Torque Arm Shape Optimization

Jay Malaney
Graduate Student
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida, USA

ABSTRACT which can lead to pronounced wheel hop in hard

stops. [2]
Since the quality of design for automotive
With the automotive industry striving towards
components is measured by its ability to perform the
weight reduction of vehicular components to
given function with the least weight, reducing
improve fuel efficiency, weight optimization must be
machining and material costs. [1] Therefore, we
carried out for these components. In order to reduce
analyze a Torque Arm model which is a suspension
weight without sacrificing its integrity, FEM
link used to control wheel motion in the longitudinal
Analysis must be carried out. [1]
direction. [2] The objective is to optimize the shape of
The initial design of torque arm is shown in Fig. 1.
the Torque Arm to reduce the weight but on the other
The forces acting on the circular cross section on the
hand also ensure that the induced maximum stress in
right-hand side due to the rotation of the shaft are
the component is below the yield stress of 340 MPa
converted to an approximate upward force
for the material used. The model is optimized for 3
FY=8000N and the horizontal force FX=-4000N
variable length constraints between their upper and
acting at the center of the circle.
lower bound values. Maximum values of stress are
studied for the upper, center and lower bound values APPROACH
which provides us with 3x3x3=27 data points or I. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
constraints which are then used to find the optimal
design using regression and fmincon function on
MATLAB. The optimum weight reduction solution
was found which reduced the weight from 2.31 kg in
the initial design to 2.08 kg inducing a stress of 334
MPa.
INTRODUCTION
Fig. 1: Torque Arm Model
A torque arm is typically mounted ahead of the
wheel. In that position they resist dive Before designing the FEM Model, a preliminary
under braking forces and wheel hop analysis is carried out to calculate the approximate
under acceleration. On a vehicle with leaf springs, maximum stress in the component and its location
such as trucks, the springs themselves provide some using the initial design values of x1=12 cm, x2=1cm
longitudinal wheel control. On some leaf spring- and x3=27cm.
equipped vehicles, the springs are mounted so that a Assumptions:
lesser portion of the spring's length is forward of the 1. The Torque Arm is assumed to be a beam that
wheels, improving wheel control on acceleration. A is clamped at the left end with a length of 42cm.
side effect of such positioning is that the longer, aft 2. A horizontal force FX = -4000N = -4x105 kg-
portion of the springs may not be stiff enough to cm/s2 and a vertical force of FY=8000N = 8x105
control wheel movement under braking forces, kg-cm/s2 is applied at the right end.
 3. The cross section of the beam is modelled as
shown below with a thickness of 1.0 cm.
4. The 3-cm fillet is neglected in the preliminary
analysis.
5. The circles are modelled to be as triangles as
shown in the figure below.

