Did your engineer use a 3D model of the maker slide or 2 beams 20X40X1000mm. If we look an end view of maker slide it is mostly air. There is not a solid web on either side of the material so it is going to behave a lot different than a solid beam will.
Rusty, Is that Algor? If not it sure looks like Algor looked 7 years ago.
This issue looks like it will be resolved, but I like the exercise of looking at this from an FEA standpoint, but I do have a few questions.
That actually seems a bit low to me, Rusty, do you mind me asking what you used as an " I " value? And when you say that you placed the maker slide extrusions back to back, did you treat them as one solid, or as two seperate pieces? I’m not sure they are attachd enough to treat them as 1 unit. But with that being said, it’s not going to change the calc a whole lot in that direction, it would have a greater effect in there 20mm direction.
To be honest this is actually a fairly easy beam problem if we know the I value. Also I may have put a bit more weight on, since you have the X and Z stepper motors and all there hardware, maybe go up to 25 lbs of load.
I treated them like one piece, but got the section properties of the actual profile. That being said, it may skew the results of the deflection in the X direction, since the load case didn’t take in account any side loading I don’t think it would have mattered much.
I can’t remember the Iy value off the top of my head and I left all my print outs at work, I can check on it once I get back in next week.
Even if you double the load (30lbs) since we are no where near yield and assume the deflection will occur in a linear fashion (up until yield) even 0.14 mm is quite small.
And yes this was done in “Algor” which is actually AutoDesk Simulation as of 2014 I think (this is Simulation 2015, nothing but the best!).
Cool, thanks for the extra insight. I haven’t been paying much atention to the industry the last several years and hadn’t realized Autodesk had gobbled up Algor. The funny thing is it doesn’t look that differant from when I first used it 16 years ago. I guess they felt it wasn’t broke, so it didn’t need fixin.
If I got real board I’m guessing I could find those I values online somewhere, but I’m not that board right now. How did you constrain the ends?
Enjoy the weekend,
Ya good ol’ AutoDesk just buying up software companies and crudely stitching them together (how can you tell I use AutoDesk products everyday!).
The ends were just pin constraints as I thought that was the best representation of reality. The model looks pretty simple because its just a line with the section properties applied to it, helps with processing time and gives you the same results as a big bulky 3D model.
I can only imagine. It was bad enough when I used to use the more or less standalone version of things. I’m going to be giving fusion 360 a try along with the new router. It feels a bit like Inventor when I first used that a long time ago. I was always more comfortable working with wire frames in Autocad then true solids in Inventor.
I agree simple is best for the model, heck I probably would have just done a “PL^3/48EI” beam calc and called it good, just incase the y plates allowed for some inward movement. But even in that case it should only produce maybe 4 times the deflection you molded, and that is only a little over a 1/2 mm. That sounds like about the number I had in my head.
So what was the final outcome on the 1.5kW working with the X-Carve? I placed an order for one (The Amazon linked one was out of stock when I finally got around to order so I found an equivalent on eBay) but stumbled on to this post and it seems like it may not work. Emailed the seller trying to cancel or at least switch to the 0.8kW version as they have yet to send me a tracking number that it shipped so I hope its still possible. Is the 0.8kW 65*160mm confirmed to work still or has that since changed?