Evaluating the strength condition of frame and pallet structures, and optimizing structure of support bracket of mobile weapons and equipment storage using finite element analysis

In this paper, an evaluation on the strength condition of pallet and frame is presented, then a structure of support bracket of mobile storage for weapons and equipment using finite element analysis is optimized. The maximum equivalent stresses in frame, pallet, and support bracket structures must satisfy a condition that these values are always less than or equal to the allowable stress of materials.

EVALUATING THE STRENGTH CONDITION OF FRAME AND PALLET STRUCTURES, AND OPTIMIZING STRUCTURE OF SUPPORT BRACKET OF MOBILE WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT

STORAGE USING FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Nguyen Tien Hue1*, Phan Hoang Cuong2, Dang Van Thuc2, Ho Ngoc Minh1,

Do Dinh Trung1, Vu Dinh Thao2, Ong Xuan Thang3, Nguyen Van Dong1

Abstract: In this paper, an evaluation on the strength condition of pallet and

frame is presented, then a structure of support bracket of mobile storage for weapons and equipment using finite element analysis is optimized The maximum equivalent stresses in frame, pallet, and support bracket structures must satisfy a condition that these values are always less than or equal to the allowable stress of materials The result of the checking shows that the maximum equivalent stress appears at the support bracket, therefore, this structure is optimized The minimum mass and maximum equivalent stress is selected for the objective functions of structural optimization Finally, the manufacturing model is obtained and compared with the original model to the maximum equivalent stress and mass reduction

Keywords: Strength condition; Structural optimization; Frame; Pallet; Mobile storage; Supporting bracket;

Finite element analysis; Minimum mass; Maximum equivalent stress

1 INTRODUCTION

To enhance the training and combat readiness of soldiers in river areas, mobile storage for weapons and equipment is designed and manufactured This system is shown in Figure

3, which consists of a pallet, a frame, leather, wheels, support brackets, and support legs The pallet and frame structures carry on the main functions of the system; hence, it is needed to check the strength condition to ensure their performances As can be seen from Figure 3b, the frame structure is made of CT38 structural steel This structure covers the entire boxes of ammunition and accessories before the impact of the environment such as storm, humidity, flood, and other factors In more detail, when the system places on wind speed up to force 12 the frame will be oscillated and deformed, so that does not meet the given requirements and the leather cover can be torn up Figure 3c shows the pallet structure, this is made of CT38 structural steel Various features of the pallet that are a rigid frame to support the entire bag system, other components, accessories of the inner system; preserving and ensuring safety for the entire system and internal equipment during transportation and storage; making jigs, racks during the process of deploying and recovering the system There are two significant reasons to illustrate why the support bracket shown in Figure 4 is chosen to optimize The first reason lies in the fact is that since the support bracket plays a major role in the supporting frame of mobile weapons and equipment storage, where the force applies directly to it, thus it is necessary to check the strength condition at this component The second reason results from the fact are that the support bracket is made from steel plate; hence it is easy to optimize and manufacture this part than other components of the system To get a lightweight structure has been one

of the most challenges in the structural engineering industry since it relates closely to the structural performance, reliability, and manufacturing cost Several researchers have put their efforts to optimize and create a better structural component, i.e., the bracket as shown

in [1–8] Besides, topology optimization has been discussed by researchers in terms of pursuing a lightweight structure [6, 9, 10] That is a very powerful method to reduce the

weight of a component without losing its best performance The result of those studies

shows that the optimized structure meets the stiffness requirement, as well as improves

vibration performance One of the applications of topology optimization is that it has been

used for improving spacecraft design for years The study by Orme et al [11] utilizes

additive manufacturing and topology optimization to develop space flight hardware

Moreover, various other studies also state that this method is very useful to create lighter

components in precision engineering [12], composite material [13], and civil engineering

application [14, 15] However, a study on the application of topology optimization on the

supporting frame of mobile weapons and equipment storage seems to be lacking

2 METHODS

In general, the research methodology shows in the flowchart in Figure 1 and Figure 2

Figure 1 reveals a flowchart of the design and manufacturing process of the system In this

flowchart, all the parts should satisfy the strength condition before manufacturing the final

products Figure 2 shows a flowchart of the structural optimization of the support bracket

