ME 462 Final Project

Hydraulic Press Support Frame

Bishop I
Thursday, May 5, 2005

Team Members: Luke Jones Andrew Placek

Stephen Leybourn Andy Sutton
Project Background
Bishop discovered that there is a
market for a movable cylinder, rack and
pinion driven, hydraulic press
Bishop has since developed a fixed
cylinder, 15 ton prototype
Key Requirements
Support 15 ton hydraulic press load
Mobile cylinder – 16” total stroke
„ 2” increments
„ 8”-10” travel
Minimized cost
„ $1700 initial budget for entire press
„ First prototype was $7000
Comfortable factor of safety
Minimum deflection
Conceptual Design
Benchmarks
QFD
Functional decomposition
6 overall concepts
Failure Mode Effects Analysis
Decision matrix
Final concept
Design Modeling Runner Plate

Slotted guide

Pro-E Wildfire
Design evolution
FEA Analysis (continued)
Ansys
„ SOLID 185 Element

„ Deflection, Von Mises

FEA Analysis (continued)
Frame components
 FEA Analysis (continued)
Also considered various load conditions
1”
Back

Side Side
Front

Point Load
FEA Analysis (Continued)
Pro-E Mechanica- Von Mises

15,000 psi max

Design Optimization
Side plate thickness optimized to obtain
required safety factor
Non-critical plate thicknesses reduced
to ¼”
„ Frame weight reduced by 30%
Standard part purchasing
„ Bolts
„ Reservoir
„ Plate thicknesses
Final Product
C-frame support
Side mounted cylinder
Slotted guide system
Five increments of
adjustment
Locking pins
Engineering Targets

Engineering Targets Target (Delighted) Target (Disgusted)

Max Load 15 Ton 10 Ton
Adjustment 5 4
Cost $400 $1,000
Deflection 0.01" 0.05"
Factor of Safety 3 1
Load Evaluation
15 ton capacity
Acceptable stress levels
Standard C-frame
„ Proven design
„ ¾” A36 steel
Adjustment Capability
Adjustments
„ 5 – 2” increments
Plate & guide concept
„ Pin locking design
„ Verified by FEA Analysis
Cost Evaluation
$400 budget
Steel recommendation
Analysis required ¾” steel in support areas
$1100 via non-bulk purchasing
Bulk purchasing could equate to 40%-60%
reduction in cost
Stiffness Evaluation
Target set at 0.01” magnitude deflection
Analysis resulted in a 0.019” maximum
deflection magnitude
Factor of Safety
Requirement set at 3
Analysis revealed a factor of safety of
>3 on frame design, ~2.5 guide system
design
Gauge reduction of non-critical plates
resulted in no impact to factor of safety
Engineering Targets Met
Supports hydraulic press and
subsequent loading forces
Safety factor
Stiffness
Number of increments
Cylinder Mobility
Base square footage
Operator height range
Engineering Target Opportunities
Cost
„ Bulk purchasing could reduce target vs.
actual cost gap
Conclusion
Design achieves required capabilities
related to product performance
Realistically approaches cost with
respect to non-bulk purchasing
Successful design
Acknowledgements
Jason Wou, Bishop Steering
Dave Call, machining expert
Rick Jones, welding expert
Dr. Chen, professor
Kittisak “Tony” Koombua, grad student
Questions