Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 29 Next »

Driver

Tommy Tran

Participants

Catherine Cai

Min Qian Lu (Deactivated)

Kimberly Liu (Deactivated)

Project start date

Status

HIGH PRIORITY - IN PROGRESS

On this page

Sections of this project

Problem Definition

 Click here to expand...

Between January 2020 to October 2020, there was a major change in vehicle design that involved removing the structural bottom panel from the design. A major premise of MS14 was that we would be able to manufacture a structural bottom panel which would provide us significant weight reduction and maximize occupant space. Major factors that prevented us from having a structural bottom panel included the absence of a sponsor for an autoclave, the aggressive bend angles of the bottom panel that were difficult for honeycomb nomex core to conform to and the general difficulties of performing prepreg carbon fiber manufacturing.

Figure 1. Image of Bottom Panel CAD

Figure 1: Image of the Bottom Panel CAD

What needs to be now completed is a vehicle re-design that does not consist of a structural bottom panel while satisfying all American Solar Challenge Regulations (ASC Regs).

Jason’s Insight: What is important to keep in mind is that if a solar car was hit by an actual vehicle, no one would survive. The ultimate goal of vehicle collision simulations would instead be to survive a rollover.

Related American Solar Challenge Regulations (ASC Regs)

 Click here to expand...

Below are images from ASC 2021 Regs Release A that relate to the structural design of the vehicle. There are possibly even more regulations that can be relevant factors for vehicle design. It is strongly recommended to fully review the latest release of the ASC Regs before beginning any design project. Feel free to add screenshots of additional regulations that may apply.

Criteria

 Click here to expand...
  • Minimize weight
  • Minimize labour
  • Minimize composites manufacturing
  • Lean towards metal solutions because of:
    • manufacturability, time, complexity/simplicity, cheaper, faster, easier
  • Lean away from composite solutions
    • composite simulation has complexities and unknowns
    • but having composite panels in simulations generally yields better simulation results
  • Make solutions as simple as possible; helps in the long run
    • manufacturing, number of people needed, resource limited, minimize cost, minimize lead times

Constraints

 Click here to expand...
  • Vehicle weight that we use to design is 720 kg.
    • Would want to get a more updated quantity of how much the current assembly weighs.
      Would need to include at least: Chassis tubes, Dynamics assembly, Battery Box, Seats, and more.
    • Can work from a baseline how much the Chassis weighs and then see how any further modification creates how much percentage weight change
  • Should do onsite measurements and inspection of any implementation method before finalization. This is because there are inaccuracies with the welded Chassis assembly.
  • We will not model the current thin Bottom Panel and put it into simulations in hopes of contributing to structural integrity
    • There are too many inconsistencies on the physical bottom panel, e.g. too many wrinkles and unevenly distributed patches of carbon fiber
    • There were also too many issues with manufacturing it therefore it should not be considered at all
    • It is also not within our scope or capacity to model a half built bottom panel
  • We will not manufacture another bottom panel using the current mold
    • Too expensive; not worth the time; largely backed by Jason and Matt (Mech Advisors)
  •  

Options for Reinforcement

 Click here to expand...
  • Review previous simulations
    • Consider reviewing MS12 simulation files and documentation to learn more about what setups and assumptions that they used
  • Reviewing simulation setup
    • It is optimal to be completely certain that our simulations are producing accurate results. If simulations can produce safe results, then no additional weight or labour is added to the Chassis.
    • Jason and Tommy are available to review FEA setups depending on their availability.
  • Adding chassis tubes, e.g. more tubes, thicker walled tubes, larger cross section tubes
  • Sheet metal across a plane of tubes
    • Carbon fiber panel has better strength-to-weight ratio
    • Sheet metal is easy to implement using welding or fasteners
    • Sheet metal versus carbon fiber panels is balancing between
      • weight + cost vs effort (have to make the carbon fiber panels) + reliability
  • Carbon fiber panels across a plane of tubes
    • Very good strength-to-weight ratio
    • Involves more manufacturing and time. It also has to be manufactured properly to be effective.
      • Do we make any CF panels accurately? Have we performed destructive testing on CF panels yet?
        • Not yet. Would need to be completed within Material Testing Project which is led by Tommy Tran
    • Would likely need to add some tubes to provide good adhering surfaces
    • Try to use carbon fiber panels to replicate the benefits that the structural Bottom Panel was intended to provide (i.e. distribute load across all tubes to mitigate point leads; contributes to overall stiffness of the car)
  • Reinforcing joints
    • add gussets
    • add tubes to triangulate the corner
  • Reinforce tubes
    • increase tube cross section
    • increase tube wall thickness

Housekeeping Reminders

 Click here to expand...

