My take on engine torque braces
#27
Lives on the Forum
twokrx7, I am in agreement with everything you said. But in using the same location as the engine hanger your still applying the load through that area of the casting on the UIM. In looking at that I still think that area is not properly reinforced for long term reliability; especially considering that it is cast aluminum.
I don't have my UIM off in front of me right now, but what I remember is just a raised pad with two (smallish) bolts for the engine hanger.
I don't have my UIM off in front of me right now, but what I remember is just a raised pad with two (smallish) bolts for the engine hanger.
#28
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Livonia, MI
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This disscussion also got me interested. I agree with 2krx7 but came up with some different numbers. I used transmission output torque at an arbitrary max vehicle acceleration of 1.5 G (too high, I'm being conservative).
This accel is possible for an instant if you consider the inertial energy of the engine (and was easier than acctually figuring out this energy If you also assume that for this same first instant the motor/trans mounts are not doing anything but flexing the brace could carry this entire load (again, conservatively, for an instant).
with these conservativly high numbers you could see 950lb in the brace. This gives a max stress in the manifold tubes of 3000psi and a max stress in the mounting flange of 11,500psi. The aluminum used for this type of casting will has a fatuige limit of about 17,000psi so you will not break the manifold. With that stress the deflection at the gasket surface is around 0.0005 inches, the gasket can handle this just fine.
So, it seems to me that the engine will be fine but I am going to do a bit more work to figure out how the fender will handle the stress and how large a rod is really needed to be effective. I want to come up with a better estimate of the forces involved, my 950 lb figure is way to high but it demonstrates that the engine is not a concern.
Not sure how to go about the vibration problem, I will check with some knowlegable friends on that one.
I should really do some work pretty soon.
Alex
This accel is possible for an instant if you consider the inertial energy of the engine (and was easier than acctually figuring out this energy If you also assume that for this same first instant the motor/trans mounts are not doing anything but flexing the brace could carry this entire load (again, conservatively, for an instant).
with these conservativly high numbers you could see 950lb in the brace. This gives a max stress in the manifold tubes of 3000psi and a max stress in the mounting flange of 11,500psi. The aluminum used for this type of casting will has a fatuige limit of about 17,000psi so you will not break the manifold. With that stress the deflection at the gasket surface is around 0.0005 inches, the gasket can handle this just fine.
So, it seems to me that the engine will be fine but I am going to do a bit more work to figure out how the fender will handle the stress and how large a rod is really needed to be effective. I want to come up with a better estimate of the forces involved, my 950 lb figure is way to high but it demonstrates that the engine is not a concern.
Not sure how to go about the vibration problem, I will check with some knowlegable friends on that one.
I should really do some work pretty soon.
Alex
#32
Chimera Driver
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ajmacdon, since you seem to have a good handle on all of this, do you believe that using one of the dampened braces would relieve enough stress to cause no concerns?
#33
Lives on the Forum
Originally posted by ajmacdon
This gives a max stress in the manifold tubes of 3000psi and a max stress in the mounting flange of 11,500psi. The aluminum used for this type of casting will has a fatuige limit of about 17,000psi so you will not break the manifold
This gives a max stress in the manifold tubes of 3000psi and a max stress in the mounting flange of 11,500psi. The aluminum used for this type of casting will has a fatuige limit of about 17,000psi so you will not break the manifold
#34
Chimera Driver
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DamonB
Alex, congrats on all that fine work! What is the fatique limit of the bolts and their mounting holes at the engine hanger?
Alex, congrats on all that fine work! What is the fatique limit of the bolts and their mounting holes at the engine hanger?
#35
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Livonia, MI
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ajmacdon, since you seem to have a good handle on all of this, do you believe that using one of the dampened braces would relieve enough stress to cause no concerns?
A damped brace would certainly help with the vibration problem but I'm not even sure there is a vibration porblem yet. The damping would have to be tuned to this specific task before you could figure out loads which is probably easier in testing than analytically.
I am hoping to to figure out a safe place to put a solid link because it is a LOT simpler to figure out and the motor mounts *should* still be able to take care of any damping needs.
However, as is often the case with engineering problems it might be faster to JFB a damped brace and be done
Alex
#36
Lives on the Forum
Originally posted by Lost Time
It's in his last post, 17,000 psi.
It's in his last post, 17,000 psi.
#37
Chimera Driver
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that's the case, that's exactly where you would want it. Before you lose the UIM or LIM you would want the bracket to give way. Think of it as insurance. I take it by your question, that you are attempting to make the thing bulletproof. But I'm sure you know, nothing is ever bulletproof and if enough force is applied something has to give. I'd much rather it be the bracket than something a little more expensive.
#38
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Wausau WI
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, no, you can't make it invincible, but I'd rather not be concerned about it at all. Granted that the hangar would be the ideal place to break if it had to, but I'd rather not use that as a mounting point even if I was going to go the conventional way. I made a good aluminum bracket that bolts up in the same location that held the engine rock solid, but there really is a massive amount of pressure there. It just seems like a lot of constant stress placed on parts that were never designed to take it.
Nobody has really given any opinions on what they thought about my idea that I described in my original post. I'd be really interested in hearing what people have to say about that.
Nobody has really given any opinions on what they thought about my idea that I described in my original post. I'd be really interested in hearing what people have to say about that.
#39
Chimera Driver
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, sorry. We have kind of hijacked your thread. It sounds to me what you're proposing is very similar to PFS chaining their mounts. You might try contacting them to see what kind of wear they're seeing on their 3rotor.
#40
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Livonia, MI
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The weak link in this figure isn't the UIM itself so to speak, it's the point of attachment between the brace and the UIM.
No finite is needed with this problem. All of my assumptions to simplify it to a paper and pencil problem erred on the side of safety(they were the worst case loading scenario and the smallest dimesions on the parts) and it still shows it will not fail so in reality the stresses will be lower.
I think your idea about solidifying the existing mounts is great. This is the only way to be sure that everything is loaded as intended. However, I question if it will be enough to restrict the movement significantly. It seems as if the moment arm between the trans output and the motor mounts is significantly less than between the trans and the UIM although I haven't measured. It is definitely worth a try.
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Irvine, California
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My take on the subject is to use the mounting points on the intake and the fender-well but use a bushing in-between. make it about a 1/4 inch in thickness on each the power and engine braking loads. The vibration will be a non issue then. By using a 1/4'' bushing it will let the engine move just a tick but not rigid enough to damage the moorings.
#46
don't race, don't need to
Did anyone ever figure out the shock tower brace to alt bracket? Seems the best disctibution of load, which would mitigate the fender wall tear out some have seen, miticate the lateral stresses on the UIM/LIM superstructure that Damien was worried about, and of course give the benefits of the tower strut bar. Me wants...
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Irvine, California
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have a strut between the shock towers but I think it would be a good place to mount any type of support, providing its a good strong rigid unit. It seems to me starting near the driver side of the strut and moving toward the center of the area would be a natural place to start. I think the strut would bend easier if the placement wasn't thought out. I really should get one and check it out.
#48
fart on a friends head!!!
Look at the pics of the cars posted in the SEform under Seve Kan tuneing in Knoxville .On page 3 or 4 .There are some pics of a proven torque brase !!!
#50
don't race, don't need to