Studies Of Plastic Boss Design And Methodology
Sally Carter, University of Massachusetts Amherst1
David Kazmer, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Abstract
Plastic bosses are fundamental components of
many parts and assemblies. Due to the multiple functions
and configurations, they can be difficult and time-consuming
to properly design. Plastic type, size, and structural
reinforcements are some of the design parameters that need
to be determined. Current design methods follow set
standards and produce inefficient designs for many
applications. This paper explores the possibility of
automating the boss design process given the needed
clamping force, orientation, pullout force, torsion, and
pressure configurations between the parts to be fastened.
Introduction
Bosses are protuberances on a plastic part designed
to add strength, to facilitate alignment during assembly, to
provide for fastening, etc.[1] Currently, many boss design
practices are standardized and follow set guidelines. These
guidelines are tailored for manufacturing; therefore, the
optimal design for the application may not be used. The
purpose of this research is to develop a design synthesis
methodology for plastic boss design. This methodology and
the use of parametric design software will help optimize the
design for the application.
Methodology
The standard design of bosses generally follow
guidelines with set dimensions proportioned to the nominal
thickness of the main parts. These dimensions are tailored
for manufacturing to prevent sinks and aid in proper cooling.
These are important issues to consider in boss design, but
some flexibility is possible and is in fact necessary for
optimal performance. Illustrated below is a standard guide
for boss design from the GE Plastics Design Guide.[2] Many
other sources list a comparable diagram with similar
relations.
OD=2 x ID
ID
2.5t Max.
0.03 R
t
0.6t 0.6t Max.
Figure 1: Standard Boss Design
The material chosen for this study was an
amorphous polymer, polycarbonate. Specifically, GE Lexan
141 was chosen because it is a medium viscosity material
1
Currently a Gann Fellowship Graduate student at Worcester Polytechnic Institute
most commonly used for injection molding.[3] For finite
element analysis the values of Young’s Modulus and
Poisson’s Ratio were needed. These values were supplied by
GE Technical Support as 2,295 MPa for Young’s Modulus
(E) and Poisson’s Ratio (ρ) of 0.38.
Five different boss shapes were chosen based on
observed boss types on plastic parts and in design books.
They were coded with a letter and cut from the original part
illustrated in Figure 2. Each boss type was saved and
analyzed separately, but the reference to the original part was
preserved.
E
C D
A B
y
x
z
Figure 2: Part with multiple bosses and coordinate system
Descriptions of the bosses are as follows:
• Boss A: corner boss with orthogonal flanges
• Boss B: corner boss integral to side walls
• Boss C: remote boss with four orthogonal tapered
gussets
• Boss D: remote boss with tapered outer diameter
• Boss E: Corner boss with one flange
Each boss was constrained along the bottom
surface to be fixed in the Y direction in relation to the
coordinate system in Figure 2. The boss types were created
by cutting the overall part in Figure 2 into sections, which
included one boss and the surrounding area. The edges of
the cuts were fixed from moving in the X, Y, and Z
