scholarly journals Investigation on Structural Analysis of Flat Head Piston

In the investigation on structural analysis of flat head piston deflection and stress equations plays major role in mathematical modeling. The same has been used in this analysis. In the part of the analysis the thickness of the flat head of the piston is considered as the same of that of simply supported circular plate and the loads are applied on it reacts with the supports held at the top of the gudgeon hole. The piston is same as one side closed cylinder and ended with flat circular plate. It is the most general that the deflections due to axial loads are neglected. Hence the deflection and stress equations of the simply supported circular plate are adopted. Aluminum is taken as material of the component throughout the analysis and grey cast iron is taken as material for the rings in the modeling of the piston. Flexural rigidity plays a major role in the calculation for the analysis. The results of the mathematical analysis have been compared with the same of that of simulation using ANSYS software.

Author(s):  
Sumeet Sivadas

Abstract: Connecting Rods are an important and irreplaceable part of IC Engines. It is responsible for converting the reciprocating motion of the piston into the rotary motion of the crankshaft. During this process, the connecting rod is subjected to various loads. Therefore, the materials used for connecting rod are also very important. In this paper, a static structural analysis of a connecting rod made of 5 different materials: Forged Steel, Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel, Grey Cast Iron and Titanium Alloy are compared. The connecting rod is analyzed only for the axial compressive load and not the axial tensile load because the tensile load is very much lesser than the compressive load. The connecting rod’s model is developed in FUSION 360 software and then imported to and analyzed using Finite Element Method in the ANSYS 2021 WORKBENCH software. The equivalent stress, total deformation along with the factor of safety for all the materials is found and compared in the analysis and all the results are shown with the help of images and graphs. Keywords: Connecting Rod, FEA, ANSYS WORKBENCH, Structural Analysis, Forged Steel, Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel, Grey Cast Iron, Titanium Alloy.


1981 ◽  
Vol 42 (C5) ◽  
pp. C5-929-C5-934 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Millet ◽  
R. Schaller ◽  
W. Benoit

2021 ◽  
Vol 236 ◽  
pp. 112070
Author(s):  
Danguang Pan ◽  
Zhiyao Feng ◽  
Pan Lu ◽  
Zijian Zheng ◽  
Bincheng Zhao

Author(s):  
O Yu Usanova ◽  
L A Maryushin ◽  
A Yu Kazantsev ◽  
A I Dyukova

1987 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lammia M. Al-Shama ◽  
Jalal Mohammed Saleh ◽  
Naema A. Hikmat

Author(s):  
Mitsuru Nakai ◽  
Leo Sario

If a thin elastic circular plate B: ∣z∣ < 1 is clamped (simply supported, respectively) along its edge ∣z∣ = 1, its deflection at z ∈ B under a point load at ζ ∈ B, measured positively in the direction of the gravitational pull, is the biharmonic Green's function β(z, ζ) of the clamped plate (γ(z, ζ) of the simply supported plate, respectively). We ask: how do β(z, ζ) and γ(z, ζ) compare with the corresponding deflections β0(z, ζ) and γ0(z, ζ) of the punctured circular plate B0: 0 < ∣ z ∣ < 1 that is “clamped” or “simply supported”, respectively, also at the origin? We shall show that γ(z, ζ) is not affected by the puncturing, that is, γ(·, ζ) = γ0(·, ζ), whereas β(·, ζ) is:on B0 × B0. Moreover, while β((·, ζ) is of constant sign, β0(·, ζ) is not. This gives a simple counterexmple to the conjecture of Hadamard [6] that the deflection of a clampled thin elastic plate be always of constant sign:The biharmonic Gree's function of a clampled concentric circular annulus is not of constant sign if the radius of the inner boundary circle is sufficiently small.Earlier counterexamples to Hadamard's conjecture were given by Duffin [2], Garabedian [4], Loewner [7], and Szegö [9]. Interest in the problem was recently revived by the invited address of Duffin [3] before the Annual Meeting of the American Mathematical Society in 1974. The drawback of the counterexample we will present is that, whereas the classical examples are all simply connected, ours is not. In the simplicity of the proof, however, there is no comparison.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document