What a simulation can establish

My upright dissertation started with supplied vehicle geometry and parameters, then translated vehicle-level assumptions into component loads. The finite-element model made it possible to compare designs under those loads. Its results remained conditional on how the problem had been represented.

First, test the numerical answer

I compared six mesh refinements before choosing a 0.75 mm mesh with 729,174 elements. Watching stress and deformation change with refinement helped judge whether a geometry comparison was being driven by the design or by the numerical resolution.

That check addresses the discretisation. It cannot establish whether an assumed load matches a kerb strike, whether a constraint represents the assembly accurately, or how repeated loading will affect fatigue life.

Then, test the decision

Iteration 6 was the lightest modelled design. It saved another 10.59 g beyond Iteration 5, but its estimated machining cost increased by £34.76 and maximum deformation rose from 0.08923 mm to 0.11245 mm. The comparison made the marginal trade-off visible.

I recommended Iteration 5: an 18.43% mass reduction with a modelled safety factor of 4.80 and the lower machining estimate. The recommendation followed the project’s combined constraints; it was not simply the geometry with the smallest mass.

Finally, test the physical component

A fatigue model, a prototype and bench measurements of stiffness and strain would test questions the static analysis leaves open. Instrumented track loads would also let the design assumptions be replaced with measured evidence. These are proposed next steps, not completed validation.

The lesson I take from the project is to keep three questions separate: is the calculation stable, is the trade-off sensible, and does the physical component behave as expected? Each needs its own evidence.