International Journal of Reconfigurable and Embedded Systems (IJRES)

Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025, pp. 231~242

ISSN: 2089-4864, DOI: 10.11591/ijres.v14.i1.pp231-242  231

Finite element analysis method as an alternative for furniture

prototyping process and product testing

Fesa Putra Kristianto1, Zain Amarta2, Nicolas Hutasoit2, Nuthqy Fariz2, Fania Putri Herinda1
1
Department of Furniture Industry Business Management, Furniture and Wood Processing Industry Polytechnic, Kendal, Indonesia
2
Department of Furniture Design, Furniture and Wood Processing Industry Polytechnic, Kendal, Indonesia

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: In the current furniture industry, making furniture goes through many steps.
There are ordering materials, designing, building a prototype, and testing
Received Feb 22, 2024 samples. This process is considered quite complex, requiring significant
Revised Jun 7, 2024 costs, and lengthy production time. The application of finite element
Accepted Jul 3, 2024 analysis (FEA) can be a solution to simulate the furniture manufacturing
process. Objective of this research was to determine FEA could substitute
making and test prototype furniture thereby saving costs and time. This
Keywords: method utilizes ANSYS 18.1 software for more accurate and rapid
calculations, incorporating load variables of 400 N, 600 N, 800 N, and 1,000
Finite element analysis N, along with gravitational acceleration of 10 \frac{m}{s^2}. The research
Furniture manufacturing evaluates the difference (expressed as a percentage) between the results
process obtained from simulations and those obtained directly from experiments,
Furniture test considering maximum equivalent stress, maximum principal stress, and total
Production time deformation values. The final step involves comparing the simulation with
Prototype furniture direct testing in terms of cost and time. The research results show an average
Software ANSYS 18.1 error factor of 5% across all aspect. In terms of cost, the method can save
1,807 USD and reduce production time by up to one month. From these
findings, it can be concluded that the process of prototyping and sample
testing can be replaced using the finite element method.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Fesa Putra Kristianto
Department of Furniture Industry Business Management
Furniture and Wood Processing Industry Polytechnic
Wanamarta Raya Street No. 20, Kendal Industrial Park, Kendal-51371, Central Java, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Finite element analysis (FEA) has been widely applied as practical method for modelling complex
system in various field such as aerospace, renewable energy, automotive, and civil engineering [1]. FEA
development involved method and software. Development of method was started by enhancing manipulation
variables such as flexibility, force, deformation, and stiffness. Later, shape of element was modified from two
dimensions to three dimensions namely tetrahedral and axisymmetric solid. Software development was
started by launched general purpose structural analysis (GPSA) from NASA. Currently, Workbench and
SpaceClaim program was developed by ANSYS Inc. for FEA computation. In this method, the structure to
be analyzed is discretized into small elements (finite elements), interconnected by nodal points (discrete
points). These finite elements, which are generally simpler than the actual structure, have a finite size and
must represent the properties of the actual structure. Since each finite element has several unknown variables
corresponding to the properties of the actual structure, and the structure itself is a combination of multiple
finite elements, software is used for analysis [2].

Journal homepage: http://ijres.iaescore.com

232  ISSN: 2089-4864

FEA has significantly contributed to solving industrial problems. It was implemented to test
collisions, withstand loads, frame strength, and ship construction strength in automotive industry. It was
applied to test the strength of buildings, bridges, and tower deflections in civil engineering. From the various
application of FEA, this method has not been implemented in furniture industry, especially for strength
testing of product samples. This gap can be fulfilled since the FEA method's error factor was typically 0% -
5% and it was commonly used to measure critical strength of building and automotive machinery [3].
In furniture industry, manufacturing process started from customer order, followed by drafters
creating designs based on their preferences. After being approved by customer, drafters then created bill of
materials (BOM). Prototype was fabricated according to BOM and tested based on standard, then being
sent to customer as a sample. After the sample results being approved, the process continued to mass
production based on the amount of costumer orders. The finished furniture product was packaged and sent to
customer [4]. The furniture production flow process is explained in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Furniture production process

