1

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

Table of Contents
Introduction

Design Evaluation
GSEE Design Factors
- Global Factors
- Societal Factors
- Economic Factors
- Environmental Factors

2-3
4

System Redesign Analysis

- Hinge Bracket Removal Justification

Cutting Bar Analysis
- Material Properties
- Assumptions and Known Parameters
- Fatigue Failure
Main Beam Analysis
- Material Properties
- Assumptions and Known Parameters
- Stress Analysis
- Static Failure Analysis
- Fatigue Failure Analysis
Leg Link Analysis
- Stress Analysis
- Fatigue Failure Analysis
Main Beam/Cutting Bar Pin Analysis
- Assumptions and Known Parameter
- Fatigue Failure Analysis
Redesign and Fastening Impact on System
Conclusion

Introduction

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

In gate 4 we will use our knowledge and thorough technical analysis of the
kindling splitter system to propose two redesign concepts. These redesign
decisions will seek to improve the usage of the kindling splitter while also
aiming to improve factors global, societal, economic, and environmental
(GSEE) factors that influence the overall design of this product. A rigorous
and quantitative evaluation of our proposed redesigns will be conducted to
justify these redesigns and their benefits not only at a component level but
also at a system level. The redesigns will be completely reanalyzed to
determine new stress states for the modified components while also
considering their effects on surrounding components. New failure analysis
will also be conducted using our new stresses to determine the quality and
efficiency of the system after our redesigns have been implemented.
Fastening methods will also be considered and how it impacts the overall
system. Any negative impacts from the redesigns that are found will be
discussed to justify any potential tradeoffs from a system level standpoint.

Design Evaluation
Our goals for these redesigns were to increase the both the effectiveness
and safety of the kindling splitter while also cutting cost. We also saw a
possible weak point on the mechanism which we got rid of in order to ensure
a long life of the product.
The goals of our redesign of the leg support were to use less material in
order to lower cost and manufacturing time. We did a static failure analysis
and a fatigue failure analysis of the leg support and obtained a factor of
safety of 32.9 and 19.6 respectively, which was extremely high. In order to
lower it, we are reducing the thickness of the leg support. This will allow the
design to be cheaper, lighter, easier to manufacture, while still maintaining
an acceptable factor of safety to be safe when operating.
The goals of our redesign of the cutting arm were to eliminate the extra
support that was attached to the main leg. In doing this, we got rid of a
potential high stress component that was likely to break. Now, instead of all
the stress being on the thin extruding supports, the holes are drilled directly
into the main leg, allowing the stress to be put on the whole system. Also, by
increasing the moment arm we were able to place significantly more stress
the leg support which already had a high factor of safety. We were also able
to reduce the stress on the main support beam which had a relatively low
factor safety. We could not keep the cutting arm straight because the support
leg would get in the way of its action. So we added an angled section to the
cutting arm, which allows a full range of motion while operating the kindling
splitter. It also gives the user more leverage due to the angled section
connected to the main beam.

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

Figure 1. Cutting Bar Redesign

Figure 2. Main Support Leg Redesign

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

Global Factors:
The kindling splitter was meant to be sold in wooded regions or places where
people have a need for firewood, such as campgrounds. Using a thinner leg
support will bring the price down to be able sell in developing countries, at it
will decrease it enough to see a noticeable difference in the places it is
already be sold in. Other than this, our redesign does not influence any
global factors.
Societal Factors:
Societal factors play a huge role in the kindling splitter because it is being
operated by people. The splitter is convenient and easy to use. It folds and
is lightweight for easy storage and transportation. The way the cutting bar
operates makes splitting kindling from logs relatively easy. The user starts
the wood at the bottom peg in order to get the most leverage and make the
initial cut. From there, the user just moves the wood up the next few pegs in
order to finish cutting through the remainder of the log. This is safer than
using an axe because the user does not have to worry about missing the log
or debris flying from the log.
The new design of the cutting arm will make the operation of the kindling
splitter even easier for the user. This redesign will add more leverage to the
cutting motion which will allow the user to apply less force to obtain the
same results. The redesign of the leg support will make the system lighter
by using less material. This will make it easier to transport and store.
Economic Factors:
Kindling splitters were designed to cut soft firewood. There is not a lot of
pressure needed in order to accomplish this due to the leverage used. The
redesign of this kindling splitter will make it easier to use and cheaper due to
needing less material for the leg support. It is more expensive than a
conventional axe but is much safer and easier to use. Although the leg
support will be using less material, the cutting bar will not have an angled
section, which will be a little more difficult to manufacture than a straight
bar.
Environmental Factors:
Our kindling splitter is still made from cast iron and steel, which is resistant
to dissolving and weakening from oxidation. Cast iron and steel are widely

