Indice
Initial model
monocoque_chassis_2019_v000.mud
Step by step evolution: v001 v002 v003 v004 v005
v005b, with the added sway bar linkage.
Inertia relief model, without added masses v007, and with the added masses v008 v009.
Front impact, with or without ground support v010 v011 v012.
Dynamic modal loadcase v013 v014 v015 v016
Properties
Suspension link trusses
Solid circular beam sections, ø12mm, aluminum. Essentially rigid with respect to other chassis structures.
Rear framework
Hollow circular section beam, aluminum.
Main structure: outer diameter ø40mm, wall thickness 1.8mm.
Stiffeners: outer diameter ø30mm, wall thickness 1.2mm.
Composite monocoque
Thicker backbone: 1.8mm aluminum sheet, 25.4mm aluminum honeycomb 3003, density 5.2 lb/ft^3 (hex-3003-td.pdf), 1.8mm aluminum sheet.
Thinner panels: 1.8mm aluminum sheet, 6.75mm same aluminum honeycomb, 1.8mm aluminum sheet.
Frontal shock absorber support plate: provisionally as thinner panels, to be defined based on shock.
Sway (anti-roll) bar
outer diameter ø25mm, wall thickness 2mm, extremely stiff (Super-alloy Z, E=E_steel*1e4
, nu=0.3
); it may be mechanically isolated at need by deactivating one of the connecting elements to the wheel hub carriers.
Such a “deformable but extremely stiff” linkage modeling should be discouraged in favor of an actual kinematic constraining – i.e. an MPC, since excessive stiffness badly impacts the system matrix condition number (or the integration time step, in the case of explicit dynamic simulations); nonetheless, it allowed for a very straightforward implementation.
Inertial elements
monocoque_chassis_2019_inertial_elements_alone.mud
inertially_equivalent_cuboid_engine.ods
inertially_equivalent_cuboid_wheel_assemblies.ods
Notes:
The pedagogical model proposed does not include sway/antiroll bars, that are instead a critical element for torsional stiffness loadcases.
In particular, torsional stiffness should be evaluated in both the limiting cases of
- rigid springs, disconnected sway bars;
- disconnected springs, rigid sway bar.
This second loadcase, which is usually neglected, is however relevant for sizing the sway bar support areas on the chassis structure.
On the relevance of constraining in dynamic analyses. back view side view relevance of (improper) constraints on the dynamic behaviour of a structure. Design is reliable in actual operational conditions (link). Added constraints stiffen up the structure, thus increasing natural frequencies. However, a 0 Hz rigid body mode natural frequency may rise to a finite value due to added positioning constraints; the associate natural mode may be excited in resonance by dynamic loads.
How to set a damped response
hellow
Poor man dynamic response animated view
MSC.Mentat procedure for creating poor man harmonic response animations
MSC.Mentat procedure for creating poor man natural mode animations
Structural damping references
structural_damping_values_jdstevenson.pdf
damping_cross-reference_and_material_properties.pdf
f_orban_damping_of_materials_and_members_in_structures.pdf
tom_irvine_damping_in_bolted_and_welded_joints.pdf
estratto vol. 2, sezione 8 di Soovere, J., and M. L. Drake. Aerospace Structures Technology Damping Design Guide.LOCKHEED-CALIFORNIA CO BURBANK, 1985.
Loadcases
- Static test: torsional stiffness;
- preliminary suspension stroke motion test (original Optistruct tutorial version );
- rigid spring or rigid anti-roll bar?
- Front, right wheel bump loadcase (inertia relief);
- Frontal crash absorber collapse loadcase (inertia relief); at the element faces belonging to the
crash_absorber_bearing_area
set (an approx. 155×320 mm area at the front bulkhead), a 25 psi = 0,172 MPa distributed pressure is applied which is due to the honeycomb absorber crushing (see datasheet). - Dynamic modal response;
- Dynamic harmonic response: vertical harmonic load at the front, right wheel, 1-100 Hz range, sampled at 0.25Hz resolution ((100-1)*4+1 = 397 steps);