The FEA method implementation could be conducted on prototype fabrication and product testing.
Prototype fabrication costed about 2 times the cost of producing a furniture product. Meanwhile, the product
testing costed 40% of the furniture product price. The time for prototype fabrication was 1 month and product
testing needed 1 month, so the total time was 2 months. The implementation of FEA method could be
completed in one day as an alternative [5]. FEA method would reduce the cost and time production.
Obtaining optimal result, the FEA method was supported by software for accurate and fast
computation. The software used was ANSYS Workbench 18.1. The advantage of the ANSYS 18.1
Workbench was produced a lot of and varied engineering data that used for analysis. The process of
importing 3D images was very simple and could be conducted from common program that used for 3D
images design such as AutoCAD. The computation was more accurate since the settings was very flexible.
However, to obtain accurate computation, the mesh size must be standardized according to tested design. The
more uniform the mesh shapes such as squares, triangles, and tetrahedral, the smaller the error factor [6].
The implementation of FEA method and ANSYS 18.1 Workbench software were widely used in
previous research. Research on shear wall plates testing for earthquake resistant buildings using the FEA
method and ANSYS 18.1 Workbench software was conducted. The result of this research was the shear wall
plate design made from corrugated plates could increased the strength from earthquakes by 9% and the error
factor from FEA analysis method was only 4% [7]. Research on measuring the impact of collisions from fast
trains in Indonesia was conducted. In the fast train system, there was an energy absorption system when a
collision occurs. This system was tested with FEA method and ANSYS 18.1 Workbench software to evaluate
the amount of collision energy. The result of this research was the energy absorption system in high-speed
trains could absorb up to 5 MJ of energy from collision incident. The error factor from process data was
about 5% [8]. Research on gelam wood for building structure was conducted. The result of this research was
gelam wood could be used as a building structure with specifications of a 10-12 cm width and 4 m length.

Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025: 231-242
Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst ISSN: 2089-4864  233

Strength analysis FEA method and ANSYS 18.1 Workbench software was obtained a value of 100.13
MPa [9]. From previous research, FEA method and ANSYS 18.1 Workbench software was very possible to
implemented for replacing prototype fabrication and manual product testing become digital simulation.
In this research, the type of furniture tested was a parametric television (TV) table. The testing
consisted of two stages. The first stage was the material strength simulation with supported by ANSYS 18.1
Workbench software. The manipulation variables used were loads of 400 N, 600 N, 800 N, and 1,000 N with
𝑚
gravitational acceleration of 10 2. The second stage was direct testing prototype strength, so that from those
𝑠
stages the error percentage would be determined. The value of error percentage could be considered for
deciding whether direct testing of product strength or just simply used ANSYS 18.1 Workbench software.

2. RESEARCH METHOD
2.1. Making prototype
The parametric TV table furniture was made using one of the furniture design methods known as
parametric design. It was used for designing and solving structural, form, and aesthetic problems. Parametric
furniture was furniture composed of a series of furniture components that have the same distance or
arrangement, thus forming a three-dimensional (3D) structure. Its components were made using computer
numerical control (CNC) machines and arranged in a specific composition. Its components were joined using
glue to form a large lamination. In order to maintain the same distance and assemble them into three
dimensions, studs or spacers are used [10].
The parametric TV table furniture was designed using parametric techniques. Its dimensions
followed ergonomic norms, measuring 1,498 mm in length, 353 mm in width, and 512 mm in height. The
material used was plywood. It was sourced from Kayu Lapis Indonesia Company. Following this, the
components were shaped using CNC machining and carving processes. The results from these operations
were then utilized in the construction of the table. Examples of furniture products utilizing parametric design
methodologies can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2. TV table parametric

2.2. Finite element analysis

Finite element constituted a numerical technique predicated on the fundamental paradigm of
discretizing a continuum into diminutive and geometrically simplified elements. The finite element method
analysis was conducted to derive an approximate solution based on assumed displacement, stress, or a
combination of both [11]. The key subject of FEA involves dividing the object under examination into a
finite number of subdivisions. The subdivisions were designated as element. It was connected to another
element through nodes [12]. Mathematical equations representing the object were then constructed.
Meshing involved partitioning the object into a multitude of elements. In calculating the solution per element,
it had to meet certain conditions, such as continuity at nodal points and interface elements [13]. Figure 3
illustrates two types of FEA elements, namely triangular elements in Figure 3(a) and quadrilateral elements
in Figure 3(b).

