+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Damper Extension Design

  1. #1

    Damper Extension Design

    Hello,
    I was thinking of the design of an Extension for our direct acting damper. I preferred to go through the problem before checking the other designs.
    We have a strong limitation in the machining operations specially Milling.
    Post is edited as the Image confuses.
    The design is to use a rod with one end with spherical joint to the control arm and the other end with revoulte joint to the damper rod.
    The damper body will be revoulte joint to the chassis
    the 2 revoultes joints axis are perpendicular

    (Mobility analysis)

    correct me if i'am wrong.

    - Number of bodies to consider : 4 (Damper body, Damper Rod, Extension, Ground)
    - Number of Spherical Joints : 1 Extension mounting with the control arm
    - Number of Revolute joints : 2 Extension to Damper Rod and Damper Body to Chassis Mount.
    - Number of Cylindrical Joints :1 Damper Body to Damper Rod.

    DOF= 3X6-3-2X5-4=1
    Last edited by Ahmad Rezq; 02-02-2016 at 01:46 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    PERTH, Western Australia
    Posts
    208
    You should be aiming for 0 DoF
    That 1 DoF will allow the assembly to buckle.

    Isn't the end of that damper rod threaded anyway? Why not just make an extension that screws on or a longer piston rod (check bucking).
    ex-UWA Motorsport

    General team member 2013-15, Vehicle Dynamics Team Lead 2012
    Project Manager 2011, Powertrain minion 2009/10

  3. #3
    NickFavazzo,

    I think that the 1 DOF is The rotation of the Extension+The Damper Rod along the damper axis because of both the cylindrical and the spherical joints.
    If I for example replace the spherical joint with another revoulte joint i will prevent 2 DOF so the Mobility of the assembly will be -1 (Over-constrained).

    Edit
    I was also thinking if I considered only 2 bodies and the ground (Link 1 , Link 2 , Ground)
    Revoulte (Link 1 to Link 2 )
    Spherical (Link 1 to the ground)
    Revoulte (Link 2 to the gorund)
    Mobility = 12-3-2X5=-1 (Over constrained).
    By adding another body with 6 DOF and Cylindrical joint which cancels 4 DOF then the assembly will have 1 DOF which as i was thinking above.
    And the extension and the damper (as one unit) will not have a relative DOF. (Not considering the tolerance of the assembly which will change the picture).
    Last edited by Ahmad Rezq; 02-02-2016 at 07:01 AM.

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Kanpur, India
    Posts
    18
    Keeping the DOFs aside, don't you think you need a rigid joint where the extensions connects to the damper? As Nick said, why don't just unscrew the damper end and thread in your extension? All you want is to increase the end to end length of the damper, if I understood it correct. This setup wouldn't work, one can tell just by looking at the image!
    IITK Motorsports Alum
    Electronics, FS India 2016
    Baja Student India 2016
    Drivetrain and Tech Lead, Baja Student India 2015

  5. #5
    As Nick said, why don't just unscrew the damper end and thread in your extension
    Yes it's simpler solution.

    All you want is to increase the end to end length of the damper, if I understood it correct. This setup wouldn't work, one can tell just by looking at the image!
    I've some doubts too so that's why I'am asking, If it didn't work then my calculations are missing. and when talking about a rigid joint between the extension and the damper you didn't keep the DOFs aside !
    Last edited by Ahmad Rezq; 02-02-2016 at 09:36 AM.

  6. #6
    I really hope Ritwik chimes in soon ( with pictures ) ! Their extended DASD setup looked super clean at comp, couldn't get a closer look though.

    I think its just a matter of getting the extended tube as co linear to the piston rod as possible.
    That way you will minimise the buckling loads induced near the extension connection.

    http://www.fsae.com/forums/showthrea...g-Damper/page7
    Just in case you missed it

  7. #7
    I hope that the image doesn't confuse you as the 2 Rev. Axis are perpendicular.
    Anyway Using an extension screwed to the damper rod is very good idea.

    P^squared.
    I've checked the link. and totally agree that any source of compliance will cause a problem.
    Last edited by Ahmad Rezq; 02-02-2016 at 02:09 PM.

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Kanpur, India
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahmad Rezq View Post
    I've some doubts too so that's why I'am asking, If it didn't work then my calculations are missing. and when talking about a rigid joint between the extension and the damper you didn't keep the DOFs aside !
    With keeping the DOFs aside, I meant to say that do you really need to do calculations for stuff like this? It's super intuitive, you can tell by looking. I would hope you keep things simple and square, instead of complicating things, and do some calcs for buckling!
    IITK Motorsports Alum
    Electronics, FS India 2016
    Baja Student India 2016
    Drivetrain and Tech Lead, Baja Student India 2015

  9. #9
    I found this Today at Auckland Page.
    I was looking for another real pictures from the car but didn't find. I guess it's not complete
    https://www.facebook.com/UoAfsae/pho...type=3&theater
    Last edited by Ahmad Rezq; 02-02-2016 at 02:49 PM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,690
    Ahmad,

    Your Kinematic mobility analysis (in your first post) is CORRECT.

    But (!), from a Structural point of view I think that design would be BAD. There is no image of the design visible now (you must have deleted it...), but my guess is that it would only work well if the two revolute joints were kinematically very precise, which is to say they would have to be quite long in their axial directions.

    A much better solution in practice (IMO) is simply to make a longer version of the standard damper "Eyelet" (ie. the part that screws onto the damper-shaft). From memory, that is what Auckland did for their 2015 car. Their damper extension was a machined aluminium part very similar to the standard eyelet, just longer. For the record, this arrangement has (Edit: Oops... corrected->) DoF = +3, these being axial-sliding of rod in damper body, and rotation of rod (about its axis), AND rotation of damper-body (about its axis), with these rotations being allowed by the lower and upper sphericals. (Hooke's type joints replacing the sphericals would bring DoF back to +1. But this is NOT necessary, because the extra DoFs do no harm.)

    Or you might choose any of the other methods mentioned on the DASD thread linked to above.

    Z
    Last edited by Z; 02-02-2016 at 07:34 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts