| Table of Contents |
|---|
...
2. Review Previous Chassis Simulations
I don’t think this is worth the time.
Better to focus on current solution
MS14
MS12
3. Inserting Current Solution into Old FEA Setups
I don’t think this is worth the time.
Better to focus on current solution
4. Sheet Metal Inquiry
I don’t think this is worth the time.
Better to focus on current solution
5. Rev 2.0
Collision Scenario | FEA Meeting (Max S. - MPa) 2 Passenger |
|---|---|
B Pillar | 478 |
Side 60 | 650 |
Top 30 | 1667 |
...
Reconsidering how the fixed boundaries and accelerations are done.
I also played around with the masses. Observations based on Top 30. One of our worst cases.
With all masses suppressed, stresses are below 415 MPa (max 350 ish)
If only front 2 passengers is enabled, it reaches like 1000 MPa.
With only battery box enabled, it reaches like 700 MPa.
I believe how we assign the mass is greatly influencing the stresses.
The current geometry assignments for mass are very concentrated.
When we had the bottom panel, the faces on its surface could be used as geometry assignment which distributed the mass vastly.
6. Rev 3.0 - Surfaces for distributed masses
Collision Scenario | FEA Meeting (Max S. - MPa) All loads |
|---|---|
B Pillar | 638 |
Side 60 | 946 |
Top 30 | 2021 |
All these stresses are higher than the 1.0 setup mentioned in step 1.
It is worth noting that the surface used was 1 inch thickness using foam density meaning there is extra mass.
Although it does seem to prove that surfaces do not have a major effect in reducing stresses.
7. Notes for Later
Stackup of A, B, C Bulkheads for Min’s sheet metal solution FEA
Purpose: Put really thin layers in the explorative FEA (step 4)
...