(a) (b)

Figure 3. Illustrates two types of FEA elements (a) triangular element and (b) quadrilateral element

Finite element analysis method as an alternative for furniture prototyping … (Fesa Putra Kristianto)
234  ISSN: 2089-4864

2.3. ANSYS 18.1 software simulation

The simulation method used quantitative approach. It had three stage procedure, namely:

2.3.1. Pre-processing
First step of FEA was configuring the ANSYS 18.1 application to prepare it for simulation. The
initial configuration for the application involved selecting system analysis. After that, input the 3D design
into ANSYS 18.1. The third step was to fill in the engineering data. The fourth step was meshing the 3D
design. Finally, set the load and gravity variation. After all these steps have been done, the ANSYS 18.1 FEA
testing was ready to proceed.
− Components and structure: this testing was conducted for the structure or design of furniture. It
determined the minimum strength limits that the furniture could withstand. While component testing
was done to determine the durability of the material used, wood and structural steel frames.
− Selection of analysis system: there were many analysis systems provided by the ANSYS Workbench
18.1 software. In this study, the structural analysis system is utilized [14]. Figure 4 showed an
illustration in the application ANSYS 18.1, Figure 4(a) display of analysis system, Figure 4(b) display
of structural analysis system simulation.

(a) (b)

Figure 4. Illustration in the application ANSYS 18.1 (a) selection of analysis system and (b) main part of
structural analysis system simulation

− Input geometry: the image 3D model of the parametric TV table was designed using Autodesk
AutoCAD 2022. It was converted into initial graphics exchange specification (.IGES) format and then
inputted into geometry through import geometry [15]. An example of making geometry in the
application could be seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Making geometry in furniture design

Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025: 231-242
Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst ISSN: 2089-4864  235

− Data engineering was the step where input data for the materials used was collected. It was wood and
structural steel. After that, strength testing simulations were conducted using static structural analysis
through engineering data source.
− Meshing was performed on each component of the model. Meshing was the process of dividing a
geometry into several small objects called meshes with specific shapes and interconnected nodes [16].
In FEA, mesh size was crucial. it was closely related to accuracy. The number of meshes was required
for element meshing. Structural analysis types required an appropriate meshing scheme, such as optimal
mesh density for static, impact, and frequency analyses. The mesh creation process was carried out
using the ANSYS meshing program [17]. The mesh used quadrilaterals with a size of 9 mm, where this
mesh type was easy to adapt to complex geometric shapes. The result of meshing process in application
for parametric TV table could be seen in Figure 6.
− A simulated strength test was conducted using of ANSYS 18.1, applying loads of 400 N, 600 N, 800 N,
𝑚
and 1,000 N at a gravitational speed of 10 2.
𝑠

Figure 6. Parametric TV table furniture meshing process

2.3.2. Solution
In the solution process, the calculation data results were displayed after the simulation process. It
computed by the computer include equivalent stress, principal stress, and total deformation. In this stage,
information about the estimated time for the calculation process (running) was also provided [18]. The
calculation data results were visually displayed through contour plots, graphs, and tables. The result data of
total deformation, maximum equivalent stress, and maximum principal stress were obtained and subsequently
processed using Microsoft Excel. The overall flow of the design testing process with FEA in ANSYS 18.1
was explained in Figure 7.

Start

Input Geometry

Material input for parametric TV

table components

Meshing

Giving load and the earth s gravitational force

Solution selection (principal stress, equivalent stress

and total deformation)

Solve dan safety factor

Finish

Figure 7. Finite element method analysis flowchart in ANSYS 18.1 software

Finite element analysis method as an alternative for furniture prototyping … (Fesa Putra Kristianto)
236  ISSN: 2089-4864

2.3.3. Evaluation
In the evaluation step, two comparisons were determined. Comparison of calculations were made
between the simulation results of the parametric TV table with the test results directly. Then, it was compared
in terms of cost and time.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The evaluation of the parametric TV table furniture design was undertaken by subjecting the table to
loads with magnitudes of 400 N (40 Kg), 600 N (60 Kg), 800 N (80 Kg), and 1,000 N (100 Kg). The meshing
size employed was 9 mm. FEA was performed to ascertain the stress and deformation experienced
by parametric TV tables under the applied loading conditions, with the maximum scenarios depicted in
Figures 8 to 11. In Figures 8 to 11 there are sub figure for sub Figures 8 to 11(a) display of maximum
equivalent stress, Figures 8 to 11(b) display of maximal principal stress and Figures 8 to 11(c) display of total
deformation.

