ME 462 Final ProjectHydraulic Press Support Frame

Bishop IThursday, May 5, 2005

Luke Jones

Stephen Leybourn

Andrew Placek

Andy Sutton

Team Members:

Project Background

Bishop discovered that there is a market for a movable cylinder, rack and pinion driven, hydraulic pressBishop has since developed a fixed cylinder, 15 ton prototype

Key RequirementsSupport 15 ton hydraulic press loadMobile cylinder – 16” total stroke

2” increments8”-10” travel

Minimized cost$1700 initial budget for entire pressFirst prototype was $7000

Comfortable factor of safetyMinimum deflection

Conceptual DesignBenchmarksQFDFunctional decomposition6 overall conceptsFailure Mode Effects AnalysisDecision matrixFinal concept

Design Modeling

Pro-E WildfireDesign evolution

Runner Plate

Slotted guide

FEA Analysis (continued)

AnsysSOLID 185 Element

Deflection, Von Mises

FEA Analysis (continued)

Frame components

FEA Analysis (continued)

Also considered various load conditions1”

Side

Back

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 factorNon-critical plate thicknesses reduced to ¼”

Frame weight reduced by 30%Standard part purchasing

BoltsReservoirPlate thicknesses

Final Product

C-frame supportSide mounted cylinderSlotted guide systemFive increments of adjustmentLocking pins

Engineering Targets

Engineering Targets Target (Delighted) Target (Disgusted)Max Load 15 Ton 10 TonAdjustment 5 4Cost $400 $1,000Deflection 0.01" 0.05"Factor of Safety 3 1

Load Evaluation

15 ton capacityAcceptable stress levelsStandard C-frame

Proven design¾” A36 steel

Adjustment Capability

Adjustments5 – 2” increments

Plate & guide conceptPin locking designVerified by FEA Analysis

Cost Evaluation

$400 budgetSteel recommendationAnalysis 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 deflectionAnalysis resulted in a 0.019” maximum deflection magnitude

Factor of Safety

Requirement set at 3Analysis revealed a factor of safety of >3 on frame design, ~2.5 guide system designGauge reduction of non-critical plates resulted in no impact to factor of safety

Engineering Targets Met

Supports hydraulic press and subsequent loading forcesSafety factorStiffnessNumber of incrementsCylinder MobilityBase square footageOperator height range

Engineering Target Opportunities

CostBulk 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 SteeringDave Call, machining expertRick Jones, welding expertDr. Chen, professorKittisak “Tony” Koombua, grad student

Questions