MEGR 2156 Portfolio

Assignments

Problem Statement:

Design an automobile wheel for use in "high performance" applications.

This wheel should possess the following qualities:

-ideal strength-to-weight ratio,

-optimal power-to-weight ratio/torque efficiency.

-symmetric weight distribution.

-aerodynamic geometry.

-ideal thermal conductivity (e.g. natural brake cooling capability).

The design must be easily manufacturable, such that it may be produced on a massive scale.

The wheel will be engineered with some basic assumptions (i.e. standard operating temperature [about 0 deg C to 32 deg C], typical values for torque, friction between the ground and the tire, typical mass of a car, etc. will be used in the design calculations).

Semester Project Gantt Chart:

Decision Matrix:

In this figure, a rating of 1 (poor) is the worst possible rating, and a rating of 5 (optimal) is the highest achievable rating.

In the table above, there are five evaluation criteria with varying weights. Some criteria are weighted considerably higher than others. This is intuitive given the relative impact each design consideration will have on the completed design. Cost is weighted most generously and for good reason. Without a budget, this project is not feasible on any scale. This of course implies that the rest of the design/evaluation criteria hinge on the former. Aerodynamics and torque efficiency are next in terms of relative importance. They are essential in terms of the design intent of this project with the primary goal being to create a wheel that is optimized for efficiency. Weight distribution and manufacturability are weighted the lowest for two reasons. The weight distribution of this module is important; however, it is not critical to the overall design given that the spokes will be equally spaced about the center of the wheel. Thus, any minor weight imbalances will be cancelled out. In addition, the ease of manufacture plays a small role as far as performance is concerned. With the evaluation criteria and their respective weights in mind, module 3 scored the highest. Therefore, it is the ideal choice for integration in the overall design.

Component 1.

Component 2.

Component 3.

Lessons learned:

I learned how to create parts that will ultimately be assembled together. In addition, I learned how to use solid mechanics to judge whether a material is suitable for a specific application.

Comments:

-Website has simple "clean" design. It's hard to find the CAD models.

-The lessons learned section was a bit vague. Try using a little more detail.

-Website design and CAD models are superb. Your design intent was captured very well, except the bolt didn't have any threads (at least in my view). I would recommend adding threads before final assembly.

-Again, FRDPARRC tables should ideally be displayed right underneath the figures instead of being links.

-The pugh decision matrix is detailed; however, the explanation underneath is relatively short. A paragraph would be nice.