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 8. ANSYS 18.1 simulation for parametric TV table with 400 N force (a) maximum equivalent stress,
(b) maximal principal stress, and (c) total deformation

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 9. ANSYS 18.1 simulation for parametric TV desk with 600 N force (a) maximum equivalent stress,
(b) maximal principal stress, and (c) total deformation

Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025: 231-242
Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst ISSN: 2089-4864  237

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 10. ANSYS 18.1 simulation for parametric TV table with 800 N force (a) maximum equivalent stress,
(b) maximal principal stress, and (c) total deformation

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 11. ANSYS 18.1 simulation for parametric TV desk with 1,000 N force (a) maximum equivalent
stress, (b) maximal principal stress, and (c) total deformation

The simulation obtained from the ANSYS 18.1, conducted with applied forces of 400 N, 600 N,
800 N, and 1,000 N, demonstrated that the parametric TV furniture design could adequately fulfill its

Finite element analysis method as an alternative for furniture prototyping … (Fesa Putra Kristianto)
238  ISSN: 2089-4864

intended function under load of 1,000 N. The load distribution across the top surface of the parametric TV
furniture was uniform. However, the corner regions exhibited a need for design adjustments to accommodate
the observed pressure distribution patterns. Such modifications to the corner sections of the parametric TV
furniture design could be accomplished by implementing a more compact spatial configuration.
Strength testing on parametric TV furniture is carried out in two stages, namely the ANSYS 18.1
simulation stage and the direct testing stage. The outputs of both the ANSYS 18.1 simulation stage and the
direct testing stage will provide values for maximum equivalent stress, maximum principal stress, and total
deformation. From Figures 8(a), 9(a), 10(a), and 11(a), maximum equivalent stress values can be obtained
from ANSYS 18.1 simulation. The result of its simulation with forces of 400 N (40 Kg), 600 N (60 Kg),
800 N (80 Kg), and 1,000 N (100 Kg) are 7.05×10-5 Pa, 1.05×10-6 Pa, 1.41×10-6 Pa, and 1.76×10-6 Pa,
respectively. While the maximum equivalent stress values at the direct test stage with forces of 400 N, 600 N,
800 N, and 1,000 N are 7.19×10-5 Pa, 1×10-6 Pa, 1.5×10-6 Pa, and 1.6×10-6 Pa.
The maximum equivalent stress represent the total load experience, which is calculated as the sum
of elastic load and any additional applied loads [19]. Figures 8 to 11 show that the most severe loading occurs
at the corner edges of the parametric TV furniture model, indicated by red, while blue denotes lower stress
levels, highlighting the corners as the areas of highest stress. The maximum equivalent stress values in Figure
12, both in the simulation stage and direct testing, peak at a load of 400 N and then stabilize from
600 N to 1,000 N. This is because the highest elasticity in the design occurs at a load of 600 N and remains
stable up to 1,000 N. Supplementary loads do not increase the elastic behavior of the design, as the
parametric design inherently tends toward rigidity and structural robustness [20].
The Figures 8(b), 9(b), 10(b), and 11(b) show maximum principal stress results from the simulation
process. Maximum principal stress is the stress that a material or object in resisting a load [21]. The values of
the maximum principal stress in the ANSYS 18.1 simulation stage with forces of 400 N, 600 N, 800 N, and
𝑚 𝑚 𝑚 𝑚
1,000 N are 1.16×10-5 , 1.75×10-5 , 2.33×10-5 , and 2.92×10-5 , respectively. Meanwhile, the values of
𝑚 𝑚 𝑚 𝑚
maximum equivalent stress in the direct testing stage with forces of 400 N, 600 N, 800 N, and 1,000 N are
𝑚 𝑚 𝑚 𝑚
1.1×10-5 , 1.82×10-5 , 2.52×10-5 , and 2.83×10-5 . From the overall results obtained, a graph was made
𝑚 𝑚 𝑚 𝑚
in Figure 13.

