Orbit Engineering

Moonbuggy Wheels

James Roland Ian Henry

Jacob Lloyd Kevin Beckman

Presentation Outline
This presentation will cover:
• Problem Overview
• Wheel Design
• Prototype Fabrication
• Compliance Testing
• Final Wheel Fabrication
• Conclusions
2
Problem Overview
Design Goals
• Win 2013 NASA Great Moonbuggy Race
• Improve performance over bicycle wheels
• Increase suspension
• Increase axial load capability
• Reduce rolling resistance

4
Figure 1. Tire inflation vs rolling resistance
Source: www.barrystiretech.com
Initial Design Specifications
• Radius 13.0 in
• Maximum width 2.5 in
• Maximum weight 5.75 lbm
• Maximum radial force 1,100 lbf
• Maximum axial force 300 lbf
• Spring constant 300 lbf/in
• Project budget $2,000

Source: Adam Karges, 2012

Wheel Design Methodology
• SolidWorks® Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

• Compare wheel geometries

• Analyze single spokes

• Arc angle, thickness, width

• Analyze entire wheels

• No. of spokes, rim
thickness

6
Figure 2. Wheel being modeled under
radial load in SolidWorks®
Final Wheel Design
• Non-pneumatic composite wheel
• Kevlar® rim and spokes, aluminum hub, rubber tread

• SolidWorks® analysis
• Radius 13.0 in
• Rim width 2.0 in
• Spoke width 1.5 in
• Weight 5.65 lbm
• Axial force 300 lbf
• Radial force 1,100 lbf
• Non-linear spring constant
• 400 lbf/in at 100 lbf
• 190 lbf/in at 500 lbf

7
• Built test spoke and compared
to SolidWorks® model Figure 3. Isometric view of final wheel
design modeled in SolidWorks®
 Prototype Fabrication
• Manufacturing tools
• Spoke mold
• Rim mandrel

Figure 4. Spoke mold Figure 5. Rim mandrel

Hub Fabrication
• Machining tools
• Abrasive water jet
• Lathe
• Mill

Figure 7. Spoke holder after

being machined on
water jet

9
Figure 6. Disk brake attachment on lathe
Hub Assembly

10

Figure 8. Hub assembly in Figure 9. Actual hub assembly

SolidWorks®
Spoke Layup Technique
• Prepare mold with release agent

• 12 layers of Kevlar®
• 13.5 x 30 in strips

• Resin
• Fibre Glast 2000 Epoxy Resin
• 2060 Hardener

• Hand layup

Figure 10. Spoke layup

11
Spoke Cure Process
• Vacuum bag technique
• Peel ply
• Bleeder cloth
• Bag
• Vacuum pump

• Cure pressure of 5-6 psi for 36 hours

• Spokes cut with band saw

12
Figure 11. Vacuum bagging
Rim Layup/Cure Technique
• Kevlar® Plain Weave Tape
• 50 yard roll, 2 in wide

13

Figure 12. Rim on mandrel after layup

Prototype Wheel Assembly
• Spoke spacing template
• Clamps
• Fibre Glast 1101 Epoxy Paste Bonding Adhesive

14

Figure 13. Spokes clamped to rim after bonding

Compliance Testing
• Axial strength test
• Adhesive failure at hub - 95 lbf

• Radial strength test

• Instron™ Compression Machine
• Test 1: Adhesive failure at hub - 330 lbf
• Test 2: Adhesive failure at rim - 460 lbf

• Design changes
• Longer spokes
• Stronger adhesive
15

Figure 14. Radial compression test

Compliance Testing Results
500

450 f(x) = − 189.538154737043 x³ + 408.665486838887 x² + 119.380134639722 x

R² = 0.999527005143304
400

350
Force (lbf)

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Deflection (in) 16
Figure 15. Force-deflection curve of 2nd radial compression test
 Compliance Testing Results
500

450

400

350
Force (lbf)

300

250

SolidWorks data
200 Test data

150

100

50

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Deflection (in) 17

Figure 16. Force-deflection curve of 2nd radial compression test vs SolidWorks® analysis
Final Production Decision
• Design specifications not met
• Axial strength, radial strength

• Decision made to continue to

final production
• Time and money limitations
• Design flaws were corrected

18
Figure 17. Failure in first radial test
Final Wheel Fabrication
• Changes

• Kevlar® Plain Weave Fabric

• 5.0 oz/sq yd
• 12 layers of Kevlar® for back wheels, 14 layers for front

• 0.375 in pre-compression
• Less tension in spokes
• Decrease rolling resistance without changing spring constant

19
Final Wheel Fabrication
• Same technique

• Bicycle tire tread

• Removed side walls
• Flexible adhesive
• Weldwood® Contact Cement
• Ratchet strap

• Weight specification
• Front wheel – 7.90 lbm
• Rear wheel – 7.20 lbm
• 9 lbm suspension system 20

Figure 18. Final wheel

 Moonbuggy Implementation

Figure 19. Wheels installed on moonbuggy 21

Figure 20. Moonbuggy in folded

position
Final Design Changes
• During moonbuggy testing, adhesive failure
occurred
• Axial stress
• Mechanical joining necessary
• Epoxy too brittle
• 3480 psi shear stress
• Aluminum rivets
• 310 lbf shear force

22

Figure 21. Wheel after adhesive failure

 Final Result

Figure 23. Close up view of substrate 23

failure
Figure 22. Substrate failure
Project Cost
• Cost per wheel - $450
Table 1. Final Bill of Materials
Item Description Cost
Kevlar ® Twill Weave Fabric, Cut To Length $615
Kevlar ® Tape, 2" - 50 yd roll $780
System 2000 Epoxy Resin $210
2060 Epoxy Hardener $135
Epoxy Paste Bonding Adhesive $105
Medium Density Fibreboard, 4ft x 8ft x 3/4in $33
Tee Nuts, 3/8 - 16 $8
18 GA Cold Rolled Steel Sheet, 4ft x 4ft $29
Shipping $240
Discounts ($170) 24
Total Cost $1,985
Conclusions and
Recommendations
• Specifications met
• Wheel dimensions, spring constant, project cost
• Specifications not met
• Wheel weight, maximum radial/axial load capacity
• Future recommendations
• Test for actual moonbuggy forces
• Test maximum load capacity of pneumatic wheel
• Design better joints
• Use exact same material for prototype and final wheels

25
Figure 24. Completed moonbuggy and wheels 26
Questions and Comments
• Special thank you to Dr. David Walrath, Mr. Scott Morton, and
Dr. Dennis Coon for all your help and advice this year

• Thank you to Dr. Shawna McBride and the NASA Space Grant
Consortium for providing the funding to make this project
possible

• Finally, thank you to shop technicians Mr. Vince Dauer and Mr.
Mike Schilt for all your guidance during our work in the UW
machine shop

27