Next Article in Journal
Statement of Peer Review
Previous Article in Journal
Preface: The 2025 IEEE 5th International Conference on Electronic Communications, Internet of Things and Big Data (IEEE ICEIB 2025)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Proceeding Paper

Design and Analysis of Cattle Slaughtering Aid Frame with Three Load Variations Using Finite Element Method (FEA) †

by
Asep Kurniawan
,
Dikha Resnandan Ruslan
,
Renaldi Kusnadi
and
Dani Mardiyana
*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Nusa Putra University, Sukabumi 43152, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Presented at the 7th International Global Conference Series on ICT Integration in Technical Education & Smart Society, Aizuwakamatsu City, Japan, 20–26 January 2025.
Eng. Proc. 2025, 107(1), 107; https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025107107
Published: 25 September 2025

Abstract

The design and structural analysis of a cattle slaughtering frame is essential to ensure the safety, efficiency, and durability of the facility. This research was conducted in farms and slaughterhouses to analyze the performance of cattle slaughtering frames under three load variations using the finite element method (FEA). The frame model was created using Autodesk Inventor and simulated in Ansys, considering material properties, dimensions, and frame configuration. The simulated loads represented cow weights ranging from 500 kg/4905 N to 1500 kg/14,715 N. The analysis results showed the distribution of stress and deformation across the frame structure. The highest stress occurred under the 1500 kg/14,715 N load but remained within safe limits. The frame, designed using 1040 carbon steel, demonstrated the ability to withstand a maximum load of 1500 kg/14,715 N with an acceptable safety factor. Although stress and deflection increased with higher loads, the structure stayed within allowable tolerances. These findings confirm that FEA is an effective tool for optimizing structural performance before fabrication. The study provides recommendations for safer and more efficient designs, particularly in selecting materials and reinforcing critical areas. This research is expected to serve as a reference for improving the quality of cattle slaughtering facilities in farms and abattoirs.

1. Introduction

The process of slaughtering animals, especially cows, requires sturdy and safe tools to ensure a smooth and safe process, as well as ensuring the process is in accordance with applicable safety standards [1,2,3]. One of the vital components of slaughtering activities is the frame of the auxiliary equipment that functions to hold and support the cow’s body during the process [4,5]. A poorly designed frame can lead to instability, risk of accidents, or even structural failure, which can jeopardize worker safety and reduce the effectiveness of the slaughtering process [6,7].
With technological advances in the industrial world, the design of cattle slaughtering aids can now be optimized using engineering simulations, one of which is the finite element analysis (FEA) method. FEA is a numerical analysis method that allows for the simulation and evaluation of the strength and durability of materials in complex engineering components [8,9]. With the FEA approach, we can predict the behavior of the skeletal structure of cattle slaughtering aids under the influence of various types of loads received during the slaughtering process [10].
The load received by the frame of a cattle slaughtering aid can vary depending on a number of factors, such as the weight of the cow, the position of the cow’s body during the slaughtering process, and variations in the methods and techniques used. Therefore, it is important to analyze the ability of the auxiliary frame to withstand loads under various operational conditions that may occur [11,12,13,14]. For this reason, this study uses three loading variations that represent the loads commonly encountered in the cattle slaughtering process, namely 500 kg/4905 N, 1000 kg/9810 N, and 1500 kg/14,715 N.
The reason for choosing the three loading variations is to cover the variation in the weight of cattle that is often encountered in the slaughtering industry and slaughterhouses. A load of 500 kg/4905 N represents a cow of smaller or younger size, while a load of 1000 kg/9810 N represents an average-sized cow, and 1500 kg/14,715 N represents an adult cow of large size [15,16]. By considering these three loading variations, it is hoped that a more comprehensive picture of the ability of the auxiliary frame to withstand varying loads can be obtained, as well as to ensure a frame design that can function optimally under various conditions.
This study aims to design and analyze the frame of cattle slaughtering aids using FEA by considering the three loading variations described above. Through this research, it is hoped that an efficient, safe, and durable frame design can be obtained which is able to withstand the load optimally without experiencing deformation or structural failure. The results of this study will contribute to improving the quality of cattle slaughtering equipment frames among farms and slaughterhouses, as well as supporting safety and efficiency in the implementation of the slaughtering process.

2. Methods

2.1. Model Design

The design of the cattle cutting tool was made using Autodesk Inventor 2024 software [17]. The dimensions and shape of the tool have been adjusted to the size of the cow. The frame design of the cow slaughtering aid can be seen in Figure 1.
Geometric models that were created using Autodesk Inventor software were then exported into a format compatible with Ansys 2024 R1 software.

2.2. Load and Material Variation Analysis

This study uses three loading variations that represent the loads commonly encountered in the cattle slaughtering process, namely 500 kg/4905 N, 1000 kg/9810 N, and 1500 kg/14,715 N. Then, the process was simulated using 1040 carbon steel material. Carbon steel 1040 is a medium-carbon steel that is often used in a wide variety of structural and mechanical applications [18,19,20,21,22]. The chemical composition of carbon steel 1040 can be seen in Table 1 below.
The mechanical properties of carbon steel 1040 can be seen in Table 2 below.

2.3. Finite Element Method Analysis (FEA)

The simulation was carried out using Ansys software with the finite element analysis (FEA) completion method with the following steps:
  • Import the cow cutter model file in IGES (.igs) format.
  • Select the type of static structural analysis in the toolbox.
  • Drag the geometry of the model on static structural geometry.
  • Select the material types in Engineering Data.
  • Determine the placement of support on the structure, as shown in Figure 2 below.
In the analysis of the finite element method (FEA), the support point is the location on the structure where the loading or force reaction occurs. These points are usually used to hold the load and prevent movement in a certain direction.
The determination of the load location and the magnitude of the load variation received by the structure based on the predetermined load amount can be seen in Figure 3.
In finite element method (FEA) analysis, the point of the load is the location on the structure where a force or moment is applied. This point is very important because it determines how the structure will respond to external loads.

3. Results and Discussion

Based on the analysis of the finite element method (FEA) on cattle cutting tools with three load variations, the following results were obtained:

3.1. Light Load 500 kg/4905 N

The maximum deflection (total deformation) in cattle cutting tools with light loads occurs at the joints at the base with a value of δmax = 1.8108 mm, as shown in Figure 4.
The maximum yield stress (equivalent Von Mises stress) in cattle cutting tools with light loads occurs at the joints of each side of the bottom with a max σy value = 54.037 MPa, as shown in Figure 5.
Yield strain (equivalent elastic strain) in cattle cutting tools with light loads occurs at the joints of each lower side with a value of εy max = 0.00025711 mm/mm, as shown in Figure 6.
The safety factor (safety factor) on this lightweight cattle cutting tool shows a value of 6.4863, as shown in Figure 7.

3.2. Medium Load 1000 kg/9810 N

The maximum deflection (total deformation) in the cattle cutting tool with medium load occurs at the joint at the base with a value of δmax = 3.6216 mm, as shown in Figure 8.
The maximum yield stress (equivalent von Mises stress) in cattle cutting tools with medium loads occurs at the joints on each side of the bottom with a max σy value = 108.07 MPa, as shown in Figure 9.
Yield strain (equivalent elastic strain) in cattle cutting tools with moderate loads occurs at the joints of each lower side with a value of εy max = 0.00051423 mm/mm, as shown in Figure 10.
The safety factor in this medium-load cattle cutting tool shows a value of 3.2432, which is shown in Figure 11.

3.3. Heavy Load 1500 kg/14,715 N

The maximum deflection (total deformation) in the cattle cutting tool with heavy loads occurs at the joints at the base with a value of δmax = 5.4324 mm, as shown in Figure 12.
The maximum yield stress (equivalent von Mises stress) in cattle cutting tools with heavy loads occurs at the joints of each bottom side with a value of σy max = 162.11 MPa, as shown in Figure 13.
Yield strain (equivalent elastic strain) in cattle cutting tools with moderate loads occurs at the joints of each lower side with a value of εy max = 0.00077134 mm/mm, as shown in Figure 14.
The safety factor in this medium-load cattle cutting tool shows a value of 2.1621, which is shown in Figure 15.
The simulation results show that the highest voltage distribution occurs at each major junction point of the frame. The frame with 1040 carbon steel material exhibits an adequate safety factor for all load variations, with maximum deformation remaining within tolerance limits. However, an increase in load results in an increase in tension at certain critical points, which can be reduced by reinforcing certain parts of the frame.

4. Conclusions

Based on the results of the analysis using the finite element method (FEA), the frame of the cattle slaughtering aid designed using 1040 carbon steel material is able to withstand a load of up to 1500 kg/14,715 N with a safety factor that is still within safe limits. The total maximum stress and deflection distribution indicates that the structure remains within the allowable design tolerances. With the increase in the load from 500 kg/4905 N to 1500 kg/14,715 N, there is an increase in tension and deformation, but the frame can still function safely. Therefore, the application of FEA in the design of this frame is effective to evaluate performance before fabrication so as to improve efficiency and safety in the slaughter process.

