Meeting Agenda/Goals:

• Have a context debrief and history debrief of Structural FEA project

• Describing and detailing out (documenting) each project stage.

  • Note: Work together to document details; make members the DRI for documentation for their respective project stage

• Understanding dependencies/blockers and setting short term timelines/goals

  • Note: we primarily need to prioritize reviewing past work (e.g. MS12) and re-evaluating our current assumptions/FEA setup to see if it is the most appropriate approach.
    Note: ASC Regs are our rules and constraints to design by.

• Train members on existing Ansys Structural FEA procedures

  • Note: try to highlight areas of uncertainty and improvements
    Note to Self: Mechanical Bay Computers Remote Desktop and Signup Procedures

Meeting Notes:

Context Debrief

• When and how Structural FEA was done in the past (by Jason and mentored by Matt)

  • assumptions that had to be made, e.g. dynamics weight and mounting - 100 kg on A plane and 100 kg on C plane

  • force model setup/assumptions, i.e. weight relevance when car is off the ground, how we are assuming/representing the vehicle collision scenario in simulation

Describing and detailing each project stage:

• Notes were made in each project stage’s confluence page

• Recommendation to create meeting notes/documentation for each project stage to record advice/directions/suggestions given. Also to document any decision-making.

  • create child pages as deemed appropriate

Understanding dependencies/blockers and setting short term timelines/goals

• Notes were made under Timeline section of Structural FEA Project home page:
  MS14 Chassis Structural FEA Project - Mechanical - Confluence (atlassian.net)

• Notes were made for priorities, due dates, and blockers

Member Training

• Notes were made under Project Training page.
  Structural FEA Project Training - Mechanical - Confluence (atlassian.net)

Meeting Agenda:

1. Review Deliverables

   1. FEA Setup Justification

   2. Mass Analysis

2. Assign Week 2 Deliverables

1.a Most collisions outside of ASC, explicit dynamic analysis makes the most sense

Matt said - the way the load was worded → “5G” instead of a speed. A lot of teams chose to do that instead of dynamics analysis. Therefore static analysis was the easiest was to pass ASC.

1.b Mass Analysis

• Didn’t get to dig into simulations

• maximum 3 vehicle collision scenarios; enough mass configurations (hopefully some are redundant)

• Timeline - busy and unable to deliver until Tuesday (19)

Action Items:

1. Read ASC Regs related to Structural FEA + Review the confluence pages for research related to setup justification + simulation setup.

2. New Goals have been set

Night of Tuesday, May 18 - Min finishes Mass Analysis Study

Tuesday/Wednesday May 18/19 - Review Mass Analysis Simulations with Tommy + Create small report for Mech Advisors (Leif, Matt, and Kevin + Catherine) to review and approve

Thursday, May 20 - Begin Stage 2 deliverables (assuming stress values are still not solved

Saturday, May 22 - Have mech-leads meeting to review progress and give training on Stage 2 deliverables

Night of Tuesday, May 25 - Finish Stage 2 deliverables

Tuesday/Wednesday May 25/26 - Review Stage 2 deliverables + Create small report for Mech Advisors (Leif, Matt, and Kevin + Catherine) to review and approve

May 31 - Complete Supplier Interfacing Logistics for approved solution

• Chassis inaccuracy investigation should use the direct method of creating accurate chassis model and running it in simulations

  • it is not possible to do this without being onsite and measuring out the chassis

• Conclusion: Composite solution FEA will continue, but incorporates a large SF as much as possible

  • Chassis inaccuracy investigation will be an additional investigation after June 2 (when lockdown lifts) to validate the solution chosen.

    • Also provides geometrical constraints/requirements that is useful

• We should also do destructive and validation testing of composites and composite joints on the solution found

  • → this should be added onto the project timeline near the end, etc.

• What are the real downsides of sheet metal compared to composite panels besides weight?
  (Efforts of down selecting material choice for panel solution)

  • Sheet metal is

    • easier to manufacture

      • we won’t have to manufacture it besides partially sizing it down

    • no testing required

    • more reliable

    • less work for us overall

• Need to know more about weight:

  • We can add more weight but do we care (i.e. will it surpass the weight limit?)

  • S2021 Updated Masses of Sub-Team Assemblies - Mechanical - Confluence (atlassian.net)

  • E.g. we can’t use steel sheet metal because it will break UCA = convincing reason

• Aluminum may not be in our design space and there is an easy way to validate that:

  • is it weldable, etc.

  • Could have been a prescreening method before material selection and adding simulations

• Order of priorities/working on things:

  • Possibly steel, composites, maybe exclude aluminum

• Note: Wouldn’t turn over every rock in the investigation

  • also want to close out options as soon as possible before they rear their ugly heads down the line

• Action Items

  • Invalidate aluminum through welding or attachment research

  • See if we can exclude composites

  • Get updated masses of vehicles

  • Mesh convergence studies

    • question mark of how accurate results are and if any results have converged

  • Fixed faces of collision object to allow bowing of the collision object itself

  • Contact between collision object and chassis to become frictionless

    • Would need additional ways to constrain Chassis' movement (to compile solution)

    • But there is a chance that it can improve

    • also gives gap between chassis tubes and collision object when (e.g.) the front chassis face bows in front of the collision object

    • if it was bonded - the front tubes of the chassis cannot deform in any way (infinite stiffness problems)

  • Other ASC/legacy setup questioning contact mech advisors about

• Material Selection Note:

  • Choose a baseline material at the beginning and try to refine that material later on

  • If there is a reason to change it, just need to check previous documentation

Meeting Agenda:

• Sync Up on each person’s progress and availability for the next week

• Mentioning about additional 1 or 2 weeks of timeline because of component design aspects and review

• Bring in more people to this project

  • get to help out with minor stuff, etc.

  • delegate mesh convergence - Ansys has mesh convergence tool - Ask Matt / Adam

Meeting Agenda:

• Sync Ups and Updates and Blockers

• New task - get more accurate masses of battery box and dynamics mounting since we have random 100 kg mass points everywhere. Those should be justified!!!

• Distribute work

Updates:

• Tommy - completed mass (got an approximation but could be improved)

  • mesh convergence studies on simulation was blocked (remote bay computers offline)

• Kimberly -

  • made progress

  • blocked by offline remote bay computers

• Min -

  • Mesh convergence tool doesn’t work on beam tools

  • Working on sheet metal into Chassis

  • blocked by bay computers

• Sheet metal placement (ASC Regs + Communicate with Interiors)

  • need to figure out occupant space and assembly interference

  • Component design of how the sheet metal would be installed onto the Chassis

    • Material Selection page by kimberly had some research about mounting parts

• Updated Master Assembly (Announcement into Chat)

• Updated Mass Assembly