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

used and are sturdy enough for repeated use in harsh weather conditions.
From an environmental standpoint, the manufacturing process will not
change significantly and will still not be very damaging to the environment.
Cast iron is made from the combination of pig iron and many other recycled
metals that are melted together.

System Redesign Analysis

For the original analysis of fatigue failure for the main beam component we
calculated a factor of safety of n=4.8. Through the redesign of the cutting
bar we removed the hinge bracket and attached the cutting bar directly to
the main beam. To allow the cutting bar to still be able to be rotated freely a
bent extension piece was added to the end of the cutting bar. Drilling a hole
into the cutting bar and the main beam identical to the one in the hinge
bracket we were able to attach the cutting bar directly to the main beam.
The added piece on the cutting bar will increase the cutting bars length
which in theory will give the worker more leverage when cutting and
decrease the amount of force required by the user.

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

Figure: Kindling Splitter with Redesigned Components

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

Hinge Bracket Removal

Static Failure Analysis

Under Applied force repeated we have:

Using Distortion energy theorem
1=760 psi ,

' =( .5 (( 1 2 ) + ( 2 3 ) + ( 1 3 )
2

2=0 ,

3 =0

54000
760

= 71

2 .5

))

' =1520 psi

n=

Sy
'

Fatigue Failure Analysis

m = a = (max- min)/2 = (760)/2 = 380 psi
Se = Ka*Kb*Kc*Se
Se = (1)(1)(0.59)(31kpsi) = 18.29 kpsi
S ut =64 kpsi

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

a m 1
+
= =
Se Sut n
n = 37.433 (Goodman)

For the botom holes of the bracket:

Figure: Hinge Bracket FBD

Bending at the bottom hole:

For fatigue do to the bending at the bottom hole, we are going to base our
analysis on the Fig 9 and the Free Body Diagram below.
Cross section Area = (1.5)(0.13)= 0.195 in2
Bottom part of the bracket
Mbending = 25lb(0.75-.38) = 9.25 psi
bending =

32 M
I

32( 9.25)
0.195

= 1517.95 psi

Static Failure Analysis

Under Applied force repeated we have:

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

Case 1; , A =

n=

Sut
A

26
1.518

Sut
n

= 17.12

Fatigue Failure Analysis

Applied force repeated, thus
Se = (1)(1)(0.85)(11kpsi) = 9.35 kpsi
a m 1 .759 kpsi .759 kpsi
+
= =
+
Se Sut n 9.35 kpsi 26 kpsi

= 0.11

n = 9.06
In our redesigned cutting bar, the cutting blade will always touch the wood surface which will
allow the user to apply less force. In the old model, the cutting bar will be directely connected to
the main beam which will give us a factor of safety n = 2.

The assembly will be easier for the redesinged model because it has less components which
means the assmbly time for this product will be reduced. This new shape of our cutting bar will
increase the height. In our previous gate we concluded that by having a factor of safety of n = .
4244, the cutting bar would not hold up to the applied repeated stress. A modification that
should be made is to make the cutting bars height greater, allowing the bar to withstand repeated
loading with a higher factor of safety. Similarly, in this gate the increase in height resulted in an
increase in the factor of safety for the cutting bar.
Fatigue Failure Analysis @ One million cycles, n=4:

10

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

Using Modified Goodman and the equations from infinite life, we obtained a height of 2.15in for
a factor of safety of 4.

