Performance  Brake  Kit:    MAE  489  Final  Presenta:on  

Ian  Kubik  Tyler  Lemonds  Aus:n  Malm  Lucas  Thompson  

2013  July  11  

Contents:    •  Project  Overview:  

o  Problem  Statement  o  Summary  of  Components  

•  This  semester’s  work:  o  Manufacturing  o  Design  changes  o  Re-­‐analyze  ANSYS  results    o  Prototype  Tes:ng  

•  Project  Deliverables:  o  Budgets  o  Valida:on  of  Goal  Parameters  

•  Conclusions:  o  Changes  to  “produc:on”  design  o  Areas  of  success  o  Areas  for  improvement  o  Acknowledgements  

•  Ques:ons  

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  

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.      

Key  design  aspects  

•  Modularity  •  Mul:-­‐func:on  bracket  

•  Stock  hardware  

Summary  of  Components  •  Calipers:  Fully  designed,  tested,  and  built  

•  Three  “half”  pieces  with  leb  and  right  sides.  

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

Summary  of  Components  •  Pistons  and  rotor  hats:  Designed,  tested,  built.  (but  somewhat  simpler  components)  

•     8  pistons  of  4  different  sizes;  2  rotor  hats  

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

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

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

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    

2nd  Semester  Plan  

•  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.      

Manufacturing  •  Required  custom  tooling  to  be  designed  and  ground.  

•  Custom  fixturing  for  each  opera:on  

Manufacturing  •  CNC  mill  programmed  and  operated  by  Ian:  

– Brackets,  calipers,  &  rotor  hats  

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

Manufacturing:  Some  Issues,  None  Major  

•  Material  re-­‐welded  aber  a  tool  was  programmed  incorrectly  

• Everything  took  longer  than  expected  (as  usual).      

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  

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

Design  Changes  •  Materials  

– Bracket  slider  (changed  to  Al-­‐6061)  – Pistons  (different  grade  stainless  steel)  – Bushings  (bronze  features  added)  

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

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

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

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.    

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.  

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  

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.

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  

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.    

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.    

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.    

Budget  Results:  •  Dollars:  $819.46  spent  from  $800  budget    

– Materials:  ~$420  

– Parts:  ~$256  •  Labor  budget:  

– Who  knows…  

“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  

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

“Produc:on”  Design  Changes  

•  Add  a  feature  to  make  floa:ng  assembly  easier  to  bleed  (remove  air  from  the  system).    

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.      

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  

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  

Ques:ons?  

•  Feel  free  to  come  up  and  touch  stuff?