1 / 16

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF THE AUTO BODY DOORS OF THE GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET .RU

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF THE AUTO BODY DOORS OF THE GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET .RU. Project Supervisor : Professor Ahmad Barari Faculty of Engineering & Applied Science University of Ontario Institute of Technology. Ahmad.barari@uoit.ca. General Motors Tutor Presentation : Peter Foss.

lel
Download Presentation

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF THE AUTO BODY DOORS OF THE GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET .RU

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. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF THE AUTO BODY DOORS OF THE GENERAL MOTORS CHEVROLET .RU Project Supervisor : Professor Ahmad Barari Faculty of Engineering & Applied Science University of Ontario Institute of Technology Ahmad.barari@uoit.ca General Motors Tutor Presentation : Peter Foss

  2. Team members: Gregory Eberle, B.Eng (Team Leader) Gregorye1@msn.com Stephan Cregg, B.Eng Guarav Sharma, B.Eng

  3. Material choice – Composites Fibre Characteristics • Fibre Selection: E-glass • Fibre Orientation : Random • Fibre volume ratio: • 25% outer door panel (Grade A SMC) • 40% inner door panel (Structural SMC) • Critical fibre length: 0.8625 mm • Chosen fibre length: 25 mm (over 30 times lc) • Fibre diameter = 15 microns (between 20-150 times smaller than lc)

  4. Sheet Moulding Compounds Composition Grade A SMC formulation Processes • Compounding • Moulding Resin Filler Additives – Initiators, Inhibitors, Thickeners Fiber

  5. Door Auto Body CAD Design Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) Hinges Butterfly Hinges Impact Beam 15° from the horizontal Front Door

  6. Finite Element Models CAD model use for FEA Used portion of door to eliminate computational shortfalls Vertical Displacement Test 2 ribbing geometries test based on various quantities Geometry #1 Frame Rigidity Test Geometry #2

  7. Finite Element Analysis Results Conclusion: SMC is extremely competitive with steel. The # of ribs chosen, 35 ensures a FoS of > 2.5 Steel = 3.26 kg Optimized SMC Geometry = 1.34 kg 40% reduction in weight! Cost to Manufacture 38 ribs = $1235 CDN Vertical displacement test Frame Rigidity Test Steel = 35.29 mm Optimized SMC Geometry = 21.17 mm Steel = 7.31 mm Optimized SMC Geometry = 19.19 mm

  8. Rigid Body Transformation Determine overall door movement based on Hinge deformation Euler Parameters including Alpha, Beta and Gamma angles FEA Analysis Right Angle Triangle Points of Pressure

  9. Rigid Body Transformation Co-ordinates from CAD file

  10. Rigid Body Transformation (Results) Matrix Manipulation Portion of Matlab Code B = -0.0478 0.3218 -0.0151 -0.0092 0.8278 0.5305 0.0216 0.0006 0.8276 -0.6163 0.0319 0.0304 -0.0480 -0.4429 0.0291 0.0108 0 0 0 1.0000 A = -0.0478 0.3218 -0.0150 0 0.8277 0.5306 0.0225 0 0.8277 -0.6161 0.0320 0 -0.0479 -0.4429 0.0288 0 0 0 0 1.0000 Results n= 3 %^number of Original points OP(:,1)=[-Portion of MatLAB Code OP(:,2)=[-3 15.5 32.5]; OP(:,3)=[-3 23 32.5]; DV(:,1)=[0.022071 -0.026075 0.006052]; DV(:,2)=[0.017249 -0.025916 0.005559]; DV(:,3)=[0.012483 -0.025689 0.005207];

  11. Impact Beam Design Designs Analyzed:

  12. Impact Beam Testing • FEA Testing Procedures: • Optimization of wall thickness (≈3.175mm) • (σyx FoS) vs. Mass (@ 1.3kg; 1.6kg; 1.9kg; 2.2kg; 2.5kg) • MOI vs. Mass (@ 1.3kg; 1.6kg; 1.9kg; 2.2kg; 2.5kg) • Constraints and Assumptions: • FoS ≥ 3.0 (Reported Industry Standard) • σy/ FoS>σvon • Maximum allowable displacement: • Based upon 95th percentile of adult population’s sitting hip breadth • δmax=14.35 cm • Impact beam length = 600 mm

  13. Testing Results Optimization of wall thickness: (σyx FoS) vs. Mass:

  14. Testing Results (cont.) • MOI vs. Mass: • Impact Beam Selection: • Square and I-Beam (extremely close) • Final selection criteria is to be based upon manufacturability and associated costs

  15. Test & Prototyping • Ideas for test plan • i.e. Prove viability of ribs structure with ribs Ends are fixed String Load

  16. News! structure with ribs String Load http://www.uoit.ca/EN/featurestories/connect/2009/366254/20090429.html

More Related