MACHINE DESIGN - An Integrated Approach, 4th Ed.

Case Study 2B-1

CASE STUDY 2B

Crimping-Tool Stress and Deflection Analysis

Problem: Determine the stresses and deflections at critical points in the crimping tool
shown in Figures 3-3 and 4-49.
Given: The geometry and loading are known from the previous Case Study 2A.
Applied crimp force Fcrimp  2000 lbf
Inter-part forces
Part 1 F21  1560 lbf F41  452  lbf
Part 2 F12  1560 lbf F32  1548 lbf
Fhand  52.2 lbf
Part 3 F23  1548 lbf F43  1548 lbf
Part 4 F14  452  lbf F34  1548 lbf
Distances
Part 1 Throat depth h 1  1.0 in
Inner radius r1i  0.6 in
Distance to load a 1  0.7 in
Part 2 Distance A-B d AB  0.80 in
Part 3 Distance B-C d BC  1.228  in
Part 4 Distance C-D d CD  1.55 in
Distance to load a 4  0.35 in
Thickness Part 1 t1  0.313  in d pin  0.250  in
and width
Part 2 t2  0.187  in
Part 3 t3  0.125  in w3  0.50 in
Part 4 t4  0.187  in w4  0.75 in
Material properties (AISI 1095 steel, as-rolled)
Yield strength S y  83 ksi
6
Young's modulus E  30 10  psi
Assumptions: The most likely failure points are link 3 as a column, the holes where the pins
insert, the connecting pins in shear, and link 4 in bending. The number of
cycles expected over the life of the tool is low so a static analysis is
acceptable. Stress concentration can be ignored due to the material's
ductility and the static loading assumption.
Solution: See Figures 3-3, 4-49 to 4-51, and Mathcad file CASE2B.
3
1. Link 3 is a pinned-pinned column loaded with F43  1.548  10 lbf as calculated in Case Study 2A (p.
113) and shown in Mathcad file CASE2A. Note that, from Table 4-7, leff  d BC , the distance from B to C.
We need to first check the slenderness ratio of link 3 as a column. This requires the radius of gyration (Eq.
4.34) for the weakest buckling direction, which is in the z-direction (out of the plane of the figure) in this
case. Even a small amount of clearance in the holes will prevent the pins from acting as a moment joint
along their axes, thus creating an effective pinned-pinned joint both in-plane and out-of-plane.

Depth of section h  t3 h  0.125 in

CASE2B.xmcd
MACHINE DESIGN - An Integrated Approach, 4th Ed. Case Study 2B-2

3 2
I b h h
Radius of gyration k= = =
A 12 b  h 12

2
h
k  k  0.036 in (a)
12

The slenderness ratio for the z-direction buckling is then

leff
S r  S r  34.03 (b)
k
which is greater than 10 making it other than a short column. Calculate the slenderness ratio of the tangent
point between the Johnson and Euler lines of Figure 4-42.
2 E (c)
S rD  π S rD  84.47
Sy

The slenderness ratio of this column is less than that of the tangent point between the Johnson and Euler lines
shown in Figure 4-42. It is thus an intermediate-column and the Johnson-column formula (Eq. 4.43) should be
used to determine the critical load.

Cross-section A3  t3 w3 2
A3  0.063 in
area
 S y S r  
2

Pcr  A3  S y    
1
Critical load Pcr  4766 lbf (d)
 E  2 π  
Ratio of critical Pcr
load to applied N  N  3.1
load F43

The critical load is N  3.1 times larger than the applied load. It is safe against buckling. Link 2 is a
shorter, wider column than link 3 and has lower axial forces so can be assumed to be safe against buckling
based on link 3 calculations.

