Final presentation/design review of senior design project for Mechanical Engineering undergraduate degree at Arizona State University.

1. Performance
Brake
Kit:
MAE
489
Final
Presenta:on
Ian
Kubik
Tyler
Lemonds
Aus:n
Malm
Lucas
Thompson
2013
July
11

2. Contents:
• Project
Overview:
o Problem
Statement
o Summary
of
Components
• This
semester’s
work:
o
o
o
o
Manufacturing
Design
changes
Re-­‐analyze
ANSYS
results
Prototype
Tes:ng
• Project
Deliverables:
o Budgets
o Valida:on
of
Goal
Parameters
• Conclusions:
o
o
o
o
Changes
to
“produc:on”
design
Areas
of
success
Areas
for
improvement
Acknowledgements
• Ques:ons

3. Problem
Statement
The
OEM
braking
equipment
on
the
Honda
S2000
is
more
than
adequate
for
regular
street
use;
however,
when
subjected
to
the
demands
of
performance
driving
the
system’s
braking
capacity
does
not
suffice.
The
“weekend”
car
enthusiast
that
aspires
to
increase
braking
performance
is
forced
to
upgrade
his
wheels,
brackets,
and
oben
rotor
as
well
in
order
to
sufficiently
increase
the
vehicle’s
braking
performance.
• Our
goals
for
func:onal
valida:on:
–
–
–
–
–
Decrease
system
weight.
Maintain
proper
balance
between
front/rear
brakes.
Increase
performance,
specifically
stopping
distance
and
heat
dissipa:on.
Low
cost
compared
to
other
op:ons
on
the
market.
Fit
original
equipment
manufacturer
components

4. Problem
Solu:on
• Achieved
weight/performance
goals
through
materials,
increased
brake
torque,
FEA
analysis.
• Modular
configura:on
for
best
performance
while
mee:ng
cost
requirements
– Fixed:
performance
– Floa:ng:
cost/
OEM
fitment
• Novel
method
of
“upgrading”
that
saves
money
and
material.

5. Key
design
aspects
• Modularity
• Mul:-­‐func:on
bracket
• Stock
hardware

6. Summary
of
Components
• Calipers:
Fully
designed,
tested,
and
built
• Three
“half”
pieces
with
leb
and
right
sides.

7. Summary
of
Components
• Brackets:
Designed,
tested,
and
built.

8. Summary
of
Components
• Pistons
and
rotor
hats:
Designed,
tested,
built.
(but
somewhat
simpler
components)
•
8
pistons
of
4
different
sizes;
2
rotor
hats

9. Summary
of
Components
• Bolts
and
studs:
tested
to
ensure
strength,
and
purchased.

10. Summary
of
Components
• Dowel
pins,
screws,
nuts,
seals,
valves,
brake
pads:
purchased.
(Brake
pad
p.f.c
data
used
in
other
tests)

11. Summary
of
Components
• Rotor:
somewhat
tested,
bought.
• Unable
to
build
due
to
manufacturing
process
(cas:ng).

12. Summary
of
Components
• Small
parts
we
built
but
didn’t
really
“design”/
test:
the
covers
for
the
brake
pad
reten:on
screws
&
spacers
for
the
bracket

13. nd
Semester
Plan
2
• Knew
our
project
would
be
MFG-­‐heavy,
so
we
planned
to
start
immediately.
• Design
changes
made
throughout
the
MFG
process,
for
reasons
of
MFG-­‐ability,
size
constraints,
general
performance.
• Prototype
tes:ng
towards
the
end
of
the
semester
(but
as
soon
as
we
could):
needed
to
test
stock,
fixed,
and
floa:ng
configura:ons.
• Perform
new
solid
model
tests,
to
verify
safety
of
all
design
changes.
• Renewed
focus
on
keeping
up-­‐to-­‐date
on
paperwork.

14. Manufacturing
• Required
custom
tooling
to
be
designed
and
ground.
• Custom
fixturing
for
each
opera:on

15. Manufacturing
• CNC
mill
programmed
and
operated
by
Ian:
– Brackets,
calipers,
&
rotor
hats

16. Manufacturing
• Other
simple
opera:ons
performed
on
lathe
(manual
and
CNC)
and
manual
mill:
– chamfers
on
rotor
hats
and
brackets
– pins,
spacers

17. Manufacturing:
Some
Issues,
None
Major
• Material
re-­‐welded
aber
a
tool
was
programmed
incorrectly
• Everything
took
longer
than
expected
(as
usual).

