Finite Element Analysis Of a Skateboard Truck

Executive Summary: Engineering is and always has been an integral part of the sporting scene. This can be seen in nearly all sports since their conception. Downhill skis have gotten faster, Lacrosse sticks have gotten lighter, Adidas even has a pair of shoes that adjusts the cushioning according to a small microchip. There is no limit to what can be improved upon. This report strives to analyze the forces present on the baseplate of a skateboard, which is an element of the truck, which holds the wheels. Finite Element analysis will be conducted on this piece using a number of calculated forces and contact pressures representative of a skateboard being ridden normally, on one set of wheels, as well as an impact from 5 ft in the air. After viewing the results of the analysis, an impact from 10 ft in the air was also calculated. The analysis for this piece was done using a combination of SolidWorks (for modeling) and ABAQUS (for finite element analysis). It is evident from the results that stress concentrations do not get very intense in this structure, which leads to the conclusion that a strategic re-design of this baseplate could save on material as well as expense. This strength could also potentially be sacrificed for weight, which could lead to easier manipulation of the board while in use.

Table of Contents Cover Page...1 Executive Summary.....2 Table of Contents.....3 Introduction4 SolidWorks Modeling5 Finite Element Model6 Model Importation to ABAQUS...6 Calculations.6 Loading....8 Constraints...9 Finite Element Analysis and Results9 Conclusions...11 Appendix A...13

Introduction: This project strives to understand the stress present in the baseplate of a skateboard through computer aided finite element analysis. The baseplate is constructed of aluminum with a Youngs Modulus of 1E7 (in lbs)/in 2 and a Poissons ratio of .3. First, it is relevant to understand exactly where this component fits in to the assembly of a skateboard and the types of forces that the piece withstands during regular use.

Figure 1 Assembled Truck

Figure 2 Separate Baseplate

The baseplate withstands forces from the hanger, or the axle piece. These forces are transferred through two small pieces of rubber, which allows for slight flexibility in the hanger and the ability to steer a skateboard. This results in two pressures being applied to the baseplate in different magnitudes. There are a number of variables that should be brought to light considering the analysis of this piece. It should be noted that this analysis was not done for all the potential forces that could be incurred by this piece due to the sheer volume of skateboarding tricks that exist. In addition to this, the baseplate of the trucks modeling in this analysis are bottom of the line components. The major difference in trucks seems to be the weight, material (some materials are better for grinding tricks because they slide better), and center of gravity (which makes the board easier to flip in the air). The only of these issues relevant to this analysis is the material due to Youngs Modulus and Poissons Ratio. Lastly, the forces and pressures present on the baseplate are hardly static. The analysis done here was

done for the most extreme of the considered conditions (assuming the rider of the skateboard was 250 lbs, heavy for the typical skateboarder) in attempt to get the most accurate results without the use of dynamic loading.

SolidWorks Modeling:

SolidWorks 2005 was used in the modeling of the baseplate due to the ease of use and the ability to import .igs files into ABAQUS. While this later proved to offer some difficulties, such problems will later be discussed with other conclusions. The modeling of this piece turned out taking significantly longer than originally thought. The piece was measured in English units using a set of digital calipers, accurate to .001. Modeling of the baseplate began with the thin metal extrusion, followed by two separate lofts to create the basic profile for the plate. Additional loft-cuts, extruded cuts, fillets, as well as some other minor details were added to produce the final product seen here.

Figure 3 CAD Model of Baseplate

Finite Element Model:

The construction of the finite element model consists of a number of steps. First, the model must be inserted into ABAQUS in order to create a mesh and perform the analysis. Calculations must be performed in order to determine the forces applied during analysis. All calculations were done in English units, simply because the part was originally modeled in English units. Forces and applicable pressures for 3 situations have been calculated and modeled including data analysis with an increasing number of elements in the mesh to display convergence. The issues of loading and constraints will also be discussed.

Model Importation to ABAQUS

In order to properly import the model from SolidWorks to ABAQUS, the file must be saved in SolidWorks as a .igs file. Problems were experiencad duing the importation due to the part being invalid. This means that some of the edges and intersections were not modeled friendly to the mesh algorithm that ABAQUS uses to analyze the system. With some help from the TA, this problem was eventually overcome using the Tools Repair function in ABAQUS.

Calculations Assumptions: Maximum rider weight Elastic Deflection upon landing Relevant conical contact Mass of Skateboard neglected 250 lbs .1 in 1/3 area of inner cone

Circular Area

(.5 2 .2 2 ) = .6597in 2
Conical Area

(r 2 solid r 2 hole ) = ACircleContact

C = 2r = 2 .335in = 2.104in C 2.104in h = AConeContact = .415in = .291in 2 3 3 Normal Riding

FN = 250lbs FN = Ftruck = 125lbs 2 M 1 = .5in 125lbs + F3 1.675in = 0

F
P3 = P1 =

F3 = 37.31lbs
Y

= F1 125lbs + 37.31lbs = 0 F3 ACircleContact F1 = = 37.31lbs = 56.56 psi .6597in 2

F1 = 112.69lbs

AConeContact

112.69lbs = 387.25 psi .291in 2

One set of Wheels All pressure on circular area

FN ACircleContact

250lbs = P3 = 378.96 psi .6597in 2

Impact Loading
Fimpact d = v 2 = v0
2

1 2 mv 2 + 2a ( x x 0 )

mah 250lbs 60in = = 150000lbs d .1in Fimpact FTruck Im pact = = 75000lbs 2 M 1 = .5in 75000lbs + F3 1.675 = 0 Fimpact =

F
P3 = P1 =

F3 = 22388lbs
Y

= F1 + 75000lbs 22388lbs = 0 F3 ACircleContact F1 = = 22388lbs = 33936.64 psi .6597in 2 26306lbs = 180797 psi .291in 2

F1 = 52611.94lbs

AConeContact

Extreme Impact Loading (10 feet) P1 and P3 from the other impact loading is simply doubled for the difference in a 5 to 10 foot drop. P1 = 361594 psi P3 = 67837.28 psi Loading

The loading in this element was reasonably straightforward, with the only major assumption being that pressure in the conical area of the baseplate loading took place on the bottom third of the circumference of the surface. The only other

loading area for the element was the circular area (with a hole) at which loading was assumed to be distributed evenly. Again, while the loading of this element in reality is far from a static loading, the potential dynamic loading for this element will not be discussed in this project paper.

Constraints

The constraint that was applied for this element was simply the bottom face of the baseplate in all directions. In reality, the element is screwed in to the board; however, the horizontal forces present in this piece are negligible to its overall function.

Finite Element Analysis and Results:

After the finite element analysis was completed in ABAQUS, it became clear that the only scenario that had any noticeable affect on the baseplate (on the finite element level) was the impact loading. This, however, still did not have as large as an affect as was anticipated. Therefore, the height from which the impact initiated was doubled in order to see a larger loading. In order to not be repetitive in information, the only analysis that will be covered in depth is the impact loading from 10 feet with a rider of 250 lbs. Pictures for the other analysis steps can be seen in Appendix A (low element number of 20000 elements). Stress distribution (as seen in Figure 6 and 7) was reasonably smooth as the piece has few right angles (or close to 90o) and a reasonable amount of fillets. Stress was highest in the element towards the bottom of the conical region, which was taking a large majority of the force exerted on the piece over a smaller area. However, this is not of concern due to the location of the stress, which is only separated from the constrained region by a thin section of aluminum. It should also be noted that these stress concentrations do not come close to a dangerous level of stress for aluminum. While the conical region of the piece has the highest stress concentration, the area of more interest is the base of the circular loft near

the rib. Even with the rib there, there is a noticeable concentration of stress in this region. This makes sense physically due to the slight angle of the lofted surface itself and the normal forces creating pressures on that surface. In other words, it seems as if this rib is more crucial to the design than the average person could know. Here are two figures representative of the Von Mises stresses occurring due to the impact loading of a 250 lb rider from 10 feet in the air.

Figure 6 250 lb Rider, 10 foot impact loading, Isometric View

Figure 7 250 lb Rider, 10 foot impact loading, Top View

10

Analysis was also performed to show that convergence occurred. This helps to show that the finite element analysis is truly a accurate model of elemental stresses. Six mesh sizes, ranging from 10000 elements to 120000 elements were graphed with their total strain energies below. As one can see, the graph approaches a finite solution logarithmically with an increasing number of elements.

Strain Energy Convergence 0.072 0.0715 0.071 Strain Energy 0.0705 0.07 0.0695 0.069 0.0685 10000 16000 22000 28000 34000 40000 46000 52000 58000 64000 70000 76000 82000 88000 94000 10000 10600 11200 11800

Number of Elements

Figure 7 Strain Energy Convergence

Conclusions:

While it is evident that this analysis does not show every possibility for stress concentrations in this element, I do believe that it is safe to say that this piece is over-designed. Perhaps innovations in material choices or even more optimal designs could be done (and have been, compared to this cheap set of trucks) to

11

increase the performance, as well as the weight of these trucks. If I were to do this analysis over again, I would most likely choose not to import from SolidWorks to ABAQUS, as it caused difficulty in the validity of the baseplate. In the future, I would prefer to use one program for the entirety of the modeling and analysis. In closing, Id like to admit that this project was originally intended as an assembly, considering the entire truck as opposed to just the baseplate. Unfortunately, a day and a halfs worth of work was squandered in attempt to make model the hanger. In one last valiant attempt to hope that efforts were not completely wasted, I have included a picture of the model with the loft that did not want to execute. It makes me shed a tear.

Figure 8 The hanger that wasnt meant to be

12

Appendix A:

Figure A.1 250 lbs Rider, Normal Riding, Isometric View

Figure A.2 250 lbs Rider, Normal Riding, Top View

Figure A.3 250 lbs Rider, Riding on one Set of Wheels, Isometric View

13

Figure A.4 250 lbs Rider, Riding on one Set of Wheels, Top View

Figure A.5 250 lbs Rider, Impact from 5ft, Isometric View

Figure A.6 250 lbs Rider, Impact from 5ft, Top View

14