2. Since it does not buckle, the deflection in link 3 in axial compression is (from Eq. 4.7):

F43 d BC
δ  δ  0.0010 in (e)
A3  E

3. Any of the links could also fail in bearing in the 0.25-dia holes. The largest force on any pin is
F12  1560 lbf . However, this force is applied at point A on links 1 and 2, which are thicker
than link 3, where the applied force is only slightly less. This worst-case bearing stress (Eqs.
4.7 and 4.10) is on link 3 and is then
2
Bearing area Abearing  t3 d pin Abearing  0.031 in
F43
Bearing stress σb  σb  49.5 ksi (f)
Abearing

There is no danger of tearout failure in links 2 or 3 since the loading is toward the center of the part. Link 1
has ample material around the holes to prevent tearout.
4. The 0.25-in dia pins are in single shear. The worst-case direct shear stress, from equation 4.9, is at A where
F12  1560 lbf :
π 2 2
Shear area Ashear   d pin Ashear  0.049 in
4

CASE2B.xmcd
MACHINE DESIGN - An Integrated Approach, 4th Ed. Case Study 2B-3

F12
Pin shear stress τ  τ  31.78 ksi (g)
Ashear

5. Link 4 is a 1.55-in long beam, simply supported at the pins and loaded with the 2000-lb crimp force at 0.35 in
from C. Write the equations for the load, shear, moment, slope, and deflection using singularity functions,
noting that the integration constants C1 and C2 will be zero:

q(x) = R1<x - 0>-1 - F<x - a>-1 + R2<x - l>-1

V(x) = R1<x - 0>0 - F<x - a>0 + R2<x - l>0 (h)

M(x) = R1<x - 0>1 - F<x - a>1 + R2<x - l>1

(x) = (R1<x - 0>2/2 - F<x - a>2/2 + R2<x - l>2/2 + C3 ) / EI

(i)
y(x) = (R1<x - 0>3/6 - F<x - a>3/6 + R2<x - l>3/6 + C3x + C4 ) / EI

6. The reaction forces R1 and R2 can be found by substitution of the boundary conditions x = l+, V = 0, M = 0
into the shear and moment equations.

M(l) = R1<l - 0>1 - F<l - a>1 + R2<l - l>1 = 0, where F  2000 lbf

M = R1 d CD  F   d CD  a 4 = 0

F   d CD  a 4
R1  R1  1548 lbf
d CD (j)

V(l) = R1<l - 0>0 - F<l - a>0 + R2<l - l>0 = 0

V = R1  F  R2 = 0

R2  F  R1 R2  451.6 lbf (k)

Note that these forces are consistent with those found in Case Study 2A. The maximum moment is
Mmax  R1 a 4 , Mmax  541.9 lbf  in at the applied load. The shear and moment diagrams are shown in
Figure 4-50.

7. The bending stress at the point of maximum moment is then

Beam depth h  w4 h  0.75 in
Beam width b  t4 b  0.187 in
3
b h 4
Moment of I  I  0.00657 in
inertia 12
Mmax 0.5 h
Stress σ  σ  30.9 ksi
I
8. The beam slope and deflection functions require calculation of the integration constants C3 and C4, which
are found by substituting the boundary conditions x = 0, y = 0 and x = l, y = 0 in the deflection equation.

y(0) = 0 = R1<0 - 0>3/6 - F<0 - a>3/6 + R2<0 - l>3/6 + C3(0) + C4

(m)
3
C4  0  lbf  in

y(l) = 0 = R1<l - 0>3/6 - F<l - a>3/6 + R2<l - l>3/6 + C3l (n)

CASE2B.xmcd
MACHINE DESIGN - An Integrated Approach, 4th Ed. Case Study 2B-4

F R1 3
    d CD  a 4 
1 3 2
C3   d CD  C3  248.4 lbf  in
d CD  6 6 
From Figure 4-50 we see that the maximum deflection is close to the center of the span and occurs where the
slope is zero. Let the value of x where  = 0 be c, then

 R1 2 F 
 c    c  a 4  C3 = 0
1 2
θ ( c) = 
E I  2 2 
Expanding and collecting terms in powers of c,

 R1  F  c2  2 F  a4 c  2 C3  F  a42 = 0
Using the binomial equation to solve for c,

c 
1  2 
  2  F  a 4  2  2  R1 C3  R1 F  a 4  2  F  C3
2   R1  F 
(o)
c  0.678 in
The maximum deflection, at x = c is

