1. General Motors Tutor Presentation : Peter Foss Project Supervisor : Professor Ahmad Barari Faculty of Engineering & Applied Science University of Ontario Institute of Technology Ahmad.barari@uoit.ca

2. Team members: Gregory Eberle, B.Eng (Team Leader) Gregorye1@msn.com Stephan Cregg, B.Eng Guarav Sharma, B.Eng

3. Material choice – Composites Fibre Characteristics Fibre Selection: E-glass Fibre Orientation : Random Fibre volume ratio:  25% outer door panel (Grade A SMC)  40% inner door panel (Structural SMC) Critical fibre length: 0.8625 mm Chosen fibre length: 25 mm (over 30 times l c ) Fibre diameter = 15 microns (between 20-150 times smaller than l c )

4. Sheet Moulding Compounds Composition Grade A SMC formulation Resin Filler Additives – Initiators, Inhibitors, Thickeners Fiber Processes Compounding Moulding

5. Door Auto Body CAD Design Front Door Butterfly Hinges Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) Hinges Impact Beam 15° from the horizontal

6. Finite Element Models Frame Rigidity Test Vertical Displacement Test Geometry #1 Geometry #2 CAD model use for FEA Used portion of door to eliminate computational shortfalls 2 ribbing geometries test based on various quantities

7. Finite Element Analysis Results Steel = 3.26 kg Optimized SMC Geometry = 1.34 kg 40% reduction in weight! Steel = 7.31 mm Optimized SMC Geometry = 19.19 mm Steel = 35.29 mm Optimized SMC Geometry = 21.17 mm Conclusion: SMC is extremely competitive with steel. The # of ribs chosen, 35 ensures a FoS of > 2.5 Cost to Manufacture 38 ribs = $1235 CDN Vertical displacement test Frame Rigidity Test

8. Rigid Body Transformation Determine overall door movement based on Hinge deformation Euler Parameters including Alpha, Beta and Gamma angles FEA Analysis Right Angle Triangle Points of Pressure

9. Rigid Body Transformation Co-ordinates from CAD file

10. Matrix Manipulation Portion of Matlab Code Results n= 3 %^number of Original points OP(:,1)=[-Portion of MatLAB Code OP(:,2)=[-3 15.5 32.5]; OP(:,3)=[-3 23 32.5]; DV(:,1)=[0.022071 -0.026075 0.006052]; DV(:,2)=[0.017249 -0.025916 0.005559]; DV(:,3)=[0.012483 -0.025689 0.005207]; Rigid Body Transformation (Results) A = -0.0478 0.3218 -0.0150 0 0.8277 0.5306 0.0225 0 0.8277 -0.6161 0.0320 0 -0.0479 -0.4429 0.0288 0 0 0 0 1.0000 B = -0.0478 0.3218 -0.0151 -0.0092 0.8278 0.5305 0.0216 0.0006 0.8276 -0.6163 0.0319 0.0304 -0.0480 -0.4429 0.0291 0.0108 0 0 0 1.0000

11. Impact Beam Design Designs Analyzed:

12. Impact Beam Testing FEA Testing Procedures:  Optimization of wall thickness (≈3.175mm)  (σ y x FoS) vs. Mass (@ 1.3kg; 1.6kg; 1.9kg; 2.2kg; 2.5kg)  MOI vs. Mass (@ 1.3kg; 1.6kg; 1.9kg; 2.2kg; 2.5kg)  Constraints and Assumptions: FoS ≥ 3.0 (Reported Industry Standard)  σ y / FoS >σ von Maximum allowable displacement:  Based upon 95 th percentile of adult population’s sitting hip breadth  δ max =14.35 cm Impact beam length = 600 mm

13. Testing Results Optimization of wall thickness: (σ y x FoS) vs. Mass: Impact Beam DesignDisplacement (Magnitude; mm) Stress (Von Mises; kPa) Factor of Safety (FoS) Square1.823e+0003.819e+0053.1 Square with Rounded Edge2.214e+0004.702e+0052.5 Square with Angled Edge2.208e+0004.655e+0052.5 I-Beam1.685e+0003.629e+0053.2 Tubular2.332e+0004.564e+0052.6 Statistical Error[(1.0 – R 2 )/R 2 ]*100% Square0.79% Square Round11.2% I-Beam2.0% Tubular0.64%

14. Testing Results (cont.) MOI vs. Mass: Impact Beam Selection:  Square and I-Beam (extremely close)  Final selection criteria is to be based upon manufacturability and associated costs Statistical Error[(1.0 – R 2 )/R 2 ]*100% Square1.4% Square Round0.21% I-Beam1.8% Tubular24.1%

15. Test & Prototyping Ideas for test plan  i.e. Prove viability of ribs Load String structure with ribs Ends are fixed

16. Load String structure with ribs http://www.uoit.ca/EN/featurestories/connect/2009/366254/20090429.htm l News!