loads applied on the proposed model were: Worst loading condition One side impact (stops in 0.1 second) and Extender wide with worst loading for the models which could be extended. Analysis The static analysis of the Front axle was carried out for the 13 load cases mentioned in Table 1 for the current model. Based on the analysis of the current model of the front axle, five different configurations for the proposed models of the front axle were created. The challenge was to reduce the weight of the axle in such a manner that manufacturability would be easier and design criteria were also met. All the proposed designs were analysed for the worst load case simulation as obtained for the current model. Analysis Results & Discussion Displacement and Stress Results for Current Model The analysis of the Current model yielded results as specified in Table 2. Table2: Maximum Stress and displacements in different components for 13 load cases
Maximum Stress ( N/mm 2 ) Sr No. Load Case
Max. Stress (N/mm 2 )
Max. Disp. (mm) Hub Knuckle Box 1. Drop Test (One Wheel in Pit) 131 (Box ) 0.7061 27.5 127.5 131 2. Torture Test (Both Wheels in Pothole) 332.173 1.14 249 197 231 3. Torture Test (One Wheel in Pothole; Another Wheel in Hump) 333 1.123 58 (Bolt) 182 245 4. Torture Test (One Wheel on Plane; Another on Slope) 84.652 1.769 30.87 31.22 56.66
5.
Torture Test (V Road with Hump) 331.7 1.142 243 197 230.44 Maximum Stress (N/mm 2 ) Sr No. Load Cases Max. Stress (N/mm 2 ) Max. Disp. (mm) Hub Knuckle Box 6. Torture Test (Small Radius Hump; Big Radius Hump) 143.3 0.44 134.5 133 119 7. Extender Wide Open Test (One Wheel on Slope; One on Plane) 176.88 0.7181 39.6 77.58 158.74 8. Extender Wide Open Test (V Road with Hump) 453 2.372 259 270 385 9. Pit Test 283 0.64
11. One Side Impact Test (Stops in 0.1 Second) 320 .55
119 (Bolt)
46 (Bearing) 320 12. One Side Impact Test (Stops in 1 Second ) 119 (Bolt) 0.2725 119 45.03 56 13. Worst Loading Condition 384 1.278 384 (Bolt) 241 333
As can be seen the worst load case causes the maximum stress in the hub and the box. . The 8 shaped track test causes worst load in the knuckle. The extender wide test causes the maximum stress in the box. But this is a very rare loading event. The maximum displacement for all the 13 load cases is due to the load case 8 (extender wide open test on a V road). This is a very rare loading event. These are the results of the current model and as the current model has reported no failures in the field, these results have been taken as baseline to compare against the results obtained from the analysis of the proposed models. Displacement and Stress Results for Modified Design The displacement and stress values obtained for the modified designs are presented in the Table 3 Table-3: Maximum Stress and displacements in different omponents for proposed models. Maximum Stress ( N/mm 2 ) Sr No. Load Case
Max. Stress ( N/mm 2 )
Max. Disp. ( mm ) Hub Knuckle Box Design: Square Box with Extender 1. Worst Loading Case 604.174 (Hub Bolt) 3.017 604 (Bolt) 243.4 (Bearing) 387 2. Impact Test 345.155 (Rib & Box Connection) 1.831 159.5 (Bolt) 40.177
Figure 6 - Total displacement plot for the current design
Figure 7 - Total displacement plot for the proposed design
Figure 8 - Maximum equivalent stress plot for the proposed design
The weights of different models are given in Table 4. Table 4. Weights of Different Models Model Weight (KG) Current Model 127.7 Square Shaped Model with Extender 67.982 Square Shaped Model without Extender 51.91 U Shaped Model with Extender 68.6 U Shaped Model without Extender 57.24
Conclusion The results of the 13 load cases on current model indicate that the structure is safe overall except at some localized locations where the stresses are high. It is very noticeable that the stresses die down within an element or two. This shows that the stress is of a very localized nature. The existing design has no field failure reports; so the results of the existing design were taken as basis for comparison with results of the proposed models. The proposed designs were evaluated for selected worst load cases of the existing design. The finite element analysis of new models yielded displacements and stresses close to the existing design (refer table 3). The increase in stresses were close to 15% for all five models. The increase in displacement was not significant but all the new designs conceived had met the structural requirement. It was also observed that for the proposed designs there was a significant reduction in weight (approximately 40 %) and the proposed models did not involve a lot of welding, thereby significant savings of manufacturing was observed. The components used in the assembly were also found to be cost effective like smaller diameters bearing, smaller knuckle size etc. The reduction in cost of production and weight significantly reduced the cost of the new design of Front Axle. Of the proposed models, the model U-box with extender was considered as the best based on the utilization and application. This analysis work showcases the use of finite element analysis as a method for reduction of cost in terms of materials and manufacturing. . References 1. ANSYS Theory Manual. 2. J. E. Shigley, C. R. Mischke, Mechanical Engineering Design, McGraw-Hill, 1989, Singapore. Appendix-A 1. DROP TEST For details of the loads (See Figure 9) Velocity of the Tractor is 35 km/hr (9.722 m/sec). Acceleration = - u 2 /2S = - 31 m/sec 2
Force = mass X acceleration = 7584 N. Hence, vertical force on both wheels = 12000 N Frontal force on Wheel, W 1 = 7584 N
Figure 9 - Drop test details 2. TORTURE TEST WITH POT HOLE & HUMP For details of the loads (See Figure 10) Assuming, velocity reduces from 35 km/hr ( 9.722 m/sec ) to 17.5 km/hr ( 4.861 m/sec) in 431 mm distance. Acceleration = - (u 2 -v 2 )/2S = - 82.24 m/sec 2 . Hence, frontal force on both wheel = 20120 N And Vertical force due to impact load = 24000 N.
Figure 10 - Torture test with pothole & hump details 3. TORTURE TEST WITH TWO POT HOLES For details of the loads (See Figure 11) As size of potholes are same, from calculation of point no. 2, Frontal force on both wheel = 20120 N And Vertical force due to impact load = 24000 N.
Figure 11 - Torture test with 2 potholes details 4. TORTURE TEST WITH SMALL & BIG HUMPS For details of the loads (See Figure 12) Assuming velocity reduces from 30 km/hr ( 8.33 m/sec ) to 15 km/hr (4.17 m/sec ) at big hump. Acceleration = - (u 2 -v 2 )/2S = - 30.16 m/sec 2 . Hence, Frontal force on both wheel = mass X acceleration = 7388.4 N And Vertical force due to impact load = 24000 N.
Figure 12 - Torture test with small & big humps details 5. IMPACT TEST (ONE SIDE COLLIDES AGAINST A RIGID WALL) For details of the loads (See Figure 13) Considering time required to stop = 0.1 sec. Acceleration = - (u-v)/t = - 97.22 m/sec 2 . Hence, Frontal force on one wheel = 23751.28 N And Vertical force = 12000 N.
Figure 13 - Impact test (one side collides against a rigid wall) details 6. TEST ON V SHAPED ROAD For details of the loads (See Figure 14) By solving, R 1 = 12770 N = R 2
Hence, Transverse component = R 1 sin20 0 =R 2 sin20 0 = 4368 N Due to humps on the road, Frontal component on both wheels = 20120 N ( from point no. 2). Vertical force = 24000 N.
Figure 14 - Test on V shaped road details 7. TEST FOR ONE WHEEL ON PLANE & ANOTHER WHEEL ON SLOPE For details of the loads (See Figure 15) Considering, slope starts from the centre of the tractor ( the middle point of the wheels ), The angle of the slope = tan 1 {914.4/(663 X cos43.6 0 )} = 62.3 0
So, R 2 = 12906.4 N. Hence, Transverse component =R 2 sin62.3 0 = 11427 N Vertical force on both wheels = 12000 N.
Figure 15 - Test for one wheel on plane & another on slope details 8. PIT TEST ON 20 0 SLOPE ROAD For details of the loads (See Figure 16) Total reaction force = R 1 = 2mg = 4800 N. So, R 1 sin20 0 = 1640 N & R 1 cos20 0 = 4510 N Hence, Frontal force on both wheel = 1640 N Vertical force on both wheels = 24000 + 4510 = 28510 N. (For impact loading.)
Figure 16 - Pit test on 20 0 slope road details 9. TEST ON 8SHAPED TRACK WITH HUMPS For details of the loads (See Figure 17) Assuming, radius of the track = 2.5 m. And, velocity of the tractor = 35 km/hr ( 9.722 m/sec). Cetrifugal force = ( m v 2 / r ) = 9345 N . Maximum bearing force = 25000 N ( given ). Hence, Ttransverse component = 25000 N ( considering higher value). Due to humps on the road, Frontal component on both wheels = 20120 N (From point no. 2). Vertical force = 24000 N. ( for impact loading ).
Figure 17 - Test on 8 shaped track with humps details 10. WORST LOADING CASE For details of the loads (See Figure 18) Considering all loading cases, maximum loads at all three directions are, Transverse component = 25000 N, Frontal component on both wheels = 20120 N . Vertical force = 28510 N.