Fig. 3: Fully Constrained Geometry using Initial Values

To ensure the geometry is fully constrained the
tangent, symmetry, fixed, horizontal and vertical
constrains were used. The fully constrained
Fig. 2: Model for Preliminary Analysis geometry allows you to update the sketch without
The Bending Stress is given by the following distorting the geometry and the shape of the model.
equation, The figure below shows the fully constrained
geometry for the test values of x1=8cm, x2=3cm and
𝐹(𝐿 − 𝑥)𝑦 x3=30cm. The figure highlights the simplicity of
𝜎𝑥𝑥 = − (1)
𝐼 updating the model once the geometry has been fully
Also, a compressive force of -4000N is applied due constrained. Section VI explains further reasonings
to which the stress induced is given by, to opt for a fully constrained geometry.
𝐹 (2)
𝜎𝑥𝑥 = −
𝐴
The bending stress would be maximum at either the
top or bottom surface. However, since a compressive
force is applied the stress at the top surface would be
more negative and the stress and the bottom surface
would be less positive since it would be under
tension.
Hence, the stresses are calculated on the top surface
Fig. 4: Fully Constrained Geometry using Test Values
which would have the most stress using the above
equations. Moment of Inertia, I at any point is given III. MATERIAL PROPERTIES, BOUNDARY
by the formula below, CONDITIONS & LOADING CONDITIONS
𝑏ℎ3 𝑏ℎ3 Once the geometry is created, the material properties
𝐼=( )@X − ( ) Hole (3)
12 12 are added to Abaqus. The table below shows the
where, b is the thickness of the torque arm. loads applied as well as the material properties.
II. GEOMETRY Quantity Given Units Desired
Units
Using Abaqus a fully constrained geometry is Young’s 206.8 GPa = 206.8x109 206.8x107
modelled such that when the values of x1, x2 and x3 Modulus, E kgm/s2.m2 kg.cm/s2.cm2
can be changed for different mesh trials keeping the Poison’s 0.29 0.29
Ratio,v
model symmetric over the horizontal and also, Plane stress 1.0 cm 1.0 cm
prevent the geometry being distorted after meshing thickness, t
using CST, LST, Q4 or Q8 elements. Density 7850 kg/m3 7850x106
kg/cm3
Shown below is a fully constrained geometry for the Allowable 340 MPa = 340x106 340x104
initial design values of x1=12 cm, x2=1cm and Stress kg.m/s2.m2 kg.cm/s2.cm2
x3=27cm.
 FX -4000N = -4000 kg.m/s2 -4x105 partition is done in a manner to create a 4-edge
kg.cm/s2 element so that a refined mesh is obtained.
FY 8000N = 8000 kg.m/s2 8x105
kg.cm/s2
Table 1: Material Properties and Applied Loads (Unit
Conversion to cm)
After inputting the data on Abaqus, Reference points
are created at the center point of the circles on the left
and right side to apply the boundary conditions and
loads. MPC constraint is then used which allows us
to transfer these conditions from the center point of
Fig. 7: Partition
the circle to the entire circle. The reference point is
called the master node and the circle is called the A Q4 structured mesh was used to arrive at the
slave nodes as the mimic the conditions applied at the following result. The figure below shows the mesh
reference point i.e. master node. The figure shows obtained. For quadrilateral elements, the element
below depicts these conditions. performs best when the shape is a rectangle because
the Jacobian matrix is diagonal and constant. When
an element is distorted too much, numerical
integration becomes inaccurate and the Jacobian is
close to zero. Although we cannot make all elements
rectangular, the angle between adjacent edges should
be close to 90 degrees. Also, a transition from small
elements to large elements gives a poor mesh.
Keeping these points in mind, a good quality mesh
Fig. 5: Reference Points along with MPC Constraint can be produced which is always a recipe for success
in finite element analysis. [10] The figure below
Reference Point 1 has all its displacement and
shows that the mesh quality is good based on the
rotations fixed i.e. U1=U2=U3=UR1=UR2=UR3=0.
above discussion, help convergence to the exact
Reference Point 2 has an upward force FY and the
solution. We can see that most of the elements are
horizontal force FX, their magnitudes are taken from
square with an internal angle of 90o. This is due to
Table 1. Figure below shows the loads and boundary
the partition that was used previously.
conditions applied.