Figure 12. Maximum equivalent stress results of Figure 13. Maximum principal stress results of
parametric TV furniture parametric TV furniture

The maximum principal stress peaked in the columnar components of the parametric TV furniture
design due to these columns (fulcurms) bearing the highest load within the overall configuration. The
maximum principal stress result in both simulation and direct testing stages show that the highest value is at
the load of 1,000 N. This is because the heavier the supported load, the higher the value of maximum
principal stress. The findings lead to the conclusion that the maximum principal stress exhibits a direct
proportional relationship with the magnitude of supported load [5].
Total deformation value from simulation is shown in Figures 8(c), 9(c), 10(c), and 11(c). The total
deformation is the net deflection of a system quantified by taking the vector sum of all individual
displacements in different orientations [22]. Total deformation at the ANSYS 18.1 simulation stage with
forces of 400 N, 600 N, 800 N, and 1,000 N was 8.27×10-6 M, 1.24×10-5 M, 1.65×10-5 M, and 2.06×10-5 M,

Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025: 231-242
Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst ISSN: 2089-4864  239

respectively. While the total deformation in the direct test stage with forces of 400 N, 600 N, 800 N, and
1,000 N was 7.9×10-6 M, 1.23×10-5 M, 1.7×10-5 M, and 2.18×10-5 M.
From Figure 14, the greatest total deformation occurs along the Y-axis, increasing with greater
gravitational force and loading, due to the direct proportionality between deformation and loading on
parametric TV furniture [23]. The simulation results indicate that the largest total deformation occurred at the
loading of 1,000 N, measuring 2.06×10-5 M. Similarly, direct testing results show that the largest total
deformation, measuring 2.18×10-5 M, occurred at a loading 1,000 N.
In (1) demonstrates the calculation of error factor. The error factor represents the percentage of error
that arise in strength test, affecting the discrepancy between the simulation result and the direct testing result.
The calculation of the error percentage employs the concept of absolute value. Thus, if a negative result is
obtained, it is necessary to determine its absolute value since the purpose of calculating the error percentage
is to determine the magnitude of the difference between the simulation value and the direct testing value [24].
The formula for calculating the percentage of errors is as (1).
𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒−𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑥 100% (1)
𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

Based on this formula, it is evident that the maximum equivalent stress in the simulation stage and
the test stage, with forces of 400 N (40 Kg), 600 N (60 Kg), 800 N (80 Kg), and 1,000 N (100 Kg), exhibit
error percentages of -2%, 5%, -6%, and 10% respectively. Consequently, the average error percentage in
maximum equivalent stress is 6%. Similarly, the maximum principal stress with forces of 400 N (40 Kg),
600 N (60 Kg), 800 N (80 Kg), and 1,000 N (100 Kg) in both the simulation stage and test stage
demonstrates error percentages of 5%, -4%, -8%, and 3%. Therefore, the average error percentage in
maximum principal stress is 5%. Furthermore, the total deformation with forces of 400 N (40 Kg), 600 N
(60 Kg), 800 N (80 Kg), and 1,000 N (100 Kg) in the simulation stage and test stage exhibits error
percentages of 5%, 1%, -3%, and -6%. Consequently, the average error percentage in total deformation is
3%. Considering all aspects, the average error factor is only 5%, indicating that the simulation results
adequately represent the direct test results [25]. Figure 15 illustrates the comparison results of the error
percentages across all aspects.