directions to simulate the continuation of the part. The
bosses that were attached to walls had constraints on the
walls that were fixed perpendicular to the wall. For example,
for a wall with a surface in the Y-X plane, a constraint was
placed fixing in from moving in the Z direction.
The following parameters, see Table 1, were
altered over a range of values, with the first trial set at the
standard dimensions outlined in Figure 1. Each parameter
was altered separately, then returned to the standard
dimension for the next trial. After each value is the distance from the center the force is applied, y, and the
corresponding trial number for that parameter change. These moment of inertia, I.
values were chosen to demonstrate any trends in stress
M⋅y
increase and to prevent excessively thin walls. All Bending Stress: Sb =
dimensions are given in terms of centimeters. I
O.D. = 1.016cm I .D.
Table 1: List of Parameter Changes Where: y=
I .D. = 0.508cm 2
Parameter Min.
(cm)
Nominal
(cm)
Max.
(cm) I=
π
64
(
⋅ O.D.4 − I .D.4 ) M = Be ⋅
H
2
Outer Diameter 0.787 (3) 1.016 (1) 1.270 (2) Therefore: Sb = 2.2 MPa
Inner Diameter 0.254 (4) 0.508 (1) 0.737 (5)
Boss Height 1.651 (6) 1.905 (1) 2.159 (7) Tension
Base Radius 0.051 (8) 0.076 (1) 2.159 (9) Tension and compression were applied along the
inner surface of the boss as a true force. This distributed
Boss Size 0.254 (10) 0.508 (1) 0.762 (11) force roughly simulates the effect on the boss of the pull-out
The load characteristics were broken down into force from a screw, or the compressive force due to
four basic situations. First, bending (in four directions) was supporting components on the boss. Stress due to tension is
investigated to simulate part alignment during assembly. calculated from the applied force, F, and the cross-sectional
Tension and Compression load were applied, which area, A.
For Standard Boss
simplified the effects of screw pull-out force and clamping
h=H-t H=1.905 cm
force. The torsion showed the effects of applying and
H T=0.381 cm
releasing a screw. Finally, the pressure, which would result
from press-fit pins or self-tapping screws, was set along the t h I.D. = 0.508 cm
inner surface. The loading was assumed to be at the initial Te = equivalent
load to T
loading and stress characteristics, before fatigue, stress-
relaxation, or creep occurred. The applied loads were kept = 44 N
low to insure that the material reacted well below the yield
point of Lexan, which is 62 MPa. As a result, all of the loads T = Tension load
= 44 N True Force
remained under the proportional limit of 28 MPa for Lexan, (Distributed load) O.D. = 1.016 cm
which is the limit in which the Young’s Modulus is valid.
For all tests the bending, tension and compression forces
were set to 44.5 Newton, the applied torsion was 1.1 N-m, Figure 4: Applied and equivalent Tension load
and the pressure was 69 kPa. Rough calculations of the F
stress applied on a simple boss can be determined by using Tension Stress: St =
strength of material theories. These calculations are A
illustrated below for bending, tensile, torsional, and internal
pressure loadings.
Where: F = Te A=
π
4
(
⋅ O.D.2 − I .D.2 )
Therefore: St = 0.73 MPa
Bending
For Standard Boss Compression is determined in the same manner, but with the
h=H-t H=1.905 cm force operating in the opposite direction.
T=0.381 cm
H Torsion
For Standard Boss
t h h=H-t H=1.905 cm
H T=0.381 cm
H/2
t h I.D. = 0.508 cm