Author Contributions

D.M. as the main conceptualizer and designed the research idea, A.K. designed and simulated the FEA, R.K. and D.R.R. shared the simulation results. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Nusa Putra University through the Nutral project in the amount of Rp. 5,000,000.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical re-strictions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hultgren, J.; Schiffer, K.J.; Babol, J.; Berg, C. Animal Welfare and Food Safety When Slaughtering Cattle Using the Gunshot Method. Animals 2022, 12, 492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Bicudo, J.R.; McNeill, S.G.; Turner, L.W.; Burris, R.; Anderson, J. Cattle Handling Facilities: Planning, Components, and Layouts. 2002. Available online: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/aen_reports/13/ (accessed on 30 July 2025).
  3. Patil, S.S.; Bhangale, J.H. Reducing Cattle Stress During Transport: Structural Design And Analysis Of A Ramp-Gate System. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2025, 11, 865–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lim, R.-G.; Kim, W.-S.; Do, Y.-W.; Siddique, M.A.A.; Kim, Y.-J. Performance Evaluation of a Virtual Test Model of the Frame-Type ROPS for Agricultural Tractors Using FEA. Agriculture 2023, 13, 2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Biggerstaff, J.M.; Haar, W.R.; Kilker, M.S.; Miller, T.F. Design of a Manual Cattle Chute; Custom Agricultural Solutions: Cowley, WY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cheng, L.; Lin, H.-B.; Zhang, Y.-L.; Rodríguez, A.R. Optimization design and analysis of mobile pump truck frame using response surface methodology. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0290348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Panjono; Triyannanto, E.; Sri nugroho, W.; Eko Yulianto, M.d.; Atmoko, B.A. Improving Slaughtering Efficiency and Sacrificial Cattle’s Welfare Through the Use of Portable Restraining Box. AAVS 2022, 10, 763–770. [Google Scholar]
  8. Pratt, M.J. Virtual Prototypes and Product Models in Mechanical Engineering. In Virtual Prototyping: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology; Rix, J., Haas, S., Teixeira, J., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  9. Pratama, J.; Mahardika, M. Finite element analysis to determine the stress distribution, displacement and safety factor on a microplate for the fractured jaw case. In AIP Conference Proceedings, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Education, Concept, and Application of Green Technology (EIC 2017), Semarang, Indonesia, 11 October 2017; AIP Pbulishing: Melville, NY, USA, 2018; p. 020022. [Google Scholar]
  10. Liu, Y.; Liu, C.; Gao, X.; Tan, J. Multiphysics Finite Element Analysis and Optimization of Load-Bearing Frame for Pure Electric SUVs. Symmetry 2025, 17, 1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lücking, A.; Louton, H.; von Wenzlawowicz, M.; Erhard, M.; von Holleben, K. Movements after Captive Bolt Stunning in Cattle and Possible Animal- and Process-Related Impact Factors—A Field Study. Animals 2024, 14, 1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Peng, C.; Cao, S.; Li, S.; Bai, T.; Zhao, Z.; Sun, W. Automated Measurement of Cattle Dimensions Using Improved Keypoint Detection Combined with Unilateral Depth Imaging. Animals 2024, 14, 2453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Gomathi, R.; Rajeeva, S.J.; Sharada, S.A.; Narayana, G. Design, Planning, Scheduling and Resource Allocation for Slaughter House. IJEAT 2017, 6, 242–246. [Google Scholar]
  14. Troxel, T.R.; Gadberry, S. Cattle Working Facilities; University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Serivce: Little Rock, AR, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  15. Schipp, M. An assessment of the ongoing appropriateness of Mark I and IV restraint boxes. 2011. Available online: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/assessment-restraint-boxes.pdf (accessed on 30 July 2025).
  16. Carrijo, S.M.; Duarte, F.A.M. Description and comparison of growth parameters in Chianina and Nelore cattle breeds. Genet. Mol. Biol. 1999, 22, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  17. Sofias, K.; Kanetaki, Z.; Stergiou, C.; Kantaros, A.; Jacques, S.; Ganetsos, T. Implementing CAD API Automated Processes in Engineering Design: A Case Study Approach. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 7692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bosire, R.N.; Muvengei, O.M.; Mutua, J.M.; Kimotho, J.K. Development of a finite element model for prediction of cutting forces in turning of AISI 1040. J. Sustain. Res. Eng. 2024, 8, 85–102. [Google Scholar]