 R1 3 F 
 c    c  a 4  C3 c
1 3
y   y  0.00051 in (p)
E I  6 6 
Only a very small deflection is allowed in link 4 to guarantee the proper crimp stroke, and this amount is
acceptable. The slope and deflection diagrams are shown in Figure 4-50.
10. Link 1 is relatively massive compared to the others and the only area of concern is the jaw, which is loaded by
the 2000-lb crimp force and has a hole in the cross-section at its root. While the shape of this element is not
exactly that of a curved beam with concentric inside and outside radii, this assumption will be acceptably
conservative if we use an outer radius equal to the smallest section dimension as shown in Figure 4-49. This
makes its inside radius 0.6 in and its approximate outside radius 1.6 in. The eccentricity e of the curved beam's
neutral axis versus the beam's centroidal axis rc is found from equation 4.12a. Since this cross-section is
rectangular, we can use the equation given in the footnote on p. 195.

Centroidal radius rc  r1i  0.5 h 1 rc  1.1 in

Outside radius r1o  r1i  h 1 r1o  1.6 in

Radius to inner rhi  rc  0.5 d pin rhi  0.975 in

edge of hole
Radius to outer rho  rc  0.5 d pin rho  1.225 in
edge of hole
Anet  t1  h 1  d pin
2
Section area Anet  0.235 in

Anet
Eccentricity e  rc 
  rhi  1o 1 
r
1
t 1   dr  
r 
dr
 r 
 r1i r 
 ho 
e  0.103 in (q)

CASE2B.xmcd
MACHINE DESIGN - An Integrated Approach, 4th Ed. Case Study 2B-5

The other dimensions necessary for a curved beam analysis are:

Neutral axis radius rn  rc  e rn  0.997 in

Inner fiber radius ci  rn  r1i ci  0.397 in (r)

Outer fiber radius co  r1o  rn co  0.603 in

11. The applied bending moment on the curved beam section is taken as the applied load times its distance to the
beam's centroidal axis.
Bending moment M  F   a 1  r1i  rc M  2400 lbf  in (s)
12. Find stresses at the inner and outer fibers from equations 4.12b and 4.12c. Reduce the beam cross sectional
area by the hole area.

M  ci 
σi    σi  65.3 ksi
e Anet  r1i 
(t)
M  co 
σo     σo  37.3 ksi
e Anet  r1o 
13. There also is a direct axial tensile stress, which adds to the tensile bending stress in the inner fiber at point P:
F
Tensile stress σa  σa  8.52 ksi
Anet

Max stress σmax  σi  σa σmax  73.9 ksi

This is the principal stress for point P since there is no applied shear or other normal stress at this edge point.
The maximum shear stress at point P is τmax  0.5 σmax , τmax  36.9 ksi . The bending stress at the outer fiber
is compressive and thus subtracts from the axial tensile stress for a net of

Outer fiber
net stress σonet  σo  σa σonet  28.8 ksi

14. There is significant stress concentration at the hole. The theoretical stress concentration factor for the case
of a circular hole in an infinite plate is Kt  3 as defined in equation 4.32a and Figure 4-35. For a circular
hole in a finite plate, Kt is a function of the ratio of the hole diameter to the plate width. Peterson gives a
chart of stress-concentration factors for a round hole in a flat plat under tension [5] from which we find that
Kt  2.42 for a dia / width ratio of 1/4. The local principal stress at the hole is then

Local stress σhole  Kt σa σhole  20.6 ksi

at hole
which is still less than the stress at the inner fiber.
15. While this is far from a complete stress and deflection analysis of these parts, the calculations done do
address the areas judged to be most likely to fail or to have problem deflections. The stresses and
deflections in link 1 were also computed using the ANSYS finite element analysis program, which
gave an estimated maximum principal stress at point P of 66.2 ksi compared to our estimate of
σmax  73.863 ksi. The FEA mesh and stress distribution calculated by the ANSYS model is shown in
Figure 4-51.

Our analysis simplified the part geometry in order to allow the use of a known closed-form model (the
curved beam) whereas the ANSYS FEA model included all the material in the actual part but
discretized its geometry. Both analyses should be recognized as only estimates of the stress states in
the part, not exact solutions.
16. Redesign may be needed to reduce these stresses and deflections, based on a failure analysis. This case
study will be revisited in the next chapter after various failure theories are presented.

CASE2B.xmcd