Project Stage | Description | DRI | Priority |
|---|
Simulation Use and Setup Justification (3 hours max) purely research = 1 working session | It is valuable to re-visit the rules and understand whether our approach of simulation analysis satisfies the ASC Regs and whether it is the most accurate method of approaching vehicle collision analysis. Why we chose Ansys? Why we chose specific features in Ansys, e.g. beam elements, static structural vs. explicit dynamics Why we have certain masses/loads, direction, placement, distribution
Tips: Short research and documentation assignment Look through past pages/documentation on confluence for MS14 + MS12 and then compile it under a new confluence page in this project.
| All? Kimberly Liu (Deactivated) | High Priority **These findings will provide great understanding for the rest of the project |
Simulation Studies and Effect of Mass Analysis (kind of 2 tasks in 1) (2 hours for simulation studies) **research+reviewing simulations (10 hours for mass studies) **simulation work = 3 working sessions in total | There is a need to better understand how simulations are properly done through example of MS12 simulations. There is also a study of how the masses on the vehicle impacts the simulation results. This also serves as another stage of review of the previous simulation done by Tommy Tran on structural reinforcements using tubes. Also take note of more accurate masses for simulations, e.g. dynamics assembly, battery box, etc. Review Ansys project/simulation files for MS12 Structural FEA and take note of any peculiarities or methodologies used. Are ours different from theirs and why? Another byproduct of simulation studies is another reviewing process for Tommy’s past simulation setups Review setup so that we can try to pass regulations by using proper setups; the approach that does not add any weight or labour to the car.
First, take off all masses on the Chassis. See if it passes. It should because there’s no load! Then add on masses one at a time, then see if stresses are largely contributed by a specific mass or a specific set of masses. If stresses are huge due to a concentrated area of mass, we need to rethink about how we can more realistically and widely distribute the masses (e.g. passenger mass 80 kg) in the car, e.g. passengers will not be transferring mass directly onto 2 tubes, but likely to the seat which is connected to multiple points on the chassis (more distributed transfer of mass).
Idea: Add in floor panels to FEA because it plays a role in distributing forces need to validate composite performance test results; not safe to trust manufacturer spec
| Min Qian Lu (Deactivated) | High Priority **These findings will provide great understanding for the rest of the project |
PVDR Feedback (3 hours) = 1 working session | Unaddressed PVDR feedback from ASC 2020 PVDR review. Consists of key RED reasons relating to the roll cage. Note: | N/A | Low Priority **This is mostly just an “add-on” requirement for any modification decided on |
Chassis Post-Welding Analysis (20 hours max) = 4 working sessions ** lots of simulation work | Chassis has been welded in a rushed and unprepared manner resulting in inaccuracies in tube placement. Simulation analysis needs to be conducted to understand how impactful the inaccuracies are. How to Approach this Problem Take note of inaccuracies on welded Chassis Remove inaccurate chassis tubes from simulation. Run simulation. Observe Stresses If stresses are high, add back tubes
If stresses are high when tubes are added back, either: make more accurate model of chassis, i.e. move the chassis tubes to where it’s actually welded (approach that does not add weight or labour to the car). reinforcing that area (last resort)
Tips/Requirements: Need to know how to run vehicle collision scenario FEAs (and how to do it properly to minimize error + time). Sample 3 cases first, then use all 12 cases as final check (in order to save time)
Note: The model setup is susceptible to change based on the findings of the FEA setup and mass studies (project stages above). this is why this project stage is medium priority and done afterwards.
| Kimberly Liu (Deactivated) | Medium Priority **Important for us to understand how critical it is |
Effect of Welding on the Properties of Tubes and Adhesives (research + calculation) (10 hours max) | Welding is a process of joining materials that involves inputting a large amount of heat. The effect of heat can undermine the heat-treated properties of the steel tubes and disrupt the existing adhesive bonds. Note: These two are generally research tasks that we should increase our understanding on and have some type of reassurance/direction with. For effect of welding/heat on adhesive (coefficient of expansion, etc.), should ask Kevin about how he would solve this to save time and increase effectiveness of work done.
| N/A Preferably Kimberly Liu (Deactivated) | Low Priority **There are many ways we can mitigate the possible consequences |
Composite Solutions for Structural Reinforcement (20 hours max for full project) = 4 working sessions **a lot of simulation | There is an interest in exploring the feasibility of carbon fiber sandwich panels as a solution for structural reinforcement. The approach would be to apply sandwich panels across the longitudinal planes of the Chassis. Baseline comparison (for any criteria of time, cost, manufacturability, labour, etc.) would be with sheet metal in place of proposed carbon fiber sandwich panels. Note: There might be lacking documentation and procedures relating to ACP-Post
| Min Qian Lu (Deactivated) | High Priority **We need to design a solution by end of May to begin manufacturing and implementing it. It is currently build season. |