for detail out put results of FEA analysis refere following link having heading:- BASE- MODEL RESULTS WITH AND WITHOUT FEATURES 1st design change RESULTS WITH AND WITHOUT FEATURES 2nd design change RESULTS WITH AND WITHOUT FEATURES 3rd design change RESULTS WITH AND WITHOUT FEATURES

1. • four MoDELS WErE TESTED WITH &
WITHouT fEATurES.
•THESE four MoDELS WErE BASE
MoDEL & THrEE DESIGN CHANGE
MADE NAMED AS 1ST
DESIGN,2ND
DESIGN AND 3rD
DESIGN.
•ALL MoDELS WErE vErIfIED uNDEr
SAME LoADING AND BouNDAry
CoNDITIoN.

2. THE CoMMoN MATErIAL uSED for
ANALyIS
Name
Young’s
modulus
Shear
modulus
Poison's
ratio
density
aluminum 1.0e5 3.846e4 .3 2.80e-9

3. THE four CAD &
fEA MoDEL WITH
AND WITHouT
fEATurE

4. BASE MoDEL

5. THE BASE MODEL WITH FEATURE
MASS= 6.3410E-04 MASS= 6.3479E-04

6. THE BASE MODEL WITHOUT FEATURE
MASS= 6.2889E-04 MASS= 6.2879E-04

7. 1ST
DESIGN CHANGED
MoDEL

8. THE 1ST
DESIGN MODEL WITH
FEATURE
MASS= 5.8300E-04 MASS= 5.8288E-04

9. THE 1ST
DESIGN MODEL WITHOUT
FEATURE
MASS= 5.7650E-04 MASS= 5.7639E-04

10. 2ND
DESIGN CHANGED
MoDEL

11. THE 2ND
DESIGN MODEL WITH
FEATURE
MASS= 5.9021E-04 MASS= 5.9020E-04

12. THE 2ND
DESIGN MODEL WITHOUT
FEATURE
MASS= 5.8361E-04 MASS= 5.8350E-04

13. 3RD
DESIGN CHANGED
MODEL

14. THE 3RD
DESIGN MODEL WITH
FEATURE
MASS= 6.1844E-04 MASS= 6.1859E-04

15. THE 3RD
DESIGN MODEL WITHOUT
FEATURE
MASS= 6.1210E-04 MASS= 6.1192E-04

16. THE MASS COMpARISON Of
CAD MODEL
vS
fEA MODEL

17. THE MASS COMpARISON Of CAD MODEL
vS
fEA MODEL

18. LOAD AND BOUNDARY
CONDITION fOR BASED
AND ALL CHANGED
MODEL

19. THE DEfERENT METHODS fOLLOWED WERE
 LOAD AppLIED THROUGH RBE-2 ELEMENT
LOAD AppLIED THROUGH RBE-3 ELEMENT
DISTRIBUTIvE LOAD/BEARING LOAD AppLIED
CIRCUMfERENTIALLY WITH UNIfORM ALONG THE
LENGTH.
DISTRIBUTIvE LOAD/BEARING LOAD AppLIED
CIRCUMfERENTIALLY WITH UNIfORMLY
DISTRIBUTIvE ALONG THE LENGTH.

20. LOAD AppLIED THROUGH RBE-
2 ELEMENT

21. Load appLied Through rbe-3
eLemenT

22. disTribuTive
Load/bearing
Load appLied
CirCumferenTi
aLLy WiTh
uniform aLong
The LengTh.

23. LOADING AND BOUNDARY CONDITION
LOADING
(1000N)
TOTALLY
CONSTRAINED

24. CIRCUMFERENCIAL DISTRIBUTION
OF LOAD

25. ALONG THE LENGTH LOAD IS
UNIFORM

26. disTribuTive
Load/bearing
Load appLied
CirCumferenTiaLLy
WiTh uniformLy
disTribuTive aLong
The LengTh

27. LOADING AND BOUNDARY CONDITION
LOADING
(1000N)
TOTALLY
CONSTRAINED

28. CIRCUMFERENCIAL DISTRIBUTION
OF LOAD

29. ALONG THE LENGTH LOAD IS
DISTRIBUTIVE

30. fea modeLs
dispLaCemenT &
vonmises sTress
resuLT WiTh respeCT
To Load and boundary
CondiTion

31. base model displacement & vonmises stress
result/different loading methods followed

32. 1st
design changed model displacement &
vonmises stress result/different loading
methods followed

33. 2nd
design changed model displacement &
vonmises stress result/different loading
methods followed

34. 3rd
de model displacement & vonmises stress
result/different loading methods followed

35. conclusion

36. displacement result of all model
base model displacement result
methods with feature without features
RBE-2 3.64E-02 3.56E-02
RBE-3 4.04E-02 3.56E-02
uniform along the length 2.22E+00 2.18E+00
distributive along the length 2.47E-01 2.43E-01
1st design change of base model displacement result
methods with feature without features
RBE-2 4.55E-02 4.58E-02
RBE-3 4.83E-02 4.86E-02
uniform along the length 2.61E+00 2.60E+00
distributive along the length 2.90E-01 2.89E-01
2nd design change of base model displacement result
methods with feature without features
RBE-2 3.75E-02 3.78E-02
RBE-3 4.03E-02 4.05E-02
uniform along the length 2.17E+00 2.17E+00
distributive along the length 2.41E-01 2.41E-01
3rd design change of base model displacement result
methods with feature without features
RBE-2 3.74E-02 3.78E-02
RBE-3 3.99E-02 4.02E-02
uniform along the length 2.14E+00 2.16E+00
distributive along the length 2.38E-01 2.40E-01

37. vonmeses stess result of all model
base model vonmises stress result
methods with feature without features
RBE-2 1.67E+01 1.59E+01
RBE-3 1.67E+01 1.59E+01
uniform along the length 9.70E+02 9.68E+02
distributive along the length 1.08E+02 1.08E+02
1st design change of base model vonmises stress result
methods with feature without features
RBE-2 2.34E+01 2.15E+01
RBE-3 2.34E+01 2.15E+01
uniform along the length 1.25E+03 1.14E+03
distributive along the length 1.39E+02 1.26E+02
2nd design change of base model vonmises stress result
methods with feature without features
RBE-2 2.28E+01 1.65E+01
RBE-3 2.28E+01 1.65E+01
uniform along the length 1.21E+03 8.74E+02
distributive along the length 1.35E+02 9.71E+01
3rd design change of base model vonmises stress result
methods with feature without features
RBE-2 1.86E+01 1.65E+01
RBE-3 1.86E+01 1.65E+01
uniform along the length 9.89E+02 8.79E+02
distributive along the length 1.10E+02 9.77E+01

39. as per the results:-
1.All the models with stand 1000N within elastic limit without any
+ve value of displacement.
2.The region in geometry showing response to the loading is +ve
and having freedom of optimization relative to loading.
3.The main objective shows in these modes is with or without
feature the design can with stand load but the stress
concentration will vary.
4.The base model shows that it is the optimal model in this case.
It does not need draft in vertical stiffener and in circular bearing
portion.
5.It motivates to do further analysis with dynamic loading and
with critical model were the design constrain is implemented..
6.Very confusing results related to RBE-2 and RBE-3 element used
for application of point load of 1000. it may be good for model
done in shell element or in beam element.

40. with thanks,
manas ranjan ray
CAD/CAE Professional