Specifications

CT Corsair Final Report May 2, 2014
41
One thing to note about this FEA is that the simulator weight may not always exclusively act in
the downward direction, as the motors move and cause the force to be applied in slightly
different ways. Therefore, eight different simulations were performed. In these simulations, the
direction of the weight acted in the north, northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west, and
northwest directions. From these simulations an accurate reading of how much stress the motor
mounts should handle.
9.3.2 Analysis Criteria
The material chosen for the motor mounts was either Aluminum 6061-T6 or Steel 8620. The
steel material was chosen as it was much stronger in case the Aluminum was not strong enough
to support the forces applied to the motor mounts. For the analysis, only one of the directional
cases for the steel was performed as it was significantly stronger. The purpose of this analysis
was to ascertain approximately how much more stress steel can handle.
9.3.3 Analysis Results
After performing the FEA, results for the eight different loading scenarios using Aluminum
6061-T6, as well as one loading scenario (the direction of the simulator weight was chosen based
on the most-likely-to-fail case found from the aluminum trials) for steel 8620 were aquired.
These analyses were performed assuming our maximum weight from the simulator imposed on
the motor mounts would be about 1200lbs, and the torque force would be about 6261.95N at
each hole (this was taken from the max torque that the motors output).
The results obtained from each scenario showed that if aluminum were used, the motor mounts
would be able to withstand the stress, but with a factor of safety range of 2.365 to 2.905. The
steel, on the other hand, withstood these stresses with a factor of safety of 5.334, which was
significantly higher. You can as well see in Figure 55 the stress concentrations being mainly on
the bearing holes, with little to none elsewhere.
Figure 55: ANSYS Results for Motor Mount