1 / 17

BENCHMARKING

This document details the benchmarking process conducted for the development of an innovative suspension and steering system, as part of the CBU Alpha 6 project. It includes an agenda that outlines schedules, budgets, and essential components such as frames, drive trains, and brakes. Key parameters like material selection, product costs, and manufacturing drawings are addressed over a four-week timeline. The report also highlights the pros and cons of various designs, including folding and telescoping frames, roller clutches, disc brakes, and Ackermann steering, along with recommendations for achieving optimal performance.

sachi
Télécharger la présentation

BENCHMARKING

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. BENCHMARKING Dave Meier Emina Maric Jonathan Hilton

  2. http://stu.cbu.edu/Clubs/mbsquad/MB2005/MB2005.htm Agenda CBU Alpha 6 • Schedule • Budget • Benchmarking • Frame • Differential • Brakes • Steering • Suspension • CFP • Conclusion

  3. Schedule Update • October • Week 1 • Solid Modeling • Material Selection • Week 2 • Product Costs • Solid Modeling • Week 3 • Manufacturing Drawings • Week 4 • Order Parts • Order Materials

  4. Budget • Estimated expenses: Material $4,000 Travel $4,000 • Funding received: Student Fees $600 Cambric Corp $750 ATK $2300 • Need to raise: $4350

  5. d485514 4674762 5263732 5326121 5544906 4778192 www.uspto.gov Benchmarking - Frame Patents

  6. Checking Size Requirement http://www.pittstate.edu/etech/TM-FinalPresentationMay2006.pdf Benchmarking - Frame Primary Constraints • Carry 2 people • Fit in 4 foot cube • Folding frame or • Telescoping Frame

  7. Folding Frame Hinge http://stu.cbu.edu/Clubs/mbsquad/MB2005/MB2005.htm Benchmarking - Frame CBU Alpha 6 • Pros: • Symmetry • Setup time • Cons: • Max bending stress at hinge

  8. http://www.engr.iupui.edu/me/courses/moonbuggypres2.ppt Benchmarking - Frame Purdue 2000 MoonBuggy • Pros: • No hinge • Cons: • Shorter • Setup time Telescoping Frame

  9. Critical Component BenchmarkingDrive Train: Roller Clutch • Pros: • - Free rolling one way, drives opposite way • - Drive either shaft or housing • - 2 can serve function of differential • - Small and lightweight • - Mounted on either side • Cons: • - Expensive • - Not a standard part Roller Clutch https://sdp-si.com

  10. Critical Component BenchmarkingDrive Train: Disc Brakes • Pros: • - More efficient than rim brakes • - No calipers over tire • - No wear on rims • Cons: • - Expensive • - Heavy • - Put stress on spokes Disc Brake www.wikipedia.org

  11. Critical Component BenchmarkingAckermannSteering Steering Setup • Pros: • Smaller turning radius • Adjustable toe • Cons: • Heavier compared to cables • Steering can bind up Knuckle A-arm Tie-Rod-End Adjustable Sleeve Steering Arm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Suspension.jpg

  12. Critical Component BenchmarkingDouble A-ArmSuspension ATV Suspension Setup • Pros: • Independent wheel movement • Better stability • Cons: • Hard to manufacture • Complicated to design Shock Steering Arm Knuckle A-arm Honda of Salt Lake

  13. Critical Function Prototype (CFP) Suspension and Steering From ATV Steering Arm Shock Knuckle Frame A-arms Drive Line http://www.lsracing.com/

  14. Why Steering and Suspension? • Motivation: • Complex aspect of design • Model computer and analytical parameters • Goals: • Construct front suspension and steering • Analyze critical parameters: • Bump Steer • Camber Angles • Travel • Ackermann Steering

  15. What We Hope to Learn • What works and what doesn't • Changes to critical parameters • Suspension travel • Turning radius: Ackermann Steering • Better assembly, design and build techniques • Steering wheel location

  16. Conclusion • Schedule • Budget • Benchmarking • Frame • Differential • Brakes • Steering • Suspension • CFP

  17. Group Members: Quentin Benson qbenson@gmail.com Elizabeth Nies e.nies@utah.edu Jonathan Hilton jonathan.jonathanhilton@gmail.com Mark Kocik lmark84l@gmail.com Emina Maric me.mina@gmail.com Dave Meier evadreiem@aol.com

More Related