IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 1/20 University of Louisville IMPACT Architecture Team Glen Prater, Jr., Associate Professor Ellen G. Brehob, Assistant Professor Michael L. Day, Professor J.B. Speed Scientific School University of Louisville Louisville, KY September 13, 2000 External Architecture Group Activity Report June 27, 2000 – September 12, 2000

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 2/20 Make transition to Phase III work plan. Establish University of Louisville Dearborn office. Complete SimMod training. Assess various cab floor architectures. Develop benchmark SimMod model; SimMod models for high- priority concept assessment. Develop additional detail for integrated cab/box concept. Work Planned, 6/27/00 - 9/12/00

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 3/20 Work Completed, 6/27/00 - 9/12/00 Completed Phase III work plan; currently making preparations to move focus of modeling work to F-350 platform. G. Prater and A. Shahhosseini spent the week of 6/26 ad Beech Daly. Visa problems experienced by new team member have prevented long-term stays. SimMod training is ongoing. Performed static and modal analyses on six cab floor architectures. Used SimMod model to develop F-150 pickup box model, MSC NASTRAN to perform linear analysis. Integrated cab/box concept is not a priority in the Phase III work plan.

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 4/20 Cab Floorpan Studies Formulated six architecture concepts that have the potential to significantly reduce component weight without adversely affecting cab structural characteristics or functionality. Prepared solid models for an existing floorpan/cross member assembly to be used as a benchmark. Prepared corresponding solid models for the architecture concepts. Used the benchmark and concept models for a series of finite element analyses.

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 5/20 Floorpan Finite Element Analyses SDRC I-DEAS used for modeling and analysis. Evaluated relative nominal stress distributions for simulated vehicle loading conditions. Vehicle loads included 450 lb at each front seat support, 400 lb along the transmission tunnel, 100 lb on each rear seat mounting area, 100 lb along the rear shelf, and 100 lb on the front footwell area. Traction loads were used on the sides of the floorpan to simulate the weight of the cab; 150 lb loads were placed on the front and rear, with 250 lb loads used on the driver and passenger sides. Applied bending and torsional loads to permit stiffness calculations. Performed modal analysis under varied loading conditions.

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 6/20 Benchmark Floorpan Design Four transverse cross members. Longitudinal bending stiffness comes primarily from the tunnel. Bottom View

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 7/20 Floorpan Architecture Concepts (1) Two longitudinal members. One transverse split-end cross member. Small transverse member in transmission tunnel. Rear transverse member similar to original. Reduced sheet thickness in cross members. Two longitudinal members. Straight transverse cross member. Small transverse member in transmission tunnel. Rear transverse member similar to original Reduced sheet thickness in cross members. Concept 1Concept 2

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 8/20 Floorpan Architecture Concepts (2) Longitudinal and straight transverse cross members are integrated. Otherwise identical to Concept 2. Longitudinal and split transverse cross members are integrated. Otherwise identical to Concept 1. Concept 3Concept 4

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 9/20 Floorpan - Architecture Concepts (3) Longitudinal transverse cross members near rocker. Longitudinal cross members along tunnel. Rear transverse member similar to original. Reduced sheet thickness in cross members. Two integrated, split transverse cross members. Rear transverse member similar to original. Reduced sheet thickness in cross members. Concept 5Concept 6

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 10/20 Concept 1Concept 2 Concept 3Concept 4 Concept 5Concept 6 Benchmark Architecture Von-Mises Stress Distribution and Deformations

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 11/20 Fundamental Bending Modes Concept 1 (  b1 = 30.2 Hz) Concept 2 (  b1 = 29.8 Hz) Concept 3 (  b1 = 34.3 Hz) Concept 4 (  b1 = 35.3 Hz) Concept 5 (  b1 = 30.9 Hz) Concept 6 (  b1 = 35.1 Hz) Benchmark Architecture (  b1 = 26.9 Hz) Increasing Deformation No Displacement Boundary Conditions at the Rear Shelf Edge and the Front Edge of the Floorpan.

