The analysis results indicate that the stress caused by the load applied is way beyond the material

yield
strength and even the ultimate tensile strength. The values are 258MPa, 90MPa and 150MPa
respectively. This is shown in the first image attached. Considering this I would assume that not only the
part is subjected to permanent deformation but it may also break. However when I look at the
displacement results I notice that the part only buckles 0.1mm. Second image attached. This deformation
represents only 0.5% of material elongation. Knowing that the aluminium alloy we are planning to use
breaks @2% elongation, does the analysis really show that the component will fail or are we just looking
at a hot spot that will not cause any problems? The part will not be subjected to any cyclic loading.
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/finite-element-analysis-results-interpretation.583204/

The strain corresponding to the yield stress is approximately 0.13 %. The analysis indicates that the
general stress on the part currently exceeds the material yield strength. It does not appear to be just an
insignificant hot spot. It is better for the general stress on the part to not exceed, nor get near, the yield
strength. The analysis is currently telling you that you need to increase the size and/or thickness of some
stiffeners. The analysis is also telling you to increase the fillet radii in a few spots.

If this is a cyclic stress, then you should determine the maximum and minimum and look at fatigue as
well. Typically, cyclic stresses above yield lead to fairly rapid deterioration and failure of the part. That isn't
necessarily true of static stresses though and the part may be ok as is. Just because stresses are above
yield in some localized area as you show, the part isn't necessarily going to fail. What can happen is there
will be some localized yielding which results in increased stresses for material farther away from the peak
stress areas. So when you did your analysis, you assumed the stress/strain relationship was linear and
therfore the resulting output does not predict yielding and doesn't give you a representation of what might
happen farther away from the peak stresses for the actual part. I'm not an expert in FEA but I do work with
our FEA engineers regularly and I know we have a feature which allows you to limit stresses in the
elements to yield, at which point the model basically assumes the modulus goes to zero and the material
just stretches at that given stress level. The model then works out how surrounding elements will react to
this stretching. The stress in those surrounding elements must increase, and if they increase to the yield
point, they continue to stretch. So you could look at it that way and see what the total deformation and
final stress state looks like and see if that's acceptable. Note that yielding in a part like this isn't unusual at
all. Parts that are manufactured by forming undergo this same yielding process locally. Things like
structural beams, sheet metal and piping are commonly shaped by permenantly deforming the part
through localized yielding. The resulting stresses are generally not removed by heat treatment and remain
in the part for life. This same philosohy is accepted by ASME for example, when calculating bending
stresses on piping systems due to thermal contraction or expansion. ASME piping codes allow yielding in

those systems during operation, knowing that the deformation and thus the stresses can be limited to a
single event. That is, the stresses can be made such that they only exceed yield once during operation
and subsequent thermal cycling results only in the part going from one stress level to another without
yielding a second time. So basically, you should look at cyclic stresses if they exist and determine if this is
a fatigue issue, in which case I would suggest changing the design to reduce stress to well below the
yield point. If not, you may consider changing your model to allow for yielding and find out what happens
to the final part, then determine if the resulting deformation is acceptable or not.
Based on your feedback I will add an additional rib just like the two taking the stress right now. Perhaps
the current design is ok and just some yielding would make the excess of stress go away, but since the
component does not exist yet it takes no money or effort to introduce the change at this stage.
Another possible issue is the inefficient shape of the stiffener. The current concave profile of the
overstressed stiffener causes material to be missing, where material is needed. If you instead use a
straight (not concave) stiffener profile, with only a slight (not rapid) depth taper, then the stiffener might be
much more efficient. What aluminum alloy (and temper) is this? Unless I am misinterpreting, a 2 %
rupture strain sounds brittle, in which case stresses greatly exceeding the yield strength might not
redistribute well. You say it would take no money to make a change now, but you said the analysis is very
expensive. Therefore, unless I am misinterpreting, it sounds like your posted stress analysis is not one of
the expensive, outsourced, final analyses, right?
The stiffener was originally much more substantial, but it resulted in a stress concentration right at the
corner. This was shown in the first analysis we did, which I have attached. Peak stress was then even
higher than now. That was when we decided to make the stiffener more progressive to distribute the
stress. The resulting stress certainly dropped. But it is still beyond yield. Part of the problem is that the
axial load applied by a bolt is incredibly high. For example, in this case we are using an M10 x 1 (fine
thread) bolt. A torque of 10Nm, which is not that high, results in 4800N of axial load!!! Initially I did a
calculation using T = 0.2 D F (D being the bolt diameter. Units in inch and feet) and thought that the result
could not be right. Therefore I conducted a test in the lab with a load cell; The theoretical result was only
200N away from the real value. The aluminium alloy we are using is AlSi12Cu, which is quite common for
this kind of application. I also find that a 2% rupture strain is quite low, even more after having tortured a
similar part injected with exactly the same material. I have attached a photo in which you may see how
much the part buckles without failure. After that the part never recovered, but I was not expecting that
much bending without failure. Having said that, I need to stick to the material properties provided by the
manufacturer. The stress analysis I posted in the first message is indeed the second analysis we
outsourced. The first analysis is the one I am attaching now. They are expensive unfortunately, so
optimization through trial and error is not an option. It takes no money to introduce any changes now
because the injection mould has not been released yet, so any changes we do now are simply CAD data
changes, which we do in house and are free. It is running unlimited FEA with the changes that we
cannot afford.
Yes, the part is not very large at all. It is roughly 90mm x70mm. It has all those ribs and holes because it
interfaces with several other components. It is actually the lifter of a window regulator. It basically clamps
the glass and moves it up and down along a guide. I wish I could make it simpler but the interface is
complex.
The original design (from post #6) has a very wide scale, so it's difficult to see how far the peak stress
actually extends from the corner, though it clearly won't extend very far because of the geometry. Also,
that stress is a compressive stress which is a good thing. I'd love to see a printout of the original design

using the same scale as the new design. I suspect the amount of material that is actually above yield
stress is smaller with the old design when compared to the new design. Being as it's in compression and
it's static, and assuming the amount of material above yield in the old design is less than in the new one,
I'd think the old design might be better quite honestly. But without knowing how much material is truly
above yield, I don't think you can properly compare the two designs. To reduce stress, I don't think you'll
be able to simply change the design of the ribs that are exceeding yield without filling in the hollowed out
areas. A higher moment of inertia would help dramatically though, so making the area where the screw
goes through thicker (and the ribs taller) would make a dramatic difference. I suspect if you doubled the
thickness of the material where the screw goes through, your stresses would drop to well below yield at
all locations. The problem may be that the head of the screw then sticks up too far. The solution to that is
to get a low head, flat head or button head socket cap screw or similar low profile head screw. The more
material you can add under the head to make your part thicker, the lower the stress will be. And the
relationship between thickness at that location and stress won't be linear - doubling the height should
reduce the stress by approximately 75%.
I, too, currently think I might prefer the initial design, rather than the second design. In addition to the
suggestions by Q_Goest, in the original design, you might want to make the following changes. (1) Make
the fillet radius larger at the stress concentration (where the red hot spot is currently shown in post 6). (2)
Add one stiffener, like the two existing stiffeners, which will give you three stiffeners, instead of two. (3)
Make all three stiffeners substantially thicker than the current stiffener thickness. There is virtually no
constraint on stiffener thickness; therefore, you should make all three stiffeners much thicker. It would be
interesting if you show us your next iteration of stress results.
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/finite-element-analysis-results-interpretation.583204/