Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Outline
Project Objectives Design Methodology Boundary Conditions Mini-Baja Frames Results Conclusions Questions
Project Objectives
To develop a frame that conforms to the SAE standards
To develop a frame that is streamlined, low-weight and safe for the driver and other competitors. Optimize the Stress-Weight tradeoff.
Cost effectiveness.
Design Tasks
Model Development
Pre-Processing Element: Linear Isotropic 1 D Beam Element with Circular Cross-Section Material: 1020 DOM Steel (Driven Over Mandrel) Apply Boundary Conditions
Symmetry/ Anti-Symmetry
Processing Meshing Solve the model using I-DEAS Post Processing Data Analysis Make informed choices to meet the design objective
Loading Cases
Six loading conditions: 1. Rollover 2. Front Bump
3. Rear Bump
4. Frontal Collision 5. Heave 6. Twist Ditch
Heave Loading
Test: Heave Loading Model used: Half model Loading: Engine and Driver load = (100 +210)*3= 630 lbs Boundary Conditions: One rear corner: X,Y & Z =0 Opposite rear corner: X &Y = 0 One Front Corner: Y = 0
Rollover Test
Test: Rollover Model Used: Full Loading: Rollover loading considered is 9.42G acting on one of the top front joints of the frame Vertical load: 4200lbs Fore & Aft load: 3080lbs Lateral load: 840lbs
Front corner:Trans X=Y=Z=0 Opposite Front corner: Trans X=Y=0 Rear corner: Trans Y=Z=0 Other corner: Simulate the force equal to 3 X Total Vehicle Weight = 1680 lbs
Designed Frames
Model 1- Bubble This is the base model given to us by the problem definition
Model 2-Buttercup An over-designed version in order to first pass the model successfully through the six severe loading conditions Model 3-Blossom Getting the right mix between stress reduction and weight optimization paradigm
Model 1 - Bubble
Model 1 (the original frame)
Elements are all 1 x 0.083 inch tubing Six loading tests
46 75.74
27.35 44.83
Weight (lbs)
61
Bubble Results
Passed: Frontal Collision Failed: Rollover :34 elements
Heave
Twist Ditch
Rollover Test
Real Time Model Displacement Von-Mises Stress
Green: Pass Red: Failed
Essentially the major goal for the next step was to pass the model
Minimization of overall weight
Separate the drivers compartment from the engine compartment by adding a beam.
Add members to the side of the drivers carriage (below). Resist the temptation to add a cross member that would block the drivers access in and out of the Mini-Baja.
Model 2- Buttercup
Tube Sizes Induces Drastic Weight Changes
Pink
Orange Blue
1 x 0.083
1 x 0.15 2 x 0.125
Light Blue
Black
2 x 0.100
3 x 0.1400
Model 3
Curvature
Comparison
Tubing Sizes dia x wall thickness (inch) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
1.0 x 0.083
1.0 x 0.15 2.0 x 0.083 2.0 x 0.1
46
0 0 0
41
9 0 6
44
0 0 0
2.0 x 0.125
2.0 x 0.145 2.0 x 0.175 2.0 x 0.21
0
0 0 0
2
0 0 0
0
1 4 2
3.0 x 0.14
Total Members Weight (pounds) Cost ($)
0
46 61 504
4
62 128 1250
0
51 120 1050
Conclusions
Bubble was the lightest but it failed miserably under most of the loading conditions
The second model-Buttercup was developed by modifying the first model making changes in the tube X-section and adding more elements. It passed all the loading conditions but was really heavy to be used as our final design Blossom: Great Looks with Excellent Performance
Questions?
Credits
We extend our sincere thanks to all the people who made this project possible
Our special thanks to Dr. Panos Charalambides for providing the opportunity to gain an insight into the finite elements intricacies
We also would like to thank UMBC for providing us with the facilities required to complete the project
AND FINALLY:
We wish all the best to our classmates who are graduating this semester . -GOOD LUCK GUYS