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 12/20 Fundamental Torsion Modes Concept 1 (  t1 = 34.0 Hz) Concept 2 (  b1 = 31.6 Hz) Concept 3 (  b1 = 38.7 Hz) Concept 4 (  b1 = 40.1 Hz) Concept 5 (  b1 = 30.9 Hz) Concept 6 (  b1 = 43.1 Hz) Benchmark Architecture (  t1 = 31.1 Hz) Increasing Deformation No Displacement Boundary Conditions at the Rear Shelf Edge and the Front Edge of the Floorpan.

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 13/20 Comparison of Floorpan Concept FEM Results ParameterBenchmarkConcept 1Concept 2Concept 3Concept 4Concept 5Concept 6 Maximum Deflection, Simulated Loads (in) (-1.3) (4.4) (2.5) (-3.1) (-20.7) (-21.4) Bending Stiffness, Front Loaded (lb/in) (-3.3) 72.1 (-1.9) 73.5 (0.0) 80.0 (8.8) 75.9 (3.2) 92.3 (25.5) Torsional Stiffness, Front Loaded (lb/in) (-8.1) 96.2 (-20.5) (-6.8) (13.8) (-3.1) (100.3) Bending Stiffness, Rear Loaded (lb/in) (22.0) (22.8) (47.6) (53.8) (69.5) (18.0) Torsional Stiffness, Rear Loaded (lb/in) (25.1) (-19.9) (17.2) (52.9) (20.4) (257.8) Fundamental Frequency, Bending (Hz) (12.3) 29.8 (10.8) 34.3 (27.5) 35.3 (31.2) 30.9 (14.9) 35.1 (30.5) Fundamental Frequency, Torsion (Hz) (9.3) 31.6 (1.6) 38.7 (24.4) 40.1 (28.9) 30.9 (-0.6) 43.1 (38.6) Weight (lb) (-20.2) 88 (-19.3) (Percent Change Relative to Benchmark)

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 14/20 Summary of Floorpan Analysis Results Nominal von Mises stresses were decreased by the new designs in many areas, with no major increases. Stress in the front footwell area can be decreased by nearly half due to the support of longitudinal cross members. Concepts 3 and 4, with integrated cross members, performed better than the corresponding architecture with separate members. Concept 6, the architecture with the twin split cross members, exhibits the best overall performance. The torsional rigidity is particularly noteworthy.

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 15/20 Concept Model for F-150 Pickup Bed Based on beam element repre- sentations of the corrugated floor panel, transverse cross members, front and rear corner sections, body-side top section, and front panel top flange. Beam elements were developed with SimMod; shell elements have not yet been added Used MSC NASTRAN to perform static analysis and eigenvalue analysis similar to I-DEAS floorpan analyses. Concept Modeling Algorithm

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 16/20 Beam 3 - Vertical Front Corner Section Beam 4 – Vertical Front Corner Section Pickup Bed Concept Model - Beam Element Geometry Beam 1 – Bed Panel Corrugation Beam 2 - Cross Members Beam 5 – Body Side Top Section Beam 6 – Front Panel Top Flange

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 17/20 Pickup Bed Concept Model - Beam Parameters ParameterBeam 1Beam 2Beam 3Beam 4Beam 5Beam 6 Elastic Modulus (MPa)207 Poisson’s Ratio0.29 Density (kg/mm 3 )7.81E-06 Thickness (mm)1.12 Cross-Sectional Area (mm 2 ) Area Moment of Inertia, I 11 (mm 4 )1.629E E E E E E+04 Area Moment of Inertia, I 22 (mm 4 )2.749E E E E E E+03 Polar Moment of Inertia, J (mm 4 )4.270E E E E E E+01 Length (m)

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 18/20 Pickup Bed Concept Model – Sample Results (1) Static BendingStatic Torsion

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 19/20 Pickup Bed Concept Model – Sample Results (2) First Bending ModeFirst Torsional Mode

IMPACT Phase II – 9/13/00 Activity Report Slide 20/20 Begin generating component concept models for F-350 cab. Convert existing F-150 pickup bed model to F-350. Add shell elements to pickup bed components. Determine free body natural frequencies and modes for benchmark and concept architectures. Recalculate bending and torsional stiffness with constraints applied at front and rear mounting holes. Work Planned for Next Reporting Period