In this flowchart, the optimization process starts with an original model then is optimized

by several constraints to get the final model that can be used to manufacture

Figure 1 Flowchart of the design and manufacturing process of the system

Figure 2 Flowchart of the structural optimization of the support bracket

2.1 Checking the strength condition of the system

Modeling of the pallet and frame of mobile storage for weapons and equipment is shown

in Figure 3 Both the frame and pallet are manufactured from CT38 structural steel which

has chemical compositions and mechanical properties shown in Table 1 and Table 2

Figure 3 Modeling of the system:

(a) Mobile storage for weapons and equipment; (b) Frame; c) Pallet

Table 1 Chemical composition of CT38 structural steel

0.14÷0.22 0.12÷0.30 0.40÷0.65 ≤ 0.04 ≤ 0.04

Table 2 Mechanical properties of CT38 structural steel

modulus

Bulk modulus

Yield strength

Tensile ultimate strength

Poisson’s ratio

Minimum elongation

The support bracket is made of SM415 alloy steel grade, as seen in Figure 4

Figure 4 Modeling of the support bracket

Chemical composition and mechanical properties of SM415 alloy structural steel are

shown in Table 3 and Table 4

Table 3 Chemical composition of SM415 alloy structural steel

0.38÷0.43 0.15÷0.35 0.75÷1.00 ≤ 0.035 ≤ 0.035 0.80÷1.10 0.15÷0.25

Table 4 Mechanical properties of SM415 alloy structural steel

modulus

Bulk modulus

Yield strength

Tensile ultimate strength

Poisson’s ratio

Minimum elongation

The allowable stress is given by [16]:

[ ] ultimate

n



where, ultimate is the tensile ultimate strength of the materials

1 2 3

where n is a safety factor [16]; n1 is a coefficient that takes into account that can be

determined the accuracy of load and stress, normally n1 selected in the range of 1.2 ÷ 1.5;

n2 is a coefficient that considers the mechanical uniformity of the material, for structural

steel, n2=1.5; n3 is a coefficient that takes into account special requirements for safety, for

important parts and components, n3=1.2 ÷ 1.5

Since it can be exactly determined of load, n1=1.4; components of the pallet and frame

are manufactured from CT38 structural steel and SM415 alloy structural steel, n2=1.5; the system plays an important role to cover and transport ammunition from the harsh condition of the environment, n3=1.3 Constituting these values into Eq (2), n2.73

From Eq (1), the allowable stresses of CT38 structural steel and SM415 alloy structural

steel are 147 MPa and 240 MPa, respectively

a Checking the strength condition of the frame

In the hardest condition of the environment when the system is directly placed on the wind speed which is defined the Beaufort Scale up to force 12 In order to determine forces and moments acting on the system, it is necessary to simulate the model of the whole system by using Ansys Fluent to know the aerodynamic coefficients The result of the mesh; drag, lift, and lateral forces; and moments of the simulation is shown in Figure 5

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 5 a) Meshing the system; b) Normal forces acting on the frame;

c) Normal moments acting on the frame

As can be seen from Figure 5a and Figure 5b, the result reveals that when the iterations are large enough then the forces and moments are converging The values of forces on the

x and y axes and moments on the y and z axes are approximately zero The values of force

on the z-axis and moment on the x-axis are negative, which means opposites in a positive direction These results are the input to simulate the structure of the frame

b Checking the strength condition of the pallet

The system is designed to cover and transport 72 boxes of the ammunition of 120 PM

43 mortar Each ammunition box weighs 49 kg, so that the total force of gravity of the ammunition is

72

1

72.49.9.81 34610 (N)

i i



As mentioned in the previous section the forces and moments acting on the frame are

transferred from the frame to the pallet; However, these values are too small in comparison

with the force of gravity of the ammunition, therefore, these are neglected The result of

the simulation is shown in Figure 7

c Checking the strength of the original support bracket

A mesh discretization and refinement strategy are generated in the Ansys Workbench

environment Mesh refinement is applied at particular locations, i.e., the hole purposely to

obtain more accurate results These locations are very important as the place where the

force is first applied (bolt hole and shaft) The mesh refinement is also made in the support

bracket body to provide sufficient discretization for topology optimization purposes From

the mesh resolution setting, the model has the initial mass of this model is 4.16 kg The

mesh model of the original structure is shown in Figure 8a The mesh size is chosen as 3

mm and the element number is 18600 In addition, the boundary conditions and load of

