1 / 21

Formula SAE Team Midterm Presentation 10/30/2013

Formula SAE Team Midterm Presentation 10/30/2013. Front Upright Team Lloyd Outten Joseph Perry. Rear Upright Team Josh Carroll Taylor Watkins. Intake & Exhaust Team James Hogge Rebekah McNally Alisa Phillips Henos Woldegiorgis. Introduction to Formula SAE.

axel
Download Presentation

Formula SAE Team Midterm Presentation 10/30/2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Formula SAE TeamMidterm Presentation10/30/2013 • Front Upright Team • Lloyd Outten • Joseph Perry • Rear Upright Team • Josh Carroll • Taylor Watkins • Intake & Exhaust Team • James Hogge • Rebekah McNally • Alisa Phillips • Henos Woldegiorgis

  2. Introduction to Formula SAE • Design Competition for Collegiate students • Represent ODU’s Engineering Department • 8 part competition (8 Events)

  3. Gantt Chart

  4. Uprights [Car 106 Front Upright] [Car 106 Rear Upright]

  5. Front Upright Design Process Below ¼” added to the rear of the upright at top and bottom to support brake bracket Flaws: Brake Bracket Needed to be ¼” more toward the outside to properly line up the caliper with the brake rotor Excess Material on Steering Bracket Flaws: Steering Bracket Not Double Shear Stepped Brake Bracket Eyesore and Possible cause for Failure [Model that was 3D Printed]

  6. Rapid Prototyping Corrections Made After Rapid Prototyping: -Threaded Hole Size For Brake Bracket -Height and Depth of Lower A-Arm Recess -Material Added Between Steering Bracket Tabs -Bolted Brake Bracket Advantages of Using Rapid Prototyping -Fast and Efficient Way of Reinforcing Design Dimensions -Relatively Cheap to Produce

  7. Front Upright Assembly Upper A-Arm Bracket [Left removable for camber adjustments] Brake Bracket Upper A-Arm Connection Brake Caliper Connection Spec Sheet Material: 6061 Aluminum Total Assembly Weight: 2.28 lb. Total Assembly Volume: 23.85 in3 Weight by Part Main Upright 1.69 lb. Brake Bracket 0.44 lb. Upper A-Arm Bracket 0.12 lb. Spindle Connection Steering Connection Lower A-Arm Connection Main Upright

  8. Rear Upright Design Process • Initial Design • Model of current upright • Working design needing optimization • Reduce weight while maintaining strength • 2.51 lbs • Possible Changes • Remove Webbing • Reduce Thickness • Optimize Material • Al 6061 Alloy decided upon

  9. Rear Upright Design Process • First Design • Removal of webbing • Slightly lighter than initial design • 2.46 lbs • Preliminary stress analysis reveal high factor of safety throughout part

  10. Rear Upright Design Process • Second Design • Reduced thickness of part by 0.25” • Bearing thickness remains the same • 2.32 lbs • Preliminary stress analysis revealed high factor of safety throughout part

  11. Rear Upright Design Process • Final Design • Combination of design one and two • Thickness reduced to 0.75” • Webbing removed • Lightest of all designs • 1.64 lbs • Fillet added between feet and bracing bar to reduce stress concentration • Resized after prototype test fit

  12. What Comes Next Expected Cost Report Total Price (without shipping and taxes, including a 10% discount) = $538.69

  13. Intake & Exhaust • Problem Statement: • To design and build an intake that delivers maximum performance possible for our engine. • Accomplishments this year: • Researched different intake styles and chose the most efficient style • Created and revised design in Solidworks • Ran design through SolidWork’s flow analysis program • Revised our design in accordance to flow results (Still in progress) • Researched material costs

  14. Research: Intake • Research determined that a spherical collector upright intake was the most efficient design • (1). The taper of the cone collector should be between 3-7 degrees • (2). Optimal runner length of 250-325mm • (3). 20 mm FSAE mandated restrictor (2) (3) (1)

  15. Research: Exhaust • Typical stock exhaust uses small diameter crush bent pipe or mandrel bent pipe. • Crush bents are easier and cheaper to make however reduce the flow by 50%. • To produce the most power exhaust should have minimal restriction on the exact flow. • Components: 4 headers and silencer canister (muffler)

  16. Solidworks: Intake Runners • Preliminary design • Goal of runners: Achieve maximum and even flow to all 4 cylinders • Revised (Final) Design

  17. Solidworks: Intake Collector & Restrictor • Collector Version 1 (3 degree taper) • Restrictor Version 1 (for 3 degree collector) • Collector Version 2 (5 degree taper) • Restrictor Version 2 (for 5 degree collector)

  18. Solidworks File: Final Assembly • Full Assembly • (3 degree collector) • Full Assembly • (5 degree collector)

  19. Intake con’t • Analysis • Initial Testing using SolidworksFloXpress • Tests one intake runner at a time • Future testing with time dependent modeling across all four cylinders required for final analysis

  20. Cost Report Total Estimated Cost  $60

  21. What’s Next? • Continue Flow Analysis • Ordering materials • Fabrication • Flowbench testing with fabricated intake to verify analysis results • Design of the exhaust once more components of the frame are assembled

More Related