18. Manufacturing:
Some
Issues,
None
Major
• One
pin
hole
messed
up,
but
was
repaired
• Design
changes
made
to
simplify
the
manufacturing
process.
• Thru
body
fluid
ports

19. Design
Changes
• Many
updates
since
last
semester,
mostly
small.

20. Design
Changes
• Materials
– Bracket
slider
(changed
to
Al-­‐6061)
– Pistons
(different
grade
stainless
steel)
– Bushings
(bronze
features
added)

21. Design
Changes
• Many
updates
to
the
fluid
lines
&
valves:

22. Design
Changes
• Other
small
updates
to
calipers,
brackets,
pistons.

23. Design
Changes
• Biggest
change
was
due
to
a
measuring
error
that
required
the
rotor
hat
to
be
rebuilt

24. Structural
FEA
Re-­‐test
• Wanted
to
re-­‐test
our
FEA
results
from
the
previous
semester,
aber
incorpora:ng
all
design
changes.
• Would
refine
tests
based
on
what
we
learned
last
semester.
• Planned
but
not
completed
due
to
:me.

25. Rotor
Design
• Last
semester,
began
rotor
design
with
ANSYS
CFX.
• Planned
to
refine
and
connect
numerical
results
to
field
tests
via
recorded
temperatures,
and
to
lab
tests
(mass
flow).
• Create
improved
model
through
parametric
design
with
numerical
and
field
tests
as
valida:on.
• Uncompleted
due
to
focus
on
manufacturing.

26. Prototype
Tes:ng:
Approach
• Standardize
as
much
as
possible
• Determine
60-­‐0
braking
distance
while
monitoring
cri:cal
parameters
– Temperature
• Rotor,
caliper,
:re,
road
surface
– Tire
pressure
• Same
stretch
of
road
• Maintain
fuel
level

27. Prototype
Tes:ng:
Results
• 32
total
runs
among
the
3
setups.
• ANOVA
test
for
3-­‐way
inter-­‐comparison.
• P=0.0081 means
a sta:s:cally
significant result.

28. Prototype
Tes:ng:
Difficul:es
• ABS
ac:va:ng
– Stock
rear
system
and
pads
– Less
than
ideal
:res
and
sizing
• Rotor/Pads
fully
bedded
for
ini:al
tests
• No
way
to
perfectly
standardize
procedure
(stopping
loca:on
and
speed
both
done
by
eye)
• Nature
of
project
is
difficult
to
get
many
data
points
• Standardize
bleeding
procedure

29. Prototype
Tes:ng:
Summary
• Some
results
(floa:ng)
show
our
system
is
significantly
beoer.
• Biggest
difficulty
with
ABS
ac:va:ng
• Original
goal
was
to
“maintain
balance”
• Performance
pads
necessary
for
rear
brakes
• Would
always
be
beoer
if
we
could’ve
done
more.

30. Design
Valida:on:
• Performance
– Clear
success
for
floa:ng,
fixed
needs
more
tes:ng
• Weight
– Lighter
than
stock:
check
• Cost
– Modularity
means
significant
savings
– Cost
details
on
next
page
• Balance
– Somewhat
of
a
failure
here
• Fit
OEM
components
– Drove
the
design
at
many
points.
A
success
overall.

31. Design
Valida:on:
Cost
• How
much
would
the
kit
cost
if
we
sold
it?
– $75.00
pads
– ~$200.00
for
caliper
raw
materials
– ~$100.00
for
bracket/rotor
hat
materials
– ~$45.00
for
pistons
– ~25hrs
machine
:me
(prototyping—produc:on
would
be
much
less)
• Cost
always
depends
on
produc:on
volume.
• ASU
machine
shop
tooling
not
perfect.

32. Budget
Results:
• Dollars:
$819.46
spent
from
$800
budget
– Materials:
~$420
– Parts:
~$256
• Labor
budget:
– Who
knows…

33. “Produc:on”
Design
Changes:
• Larger
rotor
– Backing
plate
clearance
– Increased
stud
engagement
– Improved
thermal
– Aesthe:cs
• Use
a
common
bolt
size
• Longer
studs
• Clearance
for
installa:on
– socket

34. “Produc:on”
Design
Changes:
• Con:nued
minor
changes
to
mul:ple
features

35. “Produc:on”
Design
Changes
• Add
a
feature
to
make
floa:ng
assembly
easier
to
bleed
(remove
air
from
the
system).

36. Conclusion:
Areas
of
Success
• Overall
everything
turned
out
preoy
well
in
terms
of:
– Budget
– Brakes
func:on
correctly
– Original
design
goals
rela:vely
well
validated
– Made
updates
for
future
designs.

37. Conclusion:
Areas
for
Improvement
• Insufficient
:me/
funds
to
test
system
with
fully
worn
brake
pads
• Further
tests
against
other
brake
kits
(both
computa:onal
and
field
tes:ng)
• Had
to
build
more
parts
than
we
planned
in
the
beginning
• Always
luck
involved
in
a
class
like
this,
and
ours
was
mostly
good

38. Conclusions:
Acknowledgements
• Thank
you
to
Baer
Inc
for
the
design
feedback
and
access
to
parts.
• Thank
you
to
Dr.
Middleton
&
Dr.
Squires
for
many
helpful
discussions.
• And
thanks
to
everyone
who’s
helped
us
through
these
past
few
years

39. Ques:ons?
• Feel
free
to
come
up
and
touch
stuff?