You are on page 1of 18

IUPUI Moonbuggy Design and Race Project

ME 450 Computer-Aided Engineering Analysis
Instructor: Dr. Nematollahi – Spring 2005

Department of Mechanical Engineering, IUPUI Presented by Andrea Geyer
May 2, 2005
1

Introduction • Students from the Department of Mechanical Engineering and AIAA • IUPUI Moonbuggy Design and Race Team 2 .

Purpose • Design. build and race Lunar Rover inspired vehicle – 2 person – Human powered – Collapsible 3 .

Main Targets • Collapsible – Buggy folds in half to create 4’ cube • Quick Assembly – 1 step folding/unfolding • Lightweight – Weighs 150lbs or less • Multiple Gear Ratios – Internal hub gear gives 7 gear ratios 4 .

Main Targets • Collapsible – Buggy folds in half to create 4’ cube • Quick Assembly – 1 step folding/unfolding • Lightweight – Weighs 150lbs or less • Multiple Gear Ratios – Internal hub gear gives 7 gear ratios 5 .

Frame Redesign • Used less metal in structure • Used hollow beams when possible • Selected aluminum as structure material 6 .

tested & proven – 6063: readily available • I-beam analysis – Mounting point for front wheels – First point of contact • Hub gear mount analysis 7 .Frame Redesign • Aluminum comparison – 6061: tried.

tet10 • 6063 Aluminum • E=9.75”x5” volume from center • Modeled as solid.993e6 psi • 6061 Aluminum • E = 1.Aluminum Comparison • Created solid 2”x4”x5” volume • Subtracted 1.75”x3.0008e7 psi 8 .

5sec.6lb f t 2 − t1 0. and m=600lb (18. v2=0.63 slugs) m(v2 − v1 ) 18.Determination of force • Based on Newton’s 2nd Law – Principal of Impulse and Momentum t2 d F = (mv ) dt ∫ Fdt = mv t1 2 − mv1 F (t 2 − t1 ) = m(v 2 − v1 ) • Assuming v1=10 ft/s.63slugs(− 10 ft / s ) = F= = 372.5s (With a factor of safety = 2) 9 . t2-t1=0.

Aluminum Comparison • Two types – 6061: tried. tested and proven – 6063: more readily available 6061 • 400-lb force applied at edge • Deformation same 6063 10 .

tested and proven – 6063: more readily available 6061 • 400-lb force applied at edge • Deformation same • VonMises stress basically the same 6063 11 .Aluminum Comparison • Two types – 6061: tried.

“I-Beam” Analysis • Mounting point for front wheels • First point of contact with obstacles • IGES 12 .

“I-Beam” Analysis • 400-lb applied at holes – VonMises stress well below yield – No deformation • 400-lb applied at flanges – VonMises stress just above yield – Some deformation 13 .

Hub Gear Mount Analysis • Mounting point hub gear • Drivetrain forces all meet at this point 14 .

Hub Gear Mount Analysis • Modeled as solid. tet10 • 180lb applied at cutout • VonMises stress beyond yield 15 .

Hub Gear Mount Analysis • Modeled as solid. tet10 • 180lb applied at cutout • VonMises stress well below yield 16 .

Conclusions • 6063 Aluminum approved • “I-Beam” will hold up • 2nd Design for Hub Gear Mount viable solution 17 .

Thank You! 18 .