Scribd
Upload
6 views2 pages

CASE2C

The document analyzes the safety factors of critical points in a crimping tool, finding the safety factors for link 3 in buckling, the holes for bearing stress, the pins in shear, link 4 in bending, and link 1 under combined stresses. It notes that some safety factors are low and options to increase them such as using stronger steel or increasing section sizes.

Uploaded by

igualdi53
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views2 pages

CASE2C

The document analyzes the safety factors of critical points in a crimping tool, finding the safety factors for link 3 in buckling, the holes for bearing stress, the pins in shear, link 4 in bending, and link 1 under combined stresses. It notes that some safety factors are low and options to increase them such as using stronger steel or increasing section sizes.

Uploaded by

igualdi53
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

MACHINE DESIGN - An Integrated Approach, 4th Ed.

Case Study 2C-1

CASE STUDY 2C

Crimping-Tool Failure Analysis


Problem: Determine the factors of safety at critical points in the crimping tool shown in
Figures 3-3 and 5-23.
Given: The stresses are known from the previous Case Study 2B on p. 255. All material
is AISI 1095 steel Q & T @ 800 F with Sy = 112 ksi. It is an even material.
Yield strength S y  112  ksi

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.
Solution: See Figures 3-3 and 5-23 and Mathcad file CASE2C.

1. The previous case study found the critical column load in link 3 to be 3.1 times larger than the applied load.
This is the safety factor against buckling, which is expressed in terms of load rather than stress.

2. Any link can fail in bearing in the 0.25-in-dia holes. The bearing stress (step 3 in Case Study 2B) is
σb  49.5 ksi .
3. As the only applied stress at this element, this is the principal stress and also the von Mises stress. Thus,
σ'  σb . The safety factor for bearing stress on either hole or pin is then
Sy
N  N  2.3 (a)
σ'
4. The 0.25-in-dia pins are in single shear. The worst-case direct-shear stress from Case Study 2B (step 4) is
τ  31.8 ksi . As the only stress on this section, this is also the maximum shear stress. The safety factor for the
pins in single shear from equation 5.9a is

0.577  S y
N  N  2.3 (b)
τ
5. Link 4 is a 1.55-in-long beam, simply supported at the pins with the 2 000-lb crimp force at 0.35 in from point
C. The bending stress (Case Study 2B, step 7) is σ  30.9 ksi . As the only applied stress on this element at
the outer fiber of the beam, this is the principal stress and also the von Mises stress. Thus, σ'  σ . The safety
factor for link 4 in bending is then

Sy
N  N  2.0 (c)
σ'
6. Link 1 has a tensile stress due to bending in the inner fiber at point P on the curved beam superposed on an
axial tensile stress at the same point. Their sum is the maximum principal stress (Case Study 2B, step 13) is
σ1  73.9 ksi . There is no applied shear stress so this is the principal stress and also the von Mises stress.
The safety factor for bending at the inner fiber of the curved beam at point P from equation 5.8a is

Sy
N  N  3.6 (d)
σ1

7. At the hole in link 1, there is only the axial stress σa  20.6 ksi from step 13 of Case Study 2B where σ'  σa
and the safety factor is found from equation 5.8a:

Sy
N  N  1.5 (e)
σ'
Note that there is also a transverse shear stress at the hole which when combined with the axial tension reduces
the safety factor at the hole to about 3.7.

CASE2C.xmcd
MACHINE DESIGN - An Integrated Approach, 4th Ed. Case Study 2C-2

8. Some of these safety factors, such as the N = 1.23 for bending in link 1 at point P, are low. The safety factors
for the pins in shear could also be increased to guard against user-induced overloads. Either a stronger steel
such as SAE 4140 could be selected or the section sizes of the parts could be increased slightly. A small
change in link thickness would achieve acceptable safety factors in the existing material. Note that the
geometry of this tool has been simplified for this example from that of the actual device. The stresses and
safety factors calculated here are not necessarily the same as those in the actual tool, which is a well tested
and safe design.

CASE2C.xmcd

You might also like