Fig 8: Q4 Structured Mesh

Fig. 6: Boundary Conditions and Loads
The figure below shows the S, Mises for the applied
IV. PARTITION, MESH & INITIAL
loading for the initial values. The figure also shows
DESIGN SIMULATION
the location of the maximum stress.
A trial and error method were adopted to then arrive
at the partitioning for the mesh. The partition adopted
is shown in the figure below. Partitioning is essential
for complex geometries. A free mesh over complex
geometries would give us a distorted element shape
which would give us inaccurate results. Since
meshing would be done using a Q4 element type
(Reason for which is mentioned in Section V). The Fig. 9: Initial Design Stress
 V.CONVERGENCE STUDY 𝑓 = 𝑎1 + 𝑎2 𝑥1 + 𝑎3𝑥2 + 𝑎4𝑥3 + 𝑎5𝑥12
For the convergence study the element types + 𝑎6𝑥22 + 𝑎7𝑥32
(4)
considered for selection were CST (Constant Strain + 𝑎8𝑥1𝑥2 + 𝑎9𝑥2𝑥3
Triangular), LST (Linear Strain Triangular), Q4 + 𝑎10𝑥1𝑥3
(Quadrilateral Element with 4 nodes) or Q8 The approximate function above has 10 unknown
(Quadrilateral Element with 8 nodes). As mentioned coefficients which need to be found using regression
in the earlier section the Q4 element type was used (or least squares).
for the convergence study. The following reasoning
In order to do that, we need to have test functions
was adopted for the selection:
which will allow us to approximate the values of the
1. The CST (Constant Strain Triangular) unknown coefficients for mass and stress. For that
element performs well when strain gradient is each design value i.e. x1, x2 and x3 is sampled in 3
small. In a pure bending problem, σxx in the levels (lower bound, center, and upper bound) giving
neutral axis should be zero. Instead, CST a total of 27 combinations for the 3 design variables.
elements show oscillating pattern of stress.
These 27 sample designs are run on Abaqus which
Strain along y-axis is supposed to be linear.
would provide us with ample number of data points
But, CST elements can only have constant
to find a smooth regression curve that would fit these
strain in y-direction. CST elements predict
values. The mass and the stress are noted down for
stress and deflection about ¼ of the exact
each of the sample designs. These results have been
values. [3]
tabulated below. The power of a fully constrained
2. The LST (Linear Strain Triangular) has a
geometry is realized here. An unconstrained
complete polynomial in its deflection
geometry would require the designer to model the
equation which would almost exactly mimic
same part 27 different times, since updating any one
the properties of bending. However, the
of the three design parameters would drastically
model in not only a bending problem. The
modify his initial design.
compression force would induce stress
concentration near the whole which is not Sr. X1 X2 X3 Max. Stress
Mass (kg)
accounted for using the LST element. Also, No. (cm) (cm) (cm) (kg.cm/s2.cm2)
LST elements have some discontinuities at 1 8 0.5 20 2.41E+00 2.41E+06
the edges. [4] 2 8 0.5 28.5 2.31E+00 3.88E+06
3. The Q8 element would be ideal for solving 3 8 0.5 37 2.21E+00 5.38E+06
the model since it mimics the bending 4 8 1.75 20 2.26E+00 2.74E+06
problem better than the Q4 element due to a 5 8 1.75 28.5 2.08E+00 4.22E+06
quadratic variation stress as compared to the 6 8 1.75 37 1.89E+00 6.25E+06
linear variation of stress in the Q4 element. 7 8 3 20 2.07E+00 3.67E+06
However, limited by 1000 nodes we would 8 8 3 28.5 1.80E+00 5.03E+06
need larger element size that would result in 9 8 3 37 1.53E+00 7.70E+06
a course mesh in which case finite element 10 11.5 0.5 20 2.45E+00 2.30E+06
results would contain large errors. [10] Hence,
11 11.5 0.5 28.5 2.35E+00 3.37E+06
we select Q4 which would allow us to smaller
12 11.5 0.5 37 2.25E+00 4.91E+06
element sizes.
13 11.5 1.75 20 2.34E+00 2.58E+06
Section II under Discussions discusses further about 14 11.5 1.75 28.5 2.15E+00 3.60E+06
the Convergence Study. 15 11.5 1.75 37 1.97E+00 5.82E+06
VI. OPTIMIZATION 16 11.5 3 20 2.17E+00 3.65E+06
17 11.5 3 28.5 2.02E+00 5.05E+06
Data from the convergence study points out that the
best approximate solution would be obtained by 18 11.5 3 37 1.64E+00 7.84E+06
using a Q4 element with a global size of 0.6. 19 15 0.5 20 2.50E+00 2.16E+06
The optimization can be done by approximating the 20 15 0.5 28.5 2.40E+00 2.93E+06
mass and stress as a quadratic function of 3 design 21 15 0.5 37 2.30E+00 4.53E+06
variables; that is 22 15 1.75 20 2.41E+00 2.38E+06
 23 15 1.75 28.5 2.23E+00 3.25E+06 a5 5.20E+03
24 15 1.75 37 2.05E+00 5.42E+06 a6 3.46E+05
25 15 3 20 2.28E+00 4.25E+06 a7 7.20E+03
26 15 3 28.5 2.02E+00 5.04E+06 a8 5.85E+04
27 15 3 37 1.75E+00 8.13E+06 a9 3.25E+04
Table 2: Analysis Results of All Sample Points a10 -3.40E+03
Using the above values of mass and stress, a Table 4: Coefficients for Stress Function using Regression
regression model is used to determine the unknown The above values provide a regression curve that is a