Figure 14. Results of total deformation of parametric Figure 15. Error percentage comparison
TV furniture

The safety factor is a crucial parameter in construction or structures, indicating safety if its value is
greater than 1. It is calculated by comparing the allowable stress of the material with the maximum stress that
occurs. If the maximum stress is smaller than the allowable stress, the material considered safe [26]. Given
the yield strength of the material is 140 MPa and the safety factor is 1.8, the allowable stress is calculated to
be 77.77 Mpa. Since the maximum stress (70.5 Mpa) is less than the allowable stress, it can be concluded
that the material and dimensions used are safe under the applied load.
Based on the test results, the average error factor is only 5% for both direct testing and simulation
results. According to research [27], the minimum error from FEA simulations is 5%, which already indicates
good meshing quality. With a 5% error and a safety factor greater than 1, the process of creating furniture
prototypes and testing furniture can be replaced with the FEA method. Utilizing the FEA method can reduce

Finite element analysis method as an alternative for furniture prototyping … (Fesa Putra Kristianto)
240  ISSN: 2089-4864

costs and processing time. Table 1 illustrates the advantages of replacing the current furniture industry
processes with the FEA method and simulation.
Table 1. Comparison of simulation and experimental results
Description Current furniture industry process Proposed furniture industry process (simulation)
Building prototype 1,327 USD 0 USD
Test 480 USD 0 USD
Total cost 1,807 USD 0 USD
Required time 1 month 1 day

Based on research conducted on parametric TV table furniture, a comparison was made between
direct testing (experimental) and simulation using ANSYS software with the finite element method. This
comparison was made in terms of cost and time. The stage of creating prototypes and conducting direct
testing incurred a cost of 1,327 USD, and the testing cost alone was 480 USD, resulting in a total cost of
1,807 USD and a duration of 1 month. In contrast, when using FEA in ANSYS 18.1 software for prototyping
and testing furniture, the cost is free (0 USD). Furthermore, in terms of time, the process of making and
testing furniture through ANSYS 18.1 software simulation using the finite element method only takes 1 day.
Therefore, both in terms of cost and time, utilizing ANSYS 18.1 software simulation for furniture making
and testing proves to be superior to direct testing. Consequently, it is recommended to replace the prototyping
process and prototype testing in the furniture manufacturing industry with the FEA method using ANSYS
18.1 software simulation. Figure 16 illustrates the recommended new process for furniture making
in the furniture industry. In Figure 16(a) furniture production process before reconfigurable process and
Figure 16(b) furniture production process after reconfigurable process.

Start Start Start Start

Sawmill Ordering Furniture Sawmill

Ordering Furniture

Preparing Making 3D furniture design Preparing

Making Prototype No
Sandpaper Components Sandpaper Compenents
FEA analysis with
No
ANSYS
Prototype Test Assembly Assembly
Yes Yes

Furniture Production
Furniture Production Process Sandpaper Unit Sandpaper Unit
Process

Finishing Finishing
Packing and Delivery Packing and Delivering

Final Check Final Check

Finish
Finish
Check Buyer Check Buyer

Finish Finish

(a) (b)

Figure 16. Changes in furniture production process (a) before using FEA metod and (b) after using FEA
method

4. CONCLUSION
Implementation of FEA method on furniture prototyping process was proper simulation method.
This method could replace the current inefficient furniture prototyping, which costs quite a lot and takes a
long production time. This research developed FEA method with ANSYS 18.1 Workbench software for
prototyping process of parametric TV table furniture through computation analysis of maximum equivalent
stress, maximum principal stress, and total deformation. Load variables were 400 N, 600 N, 800 N, and

Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025: 231-242
Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst ISSN: 2089-4864  241
m
1,000 N with gravitational acceleration of 10 2 . The percentage of error factor was determined between
s
simulation result and direct strength testing of furniture prototype.
A comparison of costs and time between digital simulation and direct testing has been conducted.
The fabrication and direct strength testing of furniture prototype that currently implemented costs greater
amount of 1,807 USD within 1 month production time. When compared to the process of furniture
prototyping and strength furniture testing using FEA method and ANSYS 18.1 Workbench software was free
of cost (0 USD) and only takes 1 day production time. So that the implementation of FEA method and
ANSYS 18.1 Workbench software could be used as an alternative for furniture prototyping process and
product testing.

