May 2013 presentation for ME4930 for UW-Platteville. I did the FEA work for Solidworks and assembled the presentation

1. John Deere Roll Over
Protection System Upgrades
Final Report
Chris Henningsen, Drew Hilgers , Travis McDonald, Michael
Thiele, Ben Klemp, Jon Zickermann

2. Current Setup
• Roll Over Protection
Structure (ROPS) test:
tests to user safety
during a rollover
– Tests the cage used by
forestry equipment
• Built in 1971
– Fixture has been
reinforced and updated
since then
Fig 1: Current Fixture
Photo Courtesy of John Deere

3. Current Setup
• History of load requirements
– 1990: 50,000 lbf
– 2003: 62,080 lbf
– 2006: 71,165 lbf
– 2013: 178,842 lbf
• ROPS test includes:
– Side Push
– Vertical Crush
– Longitudinal Push
Fig 2: Cab after 3 Tests

4. Current Setup
• Problems
– Large quantity of time
wasted between tests
– Will not be able to handle
future tests
Fig 3: ROPS test at a different facility

5. Project
• Scope of project
– Determine designs needed to
overcome current problems
– Consider design alternatives
to improve the fixture
– Design new test fixture
• Solid Models
• Finite Element Analysis

6. New Fixture
• Goals
– Ability to adjust cylinders
horizontally and vertically.
– Design such that the test
specimen can be located
once, not moved for each
test.
– Ability to move cylinders
from the ground.
– 2 push blocks perpendicular
to each other
Fig 4: Sample John Deere Forestry Equipment

7. New Fixture
Push Block
Base Plate Area
15x15
Push Block
10’10’
PushBlock
PushBlock
Proposed Setup – Top View
Ability to lock cylinder mount and
cross beam mount without climbing
a ladder
350,000 lbf
100,000lbf

8. New Fixture
Proposed Setup – Side View
Cab
Frame
Load Cylinder
Force = 350,000 lbf
15’

9. Objectives Tree
Objectives

10. Criteria Weight
Free Standing 16.50%
Fast setup time between tests 16.75%
Accommodating to different sized products 16.75%
Safe 25.00%
Manufacturable in-house 11.25%
Minimal Floor Area 3.75%
Durable 10.00%
Total 100%
Objectives

11. FAF – Pre Usage

12. Outputs: Test results from the side push, top crush and front push tests
FAF – Usage

13. FAF – Post Usage

14. Objective Specification Target
Free Standing Self Supporting
Must be self
supporting
Fast Setup Time
between tests
# Tools Required for
set-up
less than 5
# adjustments required
for set-up
less than 6
time required to
adjustment
1 day or less to run all
3 tests
Accommodating to
different sized
products
Load Range max load= 350,000 lbf
Minimal Floor Area Spacing 15 ft tall
Safe Alignment
perpendicular and
level with cab
Manufacturable in-
house
Steel thickness 5 in max
Manufacturing
processes
keep to cutting and
welding
Durable Factor of Safety at least 1.6
House of Quality
Quality
Characteristics
(a.k.a. "Functional
Requirements" or
"How s")
Demanded Quality
(a.k.a. "Customer
Requirements" or
"Whats") 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 9 16.5 16.5 5 0
2 9 16.8 16.8 5 2
3 9 16.8 16.8 5 3
4 9 25.0 25.0 4 3
5 9 11.3 11.3 5 5
6 9 3.8 3.8 3 4
7 9 10.0 10.0 5 4
8
9
10
MaxRelationshipValueinRow
Θ Ο
Free Standing
Ο
Max Relationship Value in Column
Target or Limit Value
Weight / Importance
6.8 12.2Relative Weight
Difficulty
(0=Easy to Accomplish, 10=Extremely Difficult)
Ο Ο
Θ Θ
#ToolsRequiredforset-up
#adjustmentsrequiredforset-up
timerequiredtoadjustment
LoadRange
Spacing
Alignment
Steelthickness
Ο Θ Ο
Θ Θ
9
315.0
atleast1.6
Accommodating to different sized products
Safe
Manufacturable in-house
Minimal Floor Area
Fast Setup Time betw een tests
Θ
Θ Θ Θ
Durable
Θ Ο
Θ
14.2
9 99
6.8 10.2 11.5
150.8 271.8 300.0
9
142.5150.8 150.8 225.8 255.8
9 99 9
x x
FactorofSafety
Yes
▲
9
257.3
Θ
Θ
Ο
Row#
Direction of Improvement:
Minimize (▼), Maximize (▲), or Target (x)
SelfSupporting
Weight/Importance
11 12 13 14 15
RelativeWeight
▼ ▼ ▼ ▲
5 6 7 8 9 10
x x
Manufacturingprocesses
x
┼
Column # 1 2 3 4
┼┼ ▼ ┼┼ ┼ ┼
┼ ┼▼
┼ ┼┼ ┼
┼ ┼┼
┼ ┼
┼ ▬
┼┼ ▬
┼┼
┼
3Moderate Relationship
Competitive Analysis
(0=Worst, 5=Best)
▲ 1
┼┼
Weak Relationship
Strong Positive Correlation
▼
Objective Is To Hit Target
Objective Is To Maximize
Positive Correlation┼
Negative Correlation▬
Strong Negative Correlation
▼ Objective Is To Minimize
Ο
Powered by QFD Online (http://www.QFDOnline.com)
OurCompany
ExistingFixture
Competitor2
Competitor3
Competitor4
Competitor5
15fttall
13.5 6.46.8
lessthan6
lessthan1dayforall
3tests
350000lbs
Perpendiculartocab
▲
11.6
x
lessthan5"thick
restricttocuttingand
welding
▲
lessthan5
Title:
Author:
Date:
Notes:
Team 9
Legend
Θ Strong Relationship 9
ROPS House of Quality
Our Company
Existing Fixture
Competitor 2
Competitor 3
Competitor 4
Competitor 5

