MAE 3501 PROJECT 1

Analysis of an ABS Hexagonal Structure in

Compression

Hampton Ray and Chase Williams

Table of Contents
Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................................................1
Computational Component ........................................................................................................................................1
Constraints (Boundary Conditions) ........................................................................................................................1
Equipment ..............................................................................................................................................................2
Experimental Component ..........................................................................................................................................4
Before and After Experiment .................................................................................................................................4
Measurements .......................................................................................................................................................4
Results ....................................................................................................................................................................4
Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................................5
Design Process ........................................................................................................................................................6
Prediction vs. Reality ..............................................................................................................................................6
Further Investigation ..............................................................................................................................................6
References and Appendices .......................................................................................................................................6
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................6

Problem Statement
Using solid works and the given set of constraints, a design was created in the maximum energy absorbed was
maximized. Using SolidWorks, an design for the task was procured and tested using FEA analysis to determine
weaknesses with the design. Basted on the Solid Works analysis the locations where the design was weakest
were resolved and methods were created to increase the energy retention of specimen. After design and FEA
were complete, the specimen was put under compression using the Instron machine. The results were
compared to the predictions established previously.

The objective of this project is to a solid understanding of the digital design process in SolidWorks. Also, the
project is intended to increase understanding of how materials fail in compression as apposed to tension. This
project stresses the importance of protyping multiple designs and multiple iterations of the same design to
ensure the most productive outcome.

Computational Component
Constraints
 Must be a 25mm x 25mm cross section at the top and the base
 Only 162 cm of material can be used (including support and abs)
 The specimen will only experience uniaxial compression

MAE 3501 Page 1

Equipment
 Solid works
 U print plus
 Instron Machine

Figure 1: Contour Plot of von Mises Stress on Specimen (Arbitrary Force)

Fig. [1] shows the concentrations of stress at specific locations based on the conditions that were specified. The
contour of the von Mises stress is largest in the red areas, and smallest in the blue areas. From the contour of
the plot the stress was concluded to distributed evenly across the entire central hexagonal cros section and even
less along the top and bottom plates. This contour does not predict the exact location of the failure of the
specimen because of the equal strength in each piece of the structure. The specimen was built on a level of
hexagonal trusses to increase the yield strength.

MAE 3501 Page 2

 Figure 2: Contour Plot of displacment on Specimen (Arbitrary Force)

Fig. [2] Figure 2 shows the displacement of the specimen under compression. The Contour shows that the
specimen will experience the most displacement at the top and gradually increased until there is practically no
displacement at the base. Although the von Mises stress is distributed evenly throughout the specimen, the
most practical place for facture is at the top where the displacement is greatest.

MAE 3501 Page 3

Experimental Component

Figure 3: Specimen Before Uniaxial Loading Figure 3: Specimen Before Uniaxial Loading

Before and After Experiment

Fig. [3] and [4] represent the specimen before and after uniaxial loading from the Instron machine. By analyzing
the specimen after failure, it was clear that the weakest point on the specimine was located at the top of the
hexagonal column. The specimen underwent brittle failure because it compressed hardly at all before yielding.

Measurements

Table 1: Important Dimensions of Specimen

Length (mm) Width (mm) Thickness (mm)

78.6 25 top and base 25mm
Center 14.79-17.96

The dimensions in table 1 above are the dimensions that were used when creating the SolidWorks model of the
specimen. Moreover, the length of the center and the thickness of the dogbone were necessary measurements
when determining the area of the center (location of failure).

Results

MAE 3501 Page 4

 Table 2: Results and Specifications of Specimen under Stress

Volume of Force at Failure Energy absorbed Displacement

Specimen (cm3) (N) (Nmm) mm
16 2108.43 6858.54 2.31

Table 2 above represents the volume, force at failure, and the energy absorbed of the specimen. The ratio was
determined by simply taking the area under the curve for the specimen.

Figure 5: Load vs. Extension Graph of Specimen (Specimen 4)

Fig. [5]

Above is the plot showing the compression vs extension plot or the specimen (specimen 1). The specimen
managed to support a load of 215kgf or 2108 N before failing brittlely. From the graph it can be determined that
there was very little to no plastic deformation before complete failure. In comparison to other specimens, the
hexagonal shape only compressed by about 2.5mm before failure.

Discussion

MAE 3501 Page 5

Design Process
Prediction vs. Reality
Further Investigation

References and Appendices

Bibliography

MAE 3501 Page 6