REFERENCES
[1] D. Hutton, Fundamentals of finite element analysis, McGrawHill Higher Education International ed., 2004.
[2] M. K. Thompson and J. M. Thompson, ANSYS Mechanical APDL for finite element analysis, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2017.
[3] N. S. Gokhale, S. S. Deshpande, S. V. Bedekar, and A. N. Thite, Practical finite element analysis, Finite to infinite, 2008.
[4] R. G. Kyle and C. R. Ludka, “Simulating the furniture industry,” in Winter Simulation Conference Proceedings, IEEE, 2000, pp.
1347–1350. doi: 10.1109/WSC.2000.899107.
[5] N. Fariz, F. P. K. Line, Z. Amarta, N. Hutasoit, and D. Amalia, “Analysis of stress and deformation in parametric furniture using
the finite element method,” E3S Web of Conferences, vol. 465, p. 02032, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/202346502032.
[6] A. Kumar, A. Sharma, R. Kumar, R. Vaish, and V. S. Chauhan, “Finite element analysis of vibration energy harvesting using
lead-free piezoelectric materials: A comparative study,” Journal of Asian Ceramic Societies, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 138–143, Jun. 2014,
doi: 10.1016/j.jascer.2014.02.001.
[7] A. Muhammad, M. A. H. Ali, and I. H. Shanono, “Finite element analysis of a connecting rod in ANSYS: an overview,” IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 736, no. 2, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/736/2/022119.
[8] K. Rizal and A. Syaifudin, “Evaluation of crash energy management of the first-developed high-speed train in Indonesia,” Journal
of Engineering and Technological Sciences, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 235–246, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.5614/j.eng.technol.sci.2023.55.3.2.
[9] A. Triarso and B. Dwipurwanto, “Stability analysis of gabion pair project for beach embankment in Kenjeran Residential area (in
Indonesian: Analisis stabilitas pada proyek pasangan bronjong untuk tanggul pantai di area permukiman Kenjeran),” Jurnal
Ilmiah MITSU, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 73–82, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.24929/ft.v9i2.1084.
[10] S. Ö. Felek, “Parametric modelling in furniture design a case study: two door wardrope,” The European Journal of Research and
Development, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 62–74, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.56038/ejrnd.v2i2.29.
[11] M. E. Bechly and P. D. Clausen, “Structural design of a composite wind turbine blade using finite element analysis,” Computers
and Structures, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 639–646, May 1997, doi: 10.1016/S0045-7949(96)00387-2.
[12] N. A. Fallah, C. Bailey, M. Cross, and G. A. Taylor, “Comparison of finite element and finite volume methods application in
geometrically nonlinear stress analysis,” Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 439–455, Jun. 2000, doi:
10.1016/S0307-904X(99)00047-5.
[13] H. Patil and P. V. Jeyakarthikeyan, “Mesh convergence study and estimation of discretization error of hub in clutch disc with
integration of ANSYS,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 402, no. 1, pp. 1–12, Oct. 2018, doi:
10.1088/1757-899X/402/1/012065.
[14] S. Saha and A. Roychowdhury, “Application of the finite element method in orthopedic implant design,” Journal of Long-Term
Effects of Medical Implants, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 55–82, 2009, doi: 10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.v19.i1.70.
[15] Z. Wen, X. Tin, and W. Zhang, “Contact-impact stress analysis of rail joint region using the dynamic finite element method,”
Wear, vol. 258, no. 7–8, pp. 1301–1309, Mar. 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.wear.2004.03.040.
[16] J. P. Srivastava, P. K. Sarkar, and V. Ranjan, “Contact stress analysis in wheel–rail by hertzian method and finite element
method,” Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 319–325, Oct. 2014, doi: 10.1007/s40032-
014-0145-x.
[17] A. Pratama and D. Agusman, “Analysis of frame construction strength in belt conveyor design using ANSYS Workbench,”
Sainteks: Jurnal Sains dan Teknik, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 19–28, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.37577/sainteks.v5i1.527.
[18] E. Gardie, V. Paramasivam, H. Dubale, E. Tefera Chekol, and S. K. Selvaraj, “Numerical analysis of reinforced carbon fiber
composite material for lightweight automotive wheel application,” Materials Today: Proceedings, vol. 46, pp. 7369–7374, 2021,
doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.1047.
[19] L. Himmlová, T. Dostálová, A. Kácovský, and S. Konvičková, “Influence of implant length and diameter on stress distribution: a
finite element analysis,” Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 20–25, Jan. 2004, doi:
10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.08.008.
[20] A. Robau-Porrua, Y. Pérez-Rodríguez, L. M. Soris-Rodríguez, O. Pérez-Acosta, and J. E. González, “The effect of diameter,
length and elastic modulus of a dental implant on stress and strain levels in peri-implant bone: a 3D finite element analysis,” Bio-
Medical Materials and Engineering, vol. 30, no. 5–6, pp. 541–558, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.3233/BME-191073.
[21] N. Kaleli, D. Sarac, S. Külünk, and Ö. Öztürk, “Effect of different restorative crown and customized abutment materials on stress
distribution in single implants and peripheral bone: a three-dimensional finite element analysis study,” Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry, vol. 119, no. 3, pp. 437–445, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.03.008.
[22] Y. Li, W. J. T. Daniel, and P. A. Meehan, “Deformation analysis in single-point incremental forming through finite element
simulation,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 88, no. 1–4, pp. 255–267, Jan. 2017, doi:
10.1007/s00170-016-8727-9.
[23] J. Dahlberg, B. M. Phares, and Z. Liu, “Evaluation of the load distribution of timber slab bridge and the efficiency of the retrofit
methods,” Engineering Structures, vol. 291, p. 116502, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116502.
[24] A. A. Pratikto, “Simulation of control and monitoring of electric power of household appliances based on ESP32 (in Indonesian:
Simulasi kendali dan monitoring daya listrik peralatan rumah tangga berbasis ESP32),” ALINIER: Journal of Artificial
Intelligence & Applications, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 38–48, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.36040/alinier.v3i1.4855.
[25] Y. Chen, Y. Huang, and N. Yi, “A SCR-based error estimation and adaptive finite element method for the Allen–Cahn equation,”
Computers and Mathematics with Applications, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 204–223, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2019.02.022.
[26] N. Pereira and X. Romão, “Material strength safety factors for the seismic safety assessment of existing RC buildings,”

Finite element analysis method as an alternative for furniture prototyping … (Fesa Putra Kristianto)
242  ISSN: 2089-4864

Construction and Building Materials, vol. 119, pp. 319–328, Aug. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.055.
[27] G. Bao and P. Li, “Finite element methods,” in Maxwell’s Equations in Periodic Structures, Springer, 2021, pp. 87–161, doi:
10.1007/978-981-16-0061-6_4.
BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Fesa Putra Kristianto received S.T. and M.MT. at the Sepuluh Nopember
Institute of Technology. He is a full-time lecturer at the Furniture and Wood Processing
Industry Polytechnic. He has also worked as coworker with Sepuluh Nopember Institute of
Technology. He has published several research papers in various international journal and
international conference. His research areas are operations management, quality management
and industrial management. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Zain Amarta received his bachelor degree in engineering physics at the Sepuluh
Nopember Institute of Technology and his master degree in industrial management at Sepuluh
Nopember Institute of Technology. He is full time lecturer at the Furniture and Wood
Processing Industry Polytechnic. His research lines are industrial and engineering
management. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Nicolas Hutasoit received his S.Pi. degree in fisheries product technology at the
Bogor Agricultural University, and his M.T. in industrial engineering at the University of
Indonesia. He is full-time lecture at the Department of Furniture Design, Furniture and Wood
Processing Industry Polytechnic. His research lines are product development, factory work
system, automatic control and energy efficiency audit. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Nuthqy Fariz is a graduate of a bachelor of engineering and has an S.T. degree

from architecture education (UNDIP) in 2015, and earned an M.Ars. degree in 2018 with a
concentration in advanced architectural science. He has conducted research in the field of
advanced architectural design and also deepened the design of furniture design. He has also
conducted scientific publications in accredited national journals and international seminars. His
research fields are design, architectural design, and furniture design. He can be contacted at
email: [email protected].

Fania Putri Herinda is a student of the Department of Furniture Industry

Business Management, Furniture and Wood Processing Industry Polytechnic. She is now in
3rd semester. She is studying business management, marketing, and quality control. She has
achieved a bronze medal in the International Festival of Engineering, Science, and Technology
in Tunisia (IFEST2) competition and a silver medal in the Indonesia National Science
Enterprise Challenge (INASEC) competition. She can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025: 231-242