10063 N are applied to the hole for the static analysis as shown in Figure 8b

2.2 Topology optimization of the support bracket

Topology optimization is implemented to the original numerical model to reduce mass

and maximum equivalent stress as two main objectives The first one is the mass reduction

at 60%, and the other is the maximum equivalent stress in the support bracket at 60 MPa

The procedure of this stage follows in Figure 2 Figure 9a and Figure 9b show the

optimized model and final design model The final design model is designed based on the

result of the optimized model as well as the ability to manufacture the support bracket

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 3.1 Results

Figure 6 The total deformation and equivalent stress of the frame

Figure 7 The total deformation and equivalent stress of the pallet

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 8 a) Mesh model; b) Boundary and load conditions;

c) Stress results of the original model

Figure 9 a) Optimized model; b) Final design model;

c) Stress results of the final design model

3.2 Discussions

It is clear from Figure 5 and Figure 6 that the maximum equivalent stresses in frame and pallet structures are 46.16 MPa and 39.87 MPa, respectively These values are much less than the allowable stress which is 147 MPa; therefore, these structures are met the strength condition

The final design model and the original model of the support bracket are compared for the maximum equivalent stress and mass reduction Figure 8c illustrates the maximum equivalent stress distributes in the vicinity of the hole of the support bracket while in other areas the values approximately zero On the other hand, the result in Figure 9c shows the equivalent stress is nearly uniformly distributed in all the working areas of the support bracket In this case, the maximum equivalent stress concentrates on the corner of both sides of the bar

As can be seen from Table 5, under the applied loads, the maximum equivalent stresses

of the final design and original model are 61 MPa (Figure 8c) and 55.51 MPa (Figure 9c), respectively The maximum equivalent stress is increased by a rate of 9.9%; thus, this value is acceptable Furthermore, the mass of the original model and final design model are 4.12 kg and 2.47 kg It is true that the mass of the final design model reduces roughly 40% in comparison with the original model

Table 5 Comparison of the original and final design model of the support bracket

model

Absolute deviation

4 CONCLUSIONS

The main conclusions from the research results of the current work can be drawn as

follows By using finite element analysis in Workbench Ansys, the models for simulating

the frame, pallet, and support bracket structures to check the strength condition are

established in this paper The results of the simulation show that the maximum equivalent

stresses of these structures are much smaller than the allowable stress Then, studying

topology optimization for the support bracket, this is conducted following two main

objectives that are mass reduction and maximum equivalent stress From the research

results, a lighter body can also be utilized to obtain the same strength and applied to

fabricate the support bracket design and the whole system

REFERENCES

[1] H.S Chang, “A study on the analysis method for optimizing mounting brackets”

SAE Technical Paper (2006) https://doi.org/10.4271/2006-01-1480

[2] J.W Chang, Y.S Lee, “Topology optimization of compressor bracket” J Mech

Sci Technol.22, 1668–1676 (2008)

[3] J Fukushima, K Suzuki, N Kikuchi, “Shape and topology optimization of a car

body with multiple load condition” SAE Technical Paper (1992)

https://doi.org/10.4271/92077

[4] K Diwakar, Dr.B.E Kumar, “Design and weight optimization of engine mounting

bracket”, International journal of advanced engineering Research and science

(IJAERS), Vol-2, ISSN: 2349-6495, Issue-8, August-2015

[5] Umesh S Ghorpade, D.S Chavan, Vinay Patil, Mahendra Gaikwad, “Finite element

analysis and natural frequency optimization of engine bracket”, International journal

of mechanical and industrial engineering (IJMIE), Vol.2, ISSN: 2231-6477, Issue-3,

2012

[6] Mr Pramod Walunje and Prof V.K.Kurkute, “Optimization of engine mounting

bracket using FEA”, Indian journal of research (IJR), Vol.2, ISSN: 2250-1991,

Iss12, 2013

[7] Sahil Naghate and Sandeep Patil, “Modal analysis of engine mounting bracket using