coefficient, ‘a’ by using the formula given below. very close approximation to the values obtained by
𝑎 = (𝑋T𝑋)-1 𝑋T𝑦 (5) running the sample designs on Abaqus. The table
below shows the comparison between these results.
Where, y is a 27x1 matrix consisting the values of
Abaqus Regression Abaqus Regression
mass/stress for the 27 sample designs. y is given by Model Model Model Model
the function of the 3 design variables. i.e. Masses Masses Stresses Stresses
(kg) (kg) (kg.cm/s2.cm2) (kg.cm/s2.cm2)
𝑦 = 𝑎1 + 𝑎2 𝑥1 + 𝑎3𝑥2 + 𝑎4𝑥3
2.41 2.39 2.41E+06 2.75E+06
+ 𝑎5𝑥12 + 𝑎6𝑥22
(6) 2.31 2.29 3.88E+06 3.64E+06
+ 𝑎7𝑥32 + 𝑎8𝑥1𝑥2
2.21 2.16 5.38E+06 5.56E+06
+ 𝑎9𝑥2𝑥3 + 𝑎10𝑥1𝑥3
2.26 2.24 2.74E+06 2.64E+06
Where, x is a 27x10 matrix consisting of the 2.08 2.06 4.22E+06 3.87E+06
constants x1, x2 and x3 corresponding to equation y for 1.89 1.85 6.25E+06 6.14E+06
the 27 sample designs. A sample row of is shown
2.07 2.05 3.67E+06 3.60E+06
below.
1.80 1.79 5.03E+06 5.18E+06
(7) 1.53 1.50 7.70E+06 7.79E+06
a is a 10x1 matrix consisting of the 10 unknown 2.45 2.44 2.30E+06 2.36E+06
coefficients of the mass/stress for the 27 sample 2.35 2.34 3.37E+06 3.15E+06
designs. 2.25 2.21 4.91E+06 4.97E+06
Regression is performed twice to obtain the values of 2.34 2.32 2.58E+06 2.50E+06
the unknown coefficient, a for mass as well as stress. 2.15 2.14 3.60E+06 3.63E+06
The unknown coefficients, ‘a’ obtained after running
1.97 1.93 5.82E+06 5.80E+06
the equation shown above in MATLAB gives the
2.17 2.17 3.65E+06 3.72E+06
following results.
2.02 1.91 5.05E+06 5.20E+06
a1 2.3106 1.64 1.62 7.84E+06 7.71E+06
a2 0.0302 2.50 2.47 2.16E+06 2.10E+06
a3 -0.0074 2.40 2.37 2.93E+06 2.78E+06
a4 0.0019 2.30 2.24 4.53E+06 4.50E+06
a5 -0.001 2.41 2.38 2.38E+06 2.49E+06
a6 -0.0098 2.23 2.20 3.25E+06 3.52E+06
a7 -0.0002 2.05 1.99 5.42E+06 5.59E+06
a8 0.0077 2.28 2.27 4.25E+06 3.97E+06
a9 -0.0077 2.02 2.00 5.04E+06 5.34E+06
a10 0 1.75 1.71 8.13E+06 7.76E+06
Table 3: Coefficients for Mass Function using Regression Table 5: Comparison between Abaqus Model and Regression
Model
a1 6.51E+06 Using regression, we have obtained a function of
a2 -1.74E+05 mass and stress by substituting the values in Table 3
a3 -1.99E+06 and Table 4 in equation 6. Using these functions, an
a4 -2.34E+05 optimization toolbox is required to arrive at the best
possible solutions for x1, x2 and x3.
To achieve this, we use the function fmincon in Abaqus is 0.221 cm as shown in Fig 10. The location
MATLAB. fmincon finds a constrained minimum of for both the displacements are identical which can be
a scalar function of several variables starting at an easily proven analytically, since the maximum
initial estimate. This is generally referred to as displacement would be obtained the tip of the Torque
constrained nonlinear optimization or nonlinear Arm. The error is approximately 10% in these 2
programming. [8] Hence, fmincon minimizes the cost values.
function, i.e. mass under the stress constrain of 340
MPa. The optimal values of x1, x2 and x3 obtained
from MATLAB are shown in Section V under
Discussions.
DISCUSSIONS
I. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
The values for the maximum stresses were calculated
on Excel. The maximum stresses were obtained at Fig. 10: Maximum Displacement in Initial Design
x=0cm where Length = 42cm. The calculations are
shown below, II. CONVERGENCE STUDY
𝐹(𝐿 − 𝑥)𝑦 Fig. 10 shows a global size of 0.6 with 991 nodes and
𝜎xx = − = -3.8E+06 kg.cm/s2.cm2
𝐼 833 elements. A convergence study is carried out to
find the suitable global size that would be used for
𝐹 the iterations discussed further.
𝜎xx = − = -2E+05 kg.cm/s2.cm2
𝐴
A convergence study is done to find the convergence
Adding the values in the equation above we obtain, rate. For this, we need displacements for different
σmax = -4 x 106 kg.cm/s2.cm2 global sizes that would alter the number of nodes to
The units for calculations are referenced in Table 1. see which global size provides the best results. The
The maximum deflection can be calculated by beam table below shows the desired no. of nodes, actual
theory by the equation given below, [5] number of nodes and elements along with the
𝐹Y𝐿3 displacement at the point of application of force.
𝛿max = (8) Fig. 11 shows plot for the convergence study.
3𝐸𝐼
Here we only consider the bending load since the
Desired Nodes No. of Global Displacement
axial load does not contribute to the net deformation. # of Elements Size (cm)
The maximum deflection using the Excel Calculator Nodes
was at L=42cm where the value of deflection was, 1000 991 833 0.6 1.93E-01
𝐹Y𝐿3 500 478 368 0.905 1.90E-01
𝛿max = = 0.245 𝑐𝑚 250 246 174 1.5 1.87E-01
3𝐸𝐼 Table 6: Convergence Study Results
From Fig. 9, we can see that the maximum stress
from Abaqus shows a maximum stress of -2.87E+06. Convergence Study
We get an error of approximately 28.5%. This error
0.194
is due to the design simplification considered in the
Displacement (cm)