With a factor of safety of 4, the cutting bars height was increased from 1.5in to 2.15 in. This
will make it withstand repeated loading while being safer to use. WE used modified Goodman
because it is simple and a good fit.

Cutting Bar Analysis

The purpose of this redesign is to reduce labor cost, make the assembly
easier , simplify the system, and correct the critical factor of safety.. In order
to achieve these objectives, we must first eliminate the hinge bracket.
Eliinating the hinge bracket will save us material costs, as well as time during
the manufacturing process. Also, the two bolts that were needed to join the
hinge bracket to main support beam are no longer needed, which further
saves us on material costs and time. The cutting bar will now attatch directly
to the main beam which eliminate the concern we had about failure in the
brackets since they no longer exist. In our previous gate we had:

Figure: Stock Design Assembly

11

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

Figure: Stock Cutting Bar Design

By examining these two figure we see that in the original design of the
cutting bar the left end is perfectly straight with this end attaching to the
hinge bracket via the pin. This concept has been slightly changed as we will
see in subsequent figures.

Figure: Redesign Assembly

Figure: Cutting Bar Redesign

The redesign can be seen in the above two figures. We have added a bent
portion to the main beam and removed the hinge bracket from the assembly.
A new pin hole was created in the bent feature as well as in the main beam.
The cutting bar will be attched to the main beam at the pin hole and the bent
portion of the cutting bar will give clearance so that the cutting bar will still
be able to have full rotation about the pin. This bent extention also lengthens
the cutting bar resulting in a greater distance between the user and the axis

12

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

of rotation allowing the user to exert less force while still maintaining the
same about of force on the wood piece.

Material Properties:
-

Material Name: 1018 Steel

Ultimate Tensile Strength (SUT): 63,816.59 psi
Endurance Strength (SE): 4351.92psi

Assumptions and Known Parameters:

-

Cutter wedge maintains same proportion as height

Reaction force of the wood located in the middle of the blade (average)
Environmental factors such as temperature, oxidation, etc are neglected
Fatigue loading experienced by component is classified as repeated loading
Material is ductile, no stress concentration
--SUT= 63.816kpsi ; Sy= 370MPa= 53.663psi
-Se= .5SUT= 31.9psi
-b= .25in ; h= 1.5in
-Fy = 50lb

Only the height and the length of the beam change:

New h= 2.2 in and L= 25.6in, so 1.56in is added to La which was 18inches,
therefore:
-

13

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

new neutral axis=

.382
=0.96
0.3988

I rectangle =0. 0407 in

I tiangle new =0. 019i n4

I BB new =I rectangle + I triangle =0.0597 i n4

Fp=

FyLa 50(18+1.56)
=
=163l b
Lb
6

Flog=Fy + Fp=163+50=213 l b

M = 50(18+1.56) = 978 psi

After determining the reaction forces on the cutting bar, we can develop our
shear and moment diagrams to help determine our critical points and
maximum moment.

14

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

cutting bar
Shear Force Diagram
200
150
100
Cutting Bar
Force (lbs)

50
0

12

16

-50
-100

Distance (inches)

Moment Diagram:

20

24

15

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

Cutting Bar
Moment Diagram
0

12

16

20

24

-200
-400

Moment (Lb*In)

Cutting Bar

-600
-800
-1000
-1200

Distance (Inches)

Examining the shear and moment diagrams we can see that the shear force
is greatest between the connection of the cutting bar to the pin and where
the cutting bar is attached to the main beam. Therefore when we conduct
our failure analysis we will be looking at this portion of the cutting bar
specifically where the cutting bar hole attaches to the middle of the pin
connector.

Fatigue Failure Analysis

Now in order to do a correct analysis of our new design, we are going to calculate the fatigue
failure at the hole of the bar. After that we will do the fatigue failure on the pin which connects
the cutting bar to the main support beam.
Fbearing=
3

I=

Fp
50
=
=2.608 kps i
td (.25.25)
3

b(h) 0.25(2.2)
3
=
=.2218 i n
12
12

max=

Mc P 50 ( 18+1.56 ) (.96) 163

+ =
+
=.413 kpsi
I
A
.2218
.3988

16

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

Now in order to do a correct analysis of our new design, we are going to calculate the fatigue
failure at the hole of the bar. After that we will do the fatigue failure on the pin which connects
the cutting bar to the main support beam.
bearing

At the hole = 2.608kpsi

a=m= 2.608 kpsi

SUT= 63.816kpsi ; Sy= 370MPa= 53.663psi

Se= .5SUT= 31.9psi
Using Goodman
n=

1
=8.1 5
2.608 2.608
+
31.9 63.8

The maximum stress is located where the cutting bar touches the wood and
also at cutting bar hole where it is connected to the main support beam.
Although, the stress of the bar largely varies with respect to its height and no
with respect to it thickness. Therefore, by increasing the height of the cutting
bar from 1.5 in to 2.2 in , we got a factor of safety of 8 which is different to
the one we got at the hinge bracket which were 13.67 at pins bracket holes
and 9.06 at the bracket bottom holes. This justifies a part of our redesign by
decreasing the factor of safety which will only in the beam holes.

Main Beam Analysis

Being that the cutting bar has now changed geometries and has been
relocated and attached directly to the main beam a new analysis of the
beam must be conducted. The material chosen for this failure analysis for the main
support beam component is the same from the previous gate 3. Material properties, assumptions,
and known values determined in the gate 3 analysis, which are used in this failure analysis are
listed below
Material Properties:
-

Material Name: 1018 CD Steel

Ultimate Tensile Strength (SUT): 63 kpsi
Endurance Strength (SE): 31 kpsi
Yield Strength (SY): 54 kpsi

Assumptions and Known Parameters:

17

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

The critical point of the main beam is at the pin hole (calculated from
stress analysis)
The wood is at a 45 angle and is on the top notch
All forces on the main beam act as point loads
The kindling splitter is on level ground of slope zero
We can approximate the axial stress at the pin hole by using the
average bearing stress formula
Assume repeated loading for bending, axial, and torsion
Assume negligible stress concentrations because material is ductile
(k=1)
Since steel is ductile Modified Goodman theory to determine the factor
of safety for fatigue failure
Environmental factors such as temperature, oxidation, etc are neglected
Fatigue loading experienced by component is classified as repeated loading
Material is ductile, no stress concentration

Stress Analysis
The main beam is one of the main components of the kindling splitter that as
seen from previous analysis, experiences the largest amount of stress from
external loading. Here we will examine how the redesign of the cutting bar
will directly affect the main beam through determining the new stresses
resulting from the cutting bar now being directly supported by the main
beam.

L=24in

LA=16in

LB=8in
FW=200 lb

LC=2in

Summation of moments about FL, solving for FS

FP=119 lb

18

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

F P8

M F =0=
L

119 lb8

200 lbsin ( 45 )2
)

F S3
0=
F S=223.0 lb

Summation of Y-Forces
F Y =0=F Wsin ( 45 ) + F S + F P F Lsin ( 45 )
F Y =0=200 lbsin ( 45 ) +223.0 lb+119 lbF Lsin ( 45 )
F L =52.9lb
Summation of X-Forces
F X =F W cos ( 45 )+ F Lcos ( 45 ) + F F
F X =0=200 lbcos ( 45 ) +52.9 lbcos ( 45 ) + F F
F F =25.7 lb
After determining the reaction forces on the main beam we can develop our
shear and moment diagrams to help determine our critical points and
maximum moment.
Shear Diagram:

19

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

Main BEam
Shear Force Diagram
200
150
100
50
Force (lbs)