B = Bending Load
= 44 N True force
(Distributed load) Te = equivalent
load to T
= 1.1 N-m
Be = equivalent load to B
= 44 N O.D. = 1.016 cm

T = Torsion load
Figure 3: Applied and equivalent Bending Load = 1.1 N-m True Force
applied Tangentially
The bending force was applied over the entire (Distributed Load around inner
length of the boss as a Pro/MECHANICA true force. The diameter and along length of boss)
bending equations are based on simple bending theory, with
Be, the equivalent bending load used to determine the
bending stress at the base of the boss. Bending stress is Figure 5: Applied and equivalent Torsion load
determined from the moment about the end point, M, the
 The torsion was applied as a set of four tangential using a linear solver. In this respect, it operates purely
forces acting on the inner diameter and along the entire elastically in regards to the reaction to loading. Some
length of the boss. This produced an equivalent torque on analyses did not completely converge on the maximum Von
the boss that simulated the application or release of a screw Misses stress value, but did satisfy the requirement of 10%
into the boss. The stress due to the torsion is based on the convergence. [4]
equivalent torque, T, the radius at which the stress is
determined, r, and the polar moment of inertia, J. Results and Discussion
T ⋅r Stress Results
Torsion Stress: St = Results were compiled from the completed
j
analyses and organized on an Excel spreadsheet, available
Where: T = Te = 1.1N ⋅ m r = 0.508cm(max) from the author. Only the Maximum Von Misses Stress was
π O.D   I .D.  4 
4 examined for the purpose of this analysis. Each boss type
J= ⋅   −   was first analyzed using the standard dimensions, and then
2 2   2   each type was modified to the minimum and maximum range
Therefore: St = 5.85 MPa of the parameters listed above. The analysis was then
renamed and run again with the altered parameters, as
Pressure Load discussed in Table 2. An analysis summary was created of
Pressure was applied radially along the length of each load, with the changes that occur from each boss type
the boss as a true force. Pressure vessel theory was used to and parameter change.
approximate the stress due to the pressure load. This theory Figures 7, 8, and 9 illustrate the changes in stress
is not very accurate for this application because it is based on for standard boss types under various load sets. Figure 7
the assumption of thin walls, which the bosses do not have. shows the compiled results of the bending loads on the
The stress was calculated based on the pressure, p, the inner standard boss types. The stress varies according to the
radius, ri, and the wall thickness, t. orientation and reinforcement of the bosses relative to the
For Standard Boss coordinate system. Please refer to Figure 2 for the
h=H-t H=1.905 cm orientation of the bosses relative to the coordinate system.
T=0.381 cm
H Figure 7 illustrates the differences in bending stress per boss
topology. It can be observed that the stress value for a given
t h I.D. =0.508 cm
boss varies under different bending load directions. This
variance is due to the presence of support on one or more
sides of the boss. Small differences can also be observed
between forces that geometrically should result in equal
stress values. This difference is due to the fact that
O.D. = 1.016 cm Pro/MECHANICA analyses linearly and that the elements
composing the boss are not geometrically equal.
P = Pressure load
= 69 kPa True Force Max Von Misses Stress per Load set and Boss
applied Radially Type
(Distributed Load around inner
diameter and along length of boss) 450.00

400.00
Boss
350.00 Type
Figure 6: Applied Pressure load
300.00 a
p ⋅ ri
Sp =
b
Pressure Stress: 250.00
c
t 200.00 d
I .D.
p = 69 kPa ri = 150.00 e
Where:
2 100.00
t = 0.508cm 50.00

0.00
Bend_X Bend_nX Bend_Z Bend_nZ
Therefore: Sb = 0.03 MPa Load Set

Many bosses have ribs, or are integrated into a
wall. With this additional geometry, the stress analysis
becomes more complicated. The basic stress analyses above
are based on a simple, straight boss. For geometries close to
this type of boss, these analyses may result in a good
approximation. For more complicated geometries, the use of
a finite element analysis tool is recommended. For this study
Pro/Mechanica was used to analyze the stress occurring in
the bosses. Pro/MECHANICA analyses the solid elements
Figure 7: Stress per boss and bending load
Examining Figure 2 shows that Boss A is
supported by two ribs. These ribs provide support for
bending forces in the negative X and positive Z directions.
In this direction a portion of the stress is carried by the ribs
and wall as the boss is pushed toward the wall. In the
opposite directions the boss is being pulled from the wall and
the ribs are placed in tension. Boss B shows similar
characteristics but at a much lower stress due to the added Max Von Misses Stress per Boss Type under
Pressure Load
support from the wall.
Bosses C and D both have similar load 25.20

characteristics. These bosses are freestanding bosses and as 25.10 Boss

Type
such do not contain extra reinforcement from a wall. The 25.00
tapered Boss C shows significantly less stress in the bending 24.90
directions than Boss D, which is supported by ribs. This 24.80
a
b
characteristic is reversed in the next set of loading, which 24.70 c
will be discussed. The final boss, Boss E, has the highest 24.60
d