Please document your work in a confluence page for any work completed for Midnight Sun.
For this specific project, it would be highly advised your documentation includes the following information:

  • Directly Responsible Individual (DRI)
  • Advisor or Reviewer
  • Dependencies
  • Location of work files, e.g. simulation files.
    Include file name and folder path.
  • Date
  • Child pages to separate and document sections of your work

Project Stages

 Click here to expand...

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.

  1. Why we chose Ansys?

  2. Why we chose specific features in Ansys, e.g. beam elements, static structural vs. explicit dynamics

  3. Why we have certain masses/loads, direction, placement, distribution

Tips:

  1. Short research and documentation assignment

  2. Look through past pages/documentation on confluence for MS14 + MS12 and then compile it under a new confluence page in this project.

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.

  1. 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?

  2. Another byproduct of simulation studies is another reviewing process for Tommy’s past simulation setups

    1. 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.

  3. 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.

    1. 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:

  1. Add in floor panels to FEA because it plays a role in distributing forces

    1. 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:

  • Remember to read the fricking regs
    -Tommy

    • Interiors-related Regs + Occupant Cell + Occupant/Passenger + Egress + Aerobody + others

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

  1. Take note of inaccuracies on welded Chassis

  2. Remove inaccurate chassis tubes from simulation. Run simulation. Observe Stresses

    1. If stresses are high, add back tubes

  3. If stresses are high when tubes are added back, either:

    1. 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).

    2. reinforcing that area (last resort)

Tips/Requirements:

  1. Need to know how to run vehicle collision scenario FEAs (and how to do it properly to minimize error + time).

  2. Sample 3 cases first, then use all 12 cases as final check (in order to save time)

Note:

  1. The model setup is susceptible to change based on the findings of the FEA setup and mass studies (project stages above).

    1. 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:

  1. These two are generally research tasks that we should increase our understanding on and have some type of reassurance/direction with.

  2. 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:

  1. 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.

Timeline

 Click here to expand...

Last updated: May 6, 2021

Legend:

  • Red = High Priority

  • Purple = Medium Priority

  • Yellow = Low Priority

Comments:

  • Timeline - depends on school and work term report

  • Sounds like we are on decent ground; not the ideal case, but ok

  • Likely that we will need a third week

No.

Project Stage

Due Date

Status

Blocked By

1

Simulation Use and Setup Justification

May 12th

Not Started

2

Simulation Studies and Effect of Mass Analysis

May 12th

Not Started

3

PVDR Feedback

May 20th

Not Started

6

4

Chassis Post-Welding Analysis

May 20th

Not Started

1, 2

5

Effect of Welding on the Properties of Tubes and Adhesives

May 20th

Not Started

6

6

Composite Solutions for Structural Reinforcement

May 20th

Not Started

1, 2

Structural FEA & Reinforcements (Overall Project)

May 20th (for momentum and contingency)

In Progress

Structural FEA & Reinforcements (Overall Project)

End of May (Hard Due Date)

In Progress

Resources

 Click here to expand...
  • Mechanical Advisors
  • University Professor on Composites
  • Learning about full Chassis vehicle design would not be too beneficial or relevant at this point
  • Resources to triangulate a frame to improve loading
    • very sparse amount of resources online
    • there is also no accurate solution method that is recommended for all scenarios
  • FSAE papers for inspiration on vehicle design
    • some hybrids, some purely tubes, some purely composite except for roll cage
    • seeing how they do certain things can bring inspiration
    • Note: all vehicles have their own loading conditions and properties so it is tough to make a Chassis frame that optimizes all scenarios and what other solar car teams do may not be applicable/feasible for our vehicle.
  • No labels