  19. Sahin, M.; Akata, H.E.; Gulmez, T. Characterization of mechanical properties in AISI 1040 parts welded by friction welding. Mater. Charact. 2007, 58, 1033–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gurumurthy, B.; Gowrishankar, M.; Sharma, S.; Kini, A.; Shettar, M.; Hiremath, P. Microstructure authentication on mechanical property of medium carbon Low alloy duplex steels. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2020, 9, 5105–5111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ruviana, R.; Izzah, A.N.; Firdaus, M.R.; Darmawan, S.T.; Nugroho, K.F.; Illaahiyah, W.; Pratama, I.Y. Finite Element Analysis of Static Failure in a Tempered and Hardened 1040 Steel Shaft. BIOMEJ 2025, 5, 11–21. [Google Scholar]
  22. Çoban, O. Heat treatment of AISI 1040 and AISI 4140 steels: Microstructure-mechanical property relationships for normalization, spheroidization and quenching-tempering. J. Innovative Eng. Nat. Sci. 2025, 5, 556–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Cow cutter frame design.
Figure 1. Cow cutter frame design.
Engproc 107 00107 g001
Figure 2. Fixed support points.
Figure 2. Fixed support points.
Engproc 107 00107 g002
Figure 3. Load placement points.
Figure 3. Load placement points.
Engproc 107 00107 g003
Figure 4. Total deformation results.
Figure 4. Total deformation results.
Engproc 107 00107 g004
Figure 5. Equivalent von Mises stress results.
Figure 5. Equivalent von Mises stress results.
Engproc 107 00107 g005
Figure 6. Equivalent elastic strain results.
Figure 6. Equivalent elastic strain results.
Engproc 107 00107 g006
Figure 7. Safety factor results.
Figure 7. Safety factor results.
Engproc 107 00107 g007
Figure 8. Total deformation results.
Figure 8. Total deformation results.
Engproc 107 00107 g008
Figure 9. Equivalent von Mises stress results.
Figure 9. Equivalent von Mises stress results.
Engproc 107 00107 g009
Figure 10. Equivalent elastic strain results.
Figure 10. Equivalent elastic strain results.
Engproc 107 00107 g010
Figure 11. Safety factor results.
Figure 11. Safety factor results.
Engproc 107 00107 g011
Figure 12. Total deformation results.
Figure 12. Total deformation results.
Engproc 107 00107 g012
Figure 13. Equivalent von Mises stress results.
Figure 13. Equivalent von Mises stress results.
Engproc 107 00107 g013
Figure 14. Equivalent elastic strain results.
Figure 14. Equivalent elastic strain results.
Engproc 107 00107 g014
Figure 15. Safety factor results.
Figure 15. Safety factor results.
Engproc 107 00107 g015
Table 1. Chemical composition of carbon steel 1040.
Table 1. Chemical composition of carbon steel 1040.
ElementFill
Iron, Fe98.6–99
Manganese, Mn0.6–0.9
Carbon, C0.37–0.44
Sulfur, S 0.05
Phosphorus, P 0.04
Table 2. Mechanical properties of carbon steel 1040.
Table 2. Mechanical properties of carbon steel 1040.
PropertyMetric
Tensile strength 620 MPa
Modulus of elasticity200 GPa
Yield strength350 MPa
Density 7850   kg / m 3
Hardness 149–170 HB (Brinell Hardness)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kurniawan, A.; Ruslan, D.R.; Kusnadi, R.; Mardiyana, D. Design and Analysis of Cattle Slaughtering Aid Frame with Three Load Variations Using Finite Element Method (FEA). Eng. Proc. 2025, 107, 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025107107

AMA Style

Kurniawan A, Ruslan DR, Kusnadi R, Mardiyana D. Design and Analysis of Cattle Slaughtering Aid Frame with Three Load Variations Using Finite Element Method (FEA). Engineering Proceedings. 2025; 107(1):107. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025107107

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kurniawan, Asep, Dikha Resnandan Ruslan, Renaldi Kusnadi, and Dani Mardiyana. 2025. "Design and Analysis of Cattle Slaughtering Aid Frame with Three Load Variations Using Finite Element Method (FEA)" Engineering Proceedings 107, no. 1: 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025107107

APA Style

Kurniawan, A., Ruslan, D. R., Kusnadi, R., & Mardiyana, D. (2025). Design and Analysis of Cattle Slaughtering Aid Frame with Three Load Variations Using Finite Element Method (FEA). Engineering Proceedings, 107(1), 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025107107

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop