XANSYS Message: 93187 [Go back to message list]
[bookmark on del.icio.us]
No rating yet
Rate item:

Subject: Re: [Other] GKH modulus
Author: Chris Masterson
Date: 2008-05-06 19:10:52

Certainly I'm always going to leave a bit of margin in the part to account
for uncontrollable errors....actually my biggest concern has less to do
with the part itself and more to do with the accuracy of the tools and
methods used to confirm that we aren't cheating by being underweight.

On this specific part though I was performing a rework of existing parts
to get some quick test pieces at the minimum weight. I incorrectly
trusted that the density in the model was valid and ended up with the
first couple test pieces being underweight due to the density being set 2%
too high at 7.9g/cc. My rework was designed closer to the minimum weight
than normal to accomodate tools that were available in house. Obviously,
at that point I learned my lesson that I should have been checking the
actual pieces before the rework to make sure my assumptions were correct
if it was that critical. In the process of checking many pieces it became
pretty clear that the value of 7.7g/cc that I finally got off the
datasheet was the correct nominal value and fairly consistent to the parts
as received. The value on matweb is 7.8g/cc. Not a big difference, but
in this one specific case it would have been at least inconvenient. In
general, machining tolerances are certainly a far larger consideration in
final mass...this part just happens to be so simple and tightly controlled
for other reasons that density became a factor.

In the past I have pressed a metallurgist for a steel manufacturer to
confirm a steel density and he was willing to go to 3 significant figures
suggesting that their variation was less than 1%...however, at that time
density turned out to be inconsequential to the issues I was chasing so I
never did get confirmation of their internal specification for density
variation.

Chris Masterson
Toyota Racing Development



Christopher Wright
Sent by: xansys-bounces_at_xansys.org
05/06/2008 10:56 AM
Please respond to
ANSYS User Discussion List


To
ANSYS User Discussion List
cc

Subject
Re: [Xansys] [XANSYS][Other] GKH modulus







On May 6, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Chris_Masterson_at_Toyota.com wrote:

> The difference is only about 1% but that is sufficient to cause
> problems when trying to design as close as possible to minimum weight
> rules.
I think I can pretty much guarantee that the density and pretty much
everything else varies more than 1% over a chunk of material that
hasn't been very specially made and shaped. Your best bet is to make
it a tad heavy and remove material after the part is built by cutting
lightening holes or removing ballast.

Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
chrisw_at_skypoint.com | this distance" (last words of Gen.
.......................................| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania
1864)
http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw/


^--------------------------------------------------------
| XANSYS - www.xansys.org |
| The Discussion List for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
^--------------------------------------------------------

^--------------------------------------------------------
| XANSYS - www.xansys.org |
| The Discussion List for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
^--------------------------------------------------------


Posts possibly associated with message #93187AuthorDateScore
93157[Other] GKH modulusChris Masterson2008/05/05 
93168Re: [Other] GKH modulusJan Christian Anker2008/05/06 
93169Re: [Other] GKH modulusJan Christian Anker2008/05/06 
93170Re: [Other] GKH modulusRick Fischer2008/05/06 
93171Re: [Other] GKH modulusRick Fischer2008/05/06 
93172Re: [Other] GKH modulusJan Christian Anker2008/05/06 
93173Re: [Other] GKH modulusJan Christian Anker2008/05/06 
93174Re: [Other] GKH modulusRick Fischer2008/05/06 
93175Re: [Other] GKH modulusRick Fischer2008/05/06 
93176Re: [Other] GKH modulusJan Christian Anker2008/05/06 
93177Re: [Other] GKH modulusJan Christian Anker2008/05/06 
93181Re: [Other] GKH modulusChris Masterson2008/05/06 
93182Re: [Other] GKH modulusChris Masterson2008/05/06 
93183Re: [Other] GKH modulusParis Altidis2008/05/06 
93184Re: [Other] GKH modulusCarlos Shultz2008/05/06 
93185Re: [Other] GKH modulusChristopher Wright2008/05/06 
93186Re: [Other] GKH modulusCarl Mally2008/05/06 
93187Re: [Other] GKH modulusChris Masterson2008/05/06 
93188Re: [Other] GKH modulusChris Masterson2008/05/06 
93189Re: [Other] GKH modulusChris Masterson2008/05/06 
93191Re: [Other] GKH modulusRick Fischer2008/05/06 
93192Re: [Other] GKH modulusRick Fischer2008/05/06 
93194Re: [Other] GKH modulusMonte McGlaun2008/05/06 
93195Re: [Other] GKH modulusChris Masterson2008/05/06 
93196Re: [Other] GKH modulusChris Masterson2008/05/06 
93197Re: [Other] GKH modulusChristopher Wright2008/05/06 
93210Re: [Other] GKH modulusDavid Stapp2008/05/07 
93219Re: [Other] GKH modulusChristopher Wright2008/05/07 
93224Re: [Other] GKH modulusMonte McGlaun2008/05/07 
93225Re: ***SPAM*** Re: [Other] GKH modulusFernand Thomassy2008/05/07 
93226Re: ***SPAM*** Re: [Other] GKH modulusYoshio Muki2008/05/07