preliminary. Although, it helps us see that the figures 0.192

are in the same ballpark which gives us some idea of 0.19
the stresses to expect while running the simulations 0.188
on Abaqus. Fig. 9, shows the location of maximum
0.186
stress at the top right-hand corner of the center cut
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
out. Another region of high stress concentration is on
the top surface close to the fixed end. This location No. of Nodes
is shown by the preliminary analysis as well, where Fig. 11: Convergence Study Graph
the maximum stress is calculated at the fixed end.
The maximum displacement that is obtained from
We now use Richardson’s Extrapolation to find out
the convergence rate using the formula given
below. [6]
||𝑢3 − 𝑢2|| ℎ2 𝛼
=( ) (9)
||𝑢2 − 𝑢1|| ℎ1

Where h1, h2 and h3 is the representative length of the

element (global size) such that h1>h2>h3. Thus, h3 Fig. 12: Design Sample 1 (x1=8cm, x2=0.5cm and x3=20cm)
corresponds to the element with the least global size.
Using the formula, we obtain α=1.11.

The true displacement can be obtained by using the

set of equations given below. [6]

𝑢ℎ = 𝑢0 + 𝑔ℎ𝛼 + 𝑂(ℎ𝑎+1 )
(10)

𝑢ℎ3 − 𝑢ℎ2 = 𝑔𝑝𝛼 (𝑝𝛼 − 1)ℎ1 𝛼 (11)

Fig. 13: Design Sample 2 (x1=8cm, x2=0.5cm and x3=28.5cm)
Or 𝑢ℎ2 − 𝑢ℎ1 = 𝑔(𝑝𝛼 − 1)ℎ1 𝛼 (12)

Using the above equation, we get, g=-0.005681.