Main Beam
0

12

16

-50
-100
-150
-200

Distance (inches)

Moment Diagram:

20

24

20

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

Main BEam
Moment Diagram
600
500
400
300
Main Beam

200

Moment (Lb*In)

100
0
-100

12

16

20

24

-200
-300
-400

Distance (Inches)

Examining the shear and moment diagrams we can see that the shear force
is greatest between the connection of the leg support to the main beam and
where the cutting bar is attached to the main beam. Therefore when we
conduct our failure analysis we will be looking at this portion of the beam
specifically where we have a change in cross section which will be at the pin
i.e. where the cutting bar attaches to the main beam.
Stress revaluated at the critical point A with the new bending moment
force

and the new pin

Fp .
First Calculate stress due to bending

b=

Mc
I
b =4078 psi

Then calculate the bearing or axial stress caused by the pin

Fp
2
a=
td

21

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

a =1904 psi

Add the axial stress and the bending stress to calculate the total stress
= a

+ b

=5982 psi

Then calculate the new shear stress

Fp
2
=
2
d
4

()

=1212 psi

The redesign lowered the bending stress, axial stress, and shearing stress at the critical point of
the main beam. This was one of the objectives of the redesign because lowering the stresses at
the critical point will increase the factor of safety which will in turn make the system safer as
much less force will be required to cut the wood piece. Thus the kindling splitter is more easily
used by the weak and the elderly.

Static Failure Analysis

' = 2X +3 3XY

' = 59822 +312122

' =6339.6 psi
Computing the factor of safety
n NEW =

Sy

'

54 kpsi
=8.5
6339.6 psi

22

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

n NEW =8.5>nOLD =6.67

Fatigue Failure Analysis

We need to determine the alternating and midrange stress components.
Since we assumed all loading to be repeated loading this is a simple process.
We can break up our stresses into normal stress caused by bending b ,
normal stress cause by axial loading
b =4078 psi

a , and shear stress

a =1904 psi =1212 psi

Then we determine the alternating and midrange stress for

ab = mb=

b , a ,

b
2

ab = mb=2039 psi
aa= ma=

a
2

aa= ma=952 psi

a = m =606 psi

Then we must determine the von-Mises stresses for midrange and

alternating components since we have combination loading
K
K 2
( fb ab + fa aa ) +3(K fst a)2
.85
'a =

23

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

K
K 2
2
( fb mb + fa ma ) +3( K fst m)
.85
'm =

All K values are 1 because point A does not have a stress concentration.
Plugging in values and solving we get
'a =3328 psi
'm =3328 psi

Then we apply the Modified Goodman Theory to determine the factor of

safety
' A 'm 1
+
=
Se Sut n

n NEW =5.8> nOLD =4.8

Therefore after static and fatigue failure analysis for the redesign of the
cutting bar we obtain a fatigue factor of safety of 5.8 for the main beam
which is larger than our previous value for fatigue of 4.8 from the stock
geometry of the cutting bar. This justifies the redesign of the cutting bar by
increasing the safety factor on the main beam at the critical point which is at
the pin. Looking specifically at fatigue failure the safety factor is increased by
one thus increasing its reliability by 37%.

Leg Link Analysis

24

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

Here we will recalculate both the static and fatigue factors of safety for the
leg link based on the new force caused by the redesign.
S ut =63816 psi

S e =31908 psi

S y =54000 psi

A=.0257 i n

Pnew =93 lb

First we determine the new stress based on the new force

=

Pnew
A

=3618.4 psi
Then we calculate the von Mises stress using the distortion energy theorem

(2)
( 1 3)
(2)
( 2 3) +.5
1 1 (2)
(
2) +
2

' =
' =3618.45

Then we determine the static factor of safety

n=

Sy
'

25

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

nnew =14.9
nnew =14.9< nold =68.37

Now we calculate the alternating and midrange components of the stress

a=

max min
2

a =1809.2 psi
m=

max + min
2

m =1809.2 psi

Then we determine the new factor of safety by plugging in the alternating

and midrange components into the modified Goodman equation.