stress under bending load. This is due to the sole support of e

24.50
one rib and no boss taper. The single rib offers little support
24.40
and only slightly changes the values of stress between load
24.30
sets.
24.20
Max Von Misses Stress Per Load Set and Boss Pressure
Type
Figure 9: Stress per boss and under pressure
180.00
Variance between boss types is a very important
160.00 Boss part of this study. From the charts illustrated in Figure 7, 8,
Type
140.00 and 9, decisions about what boss to use per load can be
120.00 a determined. For bending the bosses in order of least stress to
100.00
b maximum stress are, B, C, A, D, E. Therefore if a boss were
c
80.00 d
to be loaded with predominately bending forces, then Boss B
60.00 e would be the best choice for the application. For
40.00
compression and/or tension the order is D, B, C, A, E,
therefore Boss D would be the optimum boss for this type of
20.00
application. Under torsional load the boss stresses vary from
0.00
Compression Tension Torsion B, to D, C, A, and E. Boss B again results in the least stress.
Load Set Pressure loads show a different distribution with C the
lowest, then E, A, D, and B the highest. With press-fit
Figure 8: Stress per boss and loads: functions Boss C would be the best choice. Under combined
Compression, tension, and torsion load the bosses must be cross-referenced and finite element
Figure 8 charts the stress values for compression, analysis is highly recommended. Use of FEA will produce
tension, and torsional loads. Compression and Tension stress maps, which will help the designer determine any
values were found to equal due to Pro/MECHANICA’s finite problem areas or areas that could be reinforced. Changes can
element method of solving. For compression and tension it easily be made and the analysis rerun to check the results.
can be observed that Boss D reacts with the least stress, Figure 10 shows a contour stress plot of Boss D under
followed closely by Boss B and Boss C. Bosses D and C bending load in the positive Z direction. The illustration of
have good overall support, and Boss B is heavily supported the high stress areas clearly highlights the area of possible
on two sides. In comparison, Bosses A and E are supported problems. One possible solution would be the addition of a
solely by ribs, which are placed unevenly on one side of few flanges to help distribute the stress, without diminishing
these bosses, and are therefore less effective at carrying the by much the characteristics of Boss C under other loads.
load. Under torsional load, Boss B, with its added
reinforcement has the smallest stress. Boss A reacts with the
most stress and therefore the greatest possibility of failing
under torsional loading. Boss D is the next highest stress
value with applied torque. Boss D, with a taper, reacts better
than Boss C with four ribs.

The final load, pressure, is graphed in Figure 9. In

a reversal of low stress trends for the other loads, Boss B
produces the highest stress. This could be due to the rigidity
of the wall that prevents outward expansion. With the other
bosses, some deflection can occur through the ribs or boss
sides. With Boss B, tow sides are constrained immobile by
the outer face of the part wall. Boss C, with the tapered
sides, has the least restraint from deflection, and the boss is
allowed to deflect slightly instead of being prevented from
expansion.
Figure 10: Boss D under applied Bending load
 Parameterization Results Pro/Mechanica upon the completion of the analysis. The
Stress trends were observed for each loading set minimum stress values are not the minimum stress for the
based on the changes in the parameters. For bending the part, but rather the lowest stress of the values evaluated. The
trends show a decrease in stress as the outer diameter grows overall minimum stress for each part was close to zero at a
larger (and the wall thickness increases). A stress increase distance away from the boss. The stress values analyzed
occurs as the inner diameter increases (and the wall thickness were all located on or very near the boss and show which
decreases). For boss height, the stresses differ only slightly, bosses are more or less likely to fail under the loading
indicating that more test point would be needed to establish a conditions.
clearer trend. The base radius (at the bottom of the boss to
Table 3: Minimum and Maximum Stress per Load
the part) shows significant stress differences for all bosses.
This illustrates this parameter to be a critical one because of Load Set Minimum Stress Maximum Stress
the significant stress changes. Boss size also plays a critical Achieved MPa Achieved MPa
role in stress trends, as the size increases the stress decreases. (Boss Type, Trial
For tension and compression, the critical stress trends (Boss Type, Trial
number) number)
occurred with increasing the outer diameter and the boss size,
which both decreased the stress. These same parameters are Bending X 0.24 (B, 11) 5.94 (E, 3)
also important for pressure loads, but with the increase in Bending Z 0.23 (B, 11) 5.57 (E, 3)
boss size the stress also increases. An increase in outer Bending –X 0.77 (B, 11) 5.39 (E, 3)
diameter still decreases the stress. For torsion, increasing the
Bending –Z 0.74 (B, 11) 5.85 (E, 3)
outer diameter and boss size also decreases the stress.
Tension/ 0.35 (E, 11) 2.03 (E, 3)
It is expected for all trends and loads that, at some Compression 1.39 (D, 10)
point, the value will reach a critical maximum or minimum,
such properties are typically either not manufacturable or Pressure 0.13 (E, 4) 0.32 (B, 5)
uneconomical. Also, more points should be examined to 0.13 (C, 5) 0.30 (C, 4)
clarify the stress trends. Torsion 0.29 (B, 9) 2.14 (E,3)