Using the value of g in equation for uh we get the
value of true displacement uo=0.195cm.
The value of true displacement determines that
element size that should be used to arrive close to the
exact results. Since, the displacement using an
element size of 0.6 provides the most accurate
results, we use those values to carry out the 27 design
samples explained in Section VI Under Approach.
III. ANALYSIS OF ABAQUS REULTS
From the preliminary analysis, the maximum stress
should be obtained at the top surface as explained in
Section I under Approach. However, Fig. 9 showed
the location of maximum stress at the top right corner
of the center cut out. This is due to less material at
that point, which would result in a small moment on
inertia. From the bending equations referenced in
Section I under Approach, we notice that that both
the moment of inertia as well as the area is inversely
proportional with the stress, resulting in high stresses
at that point.
This was an interesting result. While simulating the
27 sample designs on Abaqus, the location of the
maximum stress shifted to different loads. Most of
them conform with the preliminary analysis.
However, some had it at different locations like the
Initial Design shown in Fig. 13 and Fig. 14. The
different locations of stress are shown in the figures
below.
Fig. 14: Design Sample 3 (x1=8cm, x2=0.5cm and x3=37cm)
While performing the 27 iterations, we might need to
make a few changes to the partitions to the initial
design shown in Fig. 7 to ensure the generation of a
good mesh. It is also essential to note the structure of
the element around the point of maximum stress. Too
distorted elements near the area of maximum stress
would provide inaccurate results. [10]
IV. ANALYSIS OF REGRESSION
FUNCTION & FMINCON
From Table 6, we notice that the values of the mass
and stress are not exactly equal to their respective
results for all the 27 design simulations.
The main reason for this discrepancy is that
regression is a statistical process for estimating the
relationships among variables. [7] This is not always
exact. Regression tries its best to establish a close
relationship between the dependent (mass) and
independent variables (x1, x2 and x3).
Also, fmincon is a powerful optimization tool but
depending on the problem you are trying to solve
there could be better optimization tools that could be
leveraged to come to a global minimum for a The final parameters for the weight optimization are
solution. shown in Table 11.
V. ANALYSIS OF OPTIMIZATION TOOL X1 X2 X3 Mass Stress
RESULTS 2.08 3.34E+6
8 cm 2.48 cm 22.6 cm
kg (kg.cm/s2.cm2)
Simulating the initial design on Abaqus yields the Table 10: Final Optimization Results
following results:
We notice some difference in the values of weight
Mass Max. Stress Displacement
(kg) (kg.cm/s2.cm2) (cm) for the optimization as shown by MATLAB in Table
2.31E+00 2.87E+06 1.93E-01 10 and the actual mass shown by Abaqus. This is due
Table 7: Initial Design Results to approximation of the function coefficients, ‘a’
found by regression. However, this error is
Studying the values of mass and stress of the 27 approximately 0.5% which is negligible. Similarly,
sample designs in Table 2, we try to analyze at which due to the same reasons, the final design also has
values of x1, x2 and x3 would the mass be the least at some scope to drop the weight further by tweaking
which point the maximum stress induced would be the parameters x1, x2 and x3.
under 340 MPa. The most suitable designs are
highlighted in bold in Table 2 and tabulated below REFERENCES
for reference. [1] Weight Optimization; Retrieved From:
Sr. X1 X2 X3 Max. Stress https://elenoenergy.com/weight-
Mass (kg)
No. (cm) (cm) (cm) (kg.cm/s2.cm2) optimization-using-cae-techniques.html
4 8 1.75 20 2.26E+00 2.74E+06 [2] Radius Rod; Retrieved From:
23 15 1.75 28.5 2.23E+00 3.25E+06 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radius_rod
Table 8: Extract from Table 2 Highlighting Suitable Design [3] Nam Ho Kim; Chapter 6 Finite Elements for
Results Plane Solids; EML 4500 Finite Element
The results that are obtained using MATLAB Analysis and Design.
Optimization function fmincon are shown below. [4] Amit H. Verma; CE 595: Course Part 2;
Finite Element Modeling and Analysis.
X1 X2 X3 Mass
[5] Handbook of Engineering Mechanics; W.
8 cm 2.48 cm 22.6 cm 2.071 kg
Table 9: fmincon Optimization Results Flugge: McGraw-Hill 1962
[6] Nam Ho Kim; Chapter 9 Finite Element
We notice that the values of x1, x2 and x3 are close to Procedure and Modeling; EML 5526 Finite
the to Sample Design 4 shown in the table above. Element Analysis.
CONCLUSIONS [7] Regression Analysis; Retrieved From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_an
These results are simulated on Abaqus to check if the alysis#Underlying_assumptions
fmincon optimization satisfied the constraints and [8] UC Berkeley Wireless Research Center; IC
gave us an optimal value of the weight. The results Design Classes Project 1 Solutions.
from Abaqus are shown below. [9] MATLAB Nonlinear Optimization with
fmincon; Retrieved From:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Il7GQ
dL3Sk&t=750s
[10] Nam-Ho Kim, Bhavani V. Sankar-
Introduction to Finite Element Analysis and
Design-Wiley (2008)

Fig. 15: Final Design Stress