1
nfnew

a m
+
S e S ut

n fnew=16.8
n fnew=16.8< nfold =53.867
The redesign causes the leg length to take on four times the amount of force
which would drastically decrease the factor of safety for the leg link.
However, the leg link already had an extremely high factor of safety for both
the static and fatigue cases, so increasing the axial force by a factor of four
was not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. The leg link still remains a
relatively safe component against both static and fatigue failure when the
redesign is added as shown by the calculations above.

26

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

Main Beam/Cutting Bar Pin Analysis

Figure: Pin FBD

Figure: Pin Reaction Forces

Assumptions and Known Parameters:

-

The bearing force from cutting bar is applied at the middle of the pin
Reaction force is located in the two ends of the pin
Environmental factors such as temperature, oxidation, etc., are neglected
Fatigue loading experienced by component is classified as repeated loading

Material is ductile, no stress concentration

d= .25in ; length= 1.5;
The Bearing force:
Fb

Fy( La)
50(18+1.56)
=
+50 = 213 lb
Lb
6

27

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

b=

Fp
163
=
=2608 psi
td (0.250.25)

a=m=

2608
=1034 psi
2

SUT= 63.816kpsi ; Sy= 370MPa= 53.663psi

Se= .5SUT= 31.9psi

Using Goodman

n=

1
1.034 1.034
+
31.9 63.8

=20. 6

Redesign and Fastening Impact on System

The redesign had a significant impact on the rest of the system. The redesign
increased the factor of safety for the main support beam which was the
critical part of our system. The critical point on the main support beam was
subjected to a both a lesser bending moment, and a lesser axial force. Due
to the redesign, most of the stresses in the kindling splitter were lessened
which gave most of our components higher factors of safety for both static
and fatigue cases (as shown for the main support beam and the cutting bar).
This means that the kindling splitter will have less wear over time. In addition
the redesign lengthened the lever arm which required the user to use less
force. Thus the kindling splitter is more easily used by the weak and the
elderly. The only component that had a decreased factor of safety was the
leg link. The leg link will most likely see a greater amount of shear stress and
bearing stress and will be slightly more acceptable to various failures such as
a shear tear out or a bearing tear into the leg link causing instability during
use. However the leg link had already started out at an extremely high factor
of safety, so reducing to 16.8 still gives a significant amount of reliability and
did not impact the overall safety of the system or the component itself. This
was a small trade off however not a significant one. Clearly the benefits of
making the system safer overall and reducing the effort by the user
outweighed the drawback of decreasing the factor of safety for the leg link.

28

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

The assembly of the redesign could essentially stay the same as there is no
longer the need to manufacture or assemble the hinge bracket. The
fastening method for the cutting bar was originally two pieces of metal
extruding from the main leg. Our redesign calls for the cutting bar to be
attached to the main leg directly. This will allow the main beam to bear all
the stress from the cutting bar action. There will be less of a chance that any
parts will break off due to this design. However the cutting bar will take
slightly longer to manufacture as it will need to go through a second
manufacturing process to create this geometry. This could be done through a
bending process but could require an extreme amount of force to create
sharp corners around the bend. Friction welding could be implemented to
attach the blunt piece to the end of the cutting bar. This will result in a
greater reliability than traditional welding as the entire part will be welded
onto the bar instead of just around the surface. Friction welding will be
beneficial because it is also faster than conventional welding. There could be
a trade off in cost due to the expensive machinery for this process. The
stress on the support leg will now be __KEVIN__. The amount of force
needed to match the amount of stress applied to the log will be less with this
new design, from KEVIN to KEVIN . A negative factor of this redesign
is in the cutting bar. Due to the bend required, it will be more difficult to
manufacture than a straight bar. It will incur the same stress on the bars
connecting it to the main leg as it did in the original design.

Conclusion

29

Gate 4: Design Revisions Research and Analysis

References