Slide 1

General Motors Tutor Presentation : Peter Foss Project Supervisor : Professor Ahmad Barari Faculty of Engineering & Applied Science University of Ontario Institute of Technology Ahmad.barari@uoit.ca

Slide 2

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

Slide 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 l c ) Fibre diameter = 15 microns (between 20-150 times smaller than l c )

Slide 4

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

Slide 5

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

Slide 6

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

Slide 7

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

Slide 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

Slide 9

Rigid Body Transformation Co-ordinates from CAD file

Slide 10

Matrix Manipulation Portion of Matlab Code 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]; Rigid Body Transformation (Results) 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 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

Slide 11

Impact Beam Design Designs Analyzed:

Slide 12

Impact Beam Testing FEA Testing Procedures: Optimization of wall thickness (3.175mm) ( y x 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) y / FoS > von Maximum allowable displacement: Based upon 95 th percentile of adult populations sitting hip breadth max =14.35 cm Impact beam length = 600 mm

Slide 13

Testing Results Optimization of wall thickness: ( y x FoS) vs. Mass: Impact Beam DesignDisplacement (Magnitude; mm) Stress (Von Mises; kPa) Factor of Safety (FoS) Square1.823e+0003.819e+0053.1 Square with Rounded Edge2.214e+0004.702e+0052.5 Square with Angled Edge2.208e+0004.655e+0052.5 I-Beam1.685e+0003.629e+0053.2 Tubular2.332e+0004.564e+0052.6 Statistical Error[(1.0 R 2 )/R 2 ]*100% Square0.79% Square Round11.2% I-Beam2.0% Tubular0.64%

Slide 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 Statistical Error[(1.0 R 2 )/R 2 ]*100% Square1.4% Square Round0.21% I-Beam1.8% Tubular24.1%

Slide 15

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

Slide 16

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