Characterization of Boss Types

Characterization of the bosses results in the Conclusions
following two tables, which list the minimum and maximum It is likely no surprise that structurally, the best
stresses, and which bosses were associated with each. The bosses are short, wide, thick and have a large base radius.
first table, Table 2, outlines the maximum and minimum Manufacturing design limitations exist on these types of
stress per each parameter change. The comparison of bosses because of plastic injection molding. If the boss is too
stresses per parameter was limited to Bending and wide and thick, problems with sinks and the structural
Compression/Tension forces only. This was due to the integrity begin to occur.
manner in which the bosses were loaded. These forces can
be compared because the relative forces are similar. The This paper has investigated and quantified the
forces used for pressure and torsion would have to be effects of various topological and parametric designs on
nondimensionalized in comparison to the bending, structural performance. The best location for bosses is in a
compression and tension forces in order to be able to relate corner as part of a wall. The worst type of boss is a stand-
the relative stresses. The second table, Table 3, compares the alone boss with one or no ribs. Designers should consider
stresses per Load. the stresses that occur at the bottom of the boss, as this region
is most prone to stress concentrations. Automation of this
Table 2: Minimum and Maximum Stress per Design Change process is possible, but significantly more research is needed
to validate the results and provide a larger database structure.
Parameter Change Minimum Stress Maximum Stress Further examinations should include more parameter points
and Trial Number Achieved MPa Achieved MPa (Boss around different boss sizes, with various topologies,
(Boss, Load type) type, Load set) operating conditions, and materials.
1, standard 0.59 (B, Bending X) 2.71 (E, Bending X)
2, large outer diameter 0.52 (B, Bending Z) 1.66 (E, Bending X) References
3, small outer diameter 0.63 (B, Bending X) 5.94 (E, Bending X) [1] Design Reasoning Using Plastic Injection Molding
4, small inner diameter 0.73 (D, Tension) 3.20 (D, Bending X) Primary Feature by Stephen L. Wood, Ph.D.,
5, large outer diameter 0.45 (B, Bending X) 4.66 (E, Bending X) Computers in Engineering Conference 1996, 96-
6, short boss height 0.72 (D, Tension) 2.68 (D, Bending X) DETC/DFM-1281.
7, tall boss height 0.56 (B, Bending Z) 2.98 (E, Bending –Z)
[2] GE Plastic Design Guide, GE Plastics, Pittsfield, MA,
8, small base radius 0.58 (B, Bending Z) 3.25 (E, Bending –Z) 1997.
9, large base radius 0.58 (B, Bending Z) 2.19 (E, Bending –X)
10, small boss size 1.03 (C, Tension) 3.62 (E, Bending Z)
[3] http://www.ge.com/plastics/lexan/prop/lpgbase.htm,
May 1998.
11, large boss size 0.23 (B, Bending Z) 2.16 (E, Bending –Z)
[4] Pro/Mechanica User Manual, Parametric Technology
The minimum and maximum stresses are taken Corporation, Waltham, MA.
from the Maximum Von Misses Stress values returned by