15. Advanced Decision Matrix

16. 3-D Layout of Fixture
Design

17. • Hand calculations done to find starting
member sizes
• Basic frame designed using Autodesk
Multiphysics using beam elements
• Solid model designed from frame
– Tested with ANSYS workbench
• Results interpreted and frame redesigned
– Repeated
Design

18. Design Material
Beams: Grade 55 High Strength Low Alloy Steel
• Yield Strength: 55 ksi
• Factor of Safety: 1.6
• Design Stress: 34.4 ksi

19. Design Hand Calculations

20. Base Design in Autodesk Multiphysics
Design
3-D Layout of Fixture

21. 350,000 lbf Center Push

22. 100,000 lbf Center Push

23. Pull Down Test

24. Design
• Mix of brick and tetrahedron elements
– Body and face sizing used to reduce the quantity
of elements
• Floor modeled as a elastic support with a large
spring constant
• One beam fixed to improve the quality of the
analysis
ANSYS Simulation Notes

25. Final ANSYS Simulation – Mesh
Design

26. ANSYS Simulation – Setup
Design

27. 1st ANSYS Simulation, von Mises Stress
Design

28. 1st ANSYS Simulation, Normal Stress
Design

29. 1st ANSYS Simulation, Deformation
Design

30. Design
2nd ANSYS Simulation, vonMises

31. Design
2nd ANSYS Simulation, Normal Stress

32. Design
2nd ANSYS Simulation, Deformation

33. Design
2nd ANSYS Simulation, Fatigue Analysis

34. Design
3rd ANSYS Simulation, vonMises

35. Design
3rd ANSYS Simulation, Normal Stress

36. Design
3rd ANSYS Simulation, Deformation

37. Design
• Placing the 350,000 lbf load at the edge
resulted in the highest stress and shortest life
(~284 cycles)
• Positioning the cylinders at the center of the
beams result in lower stress and deflection
compared to the edge
ANSYS Simulation Notes

38. Analysis of Welded
Connections

39. Analysis of Welded Connections
• Load And Resistance
Factor Design (LRFD)
– ½ inch weld size
– E70XX Electrode
– Available strength
=0.75R

41. Analysis of Welded
Connections
• W14X233 Member
– Able to withstand 452.4
kip of force at each joint
• W12X87 Member
– Able to withstand 242.6
kip of force at each joint

42. Final Frame Assembly

43. Guide Mounts

44. Adjustments

45. Final Design

46. Recommendations
• Reuse the existing floor plate
• Remote engaged clamping mechanism

47. Conclusions
Achievements:
• Adjustability
• Sustain maximum forces
• Decreased setup time
• No repositioning of cab

48. QUESTIONS?