PSI - Issue 27

Bernardus Plasenta Previo Caesar et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 27 (2020) 117–124 Caesar et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

122

6

c

b

d

a

1.745.598 nodes 875.321 elements

1.745.598 nodes

1.745.598 nodes 875.321 elements

1.745.598 nodes 875.321 elements

875.321

elements

Fig. 6. Assembly of the hardness tester: (a) Part A, (b) Part B, (c) Part C, and (d) Part D.

3.3. Boundary conditions The auto-checking hardness machine is supported in 6 points constraint, 4 points are supporting by the Misumi level adjuster applied on the ground base, and 2 points constraint supporting on the arms connected to the Mitutoyo tester. The frame assembly consists of 2 prime frames covering the machine, topside frame, and downside frame. The constraint is shown in Fig. 6. The load's system applies two types of loads, distributed load, and centered load combined in 2 scenario simulation based on dynamic loads of indenter. The topside frame is always on a 190.445 N distributed load from the mass of topside parts. The downside frame is set in 2 conditions, 129.85 N distributed loads in 2 downside arms, and 64.925 N centered loads in 4 mounts. The number of downside loads is calculated from the mass of downside parts divided by 2 and 4 depending on the load's type. The applied load on the structure is shown in Fig. 7.

b

a

Distributed Loads

Centred Loads

Distributed Loads

190.445 N

64.925 N

129.85

Fig. 7. Applied load modes: (a) Loads in Scenario 1 and (b) Loads in Scenario 2.

4. Results and discussion The results of previous work using Al 6061 or high-rigidity aluminum material are shown in Table 3 and Fig. 8 and 9. The results show the displacement contour and stress contour of Scenario 1 that has the higher than Scenario 2 of loading explained in Fig. 7.

A

B

A

B C

C

Fig. 8. Displacement contour of scenario 1.