FEA”, International journal of engineering research and applications (IJERA), Vol.2,

ISSN: 2248-9622, Issue-4, July-August 2012

[8] Chang H., “A Study on the Analysis Method for Optimizing Mounting Brackets”,

SAE technical paper series 2006-01-1480

[9] M Beckers, “Topology optimization using a dual method with discrete variables”,

Structural Optimization 17, 17-24 Springer-Verlag 1999

[10] Sachin Kalsi, Daljeet Singh, J S Saini, “Optimization of compressor mounting

bracket of a passenger car”, J.Inst.Eng India Ser.C

https://doi.10.1007/s40032-018-04537

[11] Orme, M.; Madera, I.; Gschweitl, M.; Ferrari, M “Topology Optimization for

Additive Manufacturing as an Enabler for Light Weight Flight Hardware” 2018, 2,

51

[12] Pinskier, J.; Shirinzadeh, B “Topology optimization of leaf flexures to maximize

in-plane to out-of-in-plane compliance ratio” Precis Eng 2019, 55, 397–407

[13] Hu, Z.; Gadipudi, V.K.; Salem, D.R “Topology Optimization of Lightweight Lattice

Structural Composites Inspired by Cuttlefish Bone” Appl Com Mater 2019, 26,

15–27

[14] Tsavdaridis, K.D.; Efthymiou, E.; Adugu, A.; Hughes, J.A.; Grekavicius, L

“Application of structural topology optimization in aluminum cross-sectional

design” Thin Walled Struct 2019, 139, 372–388

[15] Jewett, J.L.; Carstensen, J.V “Topology-optimized design, construction and

experimental evaluation of concrete beams” Autom Constr 2019, 102, 59–67

[16] Nguyễn Văn Yến “Giáo trình chi tiết máy” Nhà xuất bản Giao thông Vận tải

TÓM TẮT

ĐÁNH GIÁ BỀN KẾT CẤU KHUNG, PALLET VÀ TỐI ƯU HÓA

KẾT CẤU GIÁ ĐỠ CỦA HỆ THỐNG KHO BẢO QUẢN

VŨ KHÍ DI ĐỘNG BẰNG PHÂN TÍCH PHẦN TỬ HỮU HẠN

Bài báo trình bày bài toán kiểm nghiệm bền khung, pallet và tối ưu hóa kết cấu chi tiết giá đỡ của hệ thống kho bảo quản vũ khí - khí tài di động bằng phương pháp phân tích phần tử hữu hạn Giá trị ứng suất tương đương lớn nhất trong hệ thống cần phải thỏa mãn điều kiện bền đó là giá trị này luôn nhỏ hơn hoặc bằng ứng suất cho phép của vật liệu được chế tạo Kết quả mô phỏng chỉ ra rằng ứng suất tương đương lớn nhất trong kết cấu xuất hiện tại vị trí chi tiết giá đỡ, do đó, chi tiết này được lựa chọn để tối ưu hóa kết cấu Tối thiểu hóa khối lượng và ứng suất tương đương lớn nhất được lựa chọn làm các hàm mục tiêu cho tối ưu hóa kết cấu Kết quả phân tích là mô hình, kết cấu hợp lý dùng để chế tạo, thử nghiệm Kết cấu này được so sánh với mô hình gốc ban đầu theo các chỉ tiêu là ứng suất tương đương lớn nhất và giảm khối lượng minh chứng cho việc tính toán tối ưu hóa thiết kế

Từ khóa: Đánh giá điều kiện bền kết cấu; Tối ưu hóa thiết kế; Khung; Pallet; Kho bảo quản di động; Giá đỡ;

Phân tích phần tử hữu hạn; Khối lượng nhỏ nhất; Ứng suất tương đương lớn nhất

Received 12 th July 2020 Revised 10 th August 2020 Published 24 th August 2020

Author affiliations:

1

Institute of Chemical - Material, Academy of Military Science and Technology;

2 Le Quy Don Technical University;

3 Air defense - Air force Academy

*Corresponding author: huenguyentien@gmail.com