Design and Analysis of Swingarm for Performance Electric Motorcycle
Swathikrishnan S1, Pranav Singanapalli2, A S Prakash3
1Swathikrishnan S, PG Scholar, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amrita School of Engineering, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, India.
2Pranav Singanapalli, CEO, eMotion Motors. 2/248, Cheran Residency, Prakasam Nagar, Othakalmandapam, Tamil Nadu 641032.
3A S Prakash, Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amrita School of Engineering, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, India.
Manuscript received on 02 June 2019 | Revised Manuscript received on 10 June 2019 | Manuscript published on 30 June 2019 | PP: 3032-3039 | Volume-8 Issue-8, June 2019 | Retrieval Number: H7048068819/19©BEIESP
Open Access | Ethics and Policies | Cite | Mendeley | Indexing and Abstracting
© The Authors. Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and Sciences Publication (BEIESP). This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Abstract: Study deals with the development of a structurally safe, lightweight swingarm for a prototype performance geared electric motorcycle. Goal of the study is to improve the existing swingarm design and overcome its shortcomings. The primary aim is to improve the stiffness and strength of the swingarm, especially under extreme riding conditions. Cosalter’s approach was considered during the development phase. Secondary aim is to reduce the overall weight of the swingarm, without sacrificing much on the performance parameters. Analysis was done on the existing design’s CAD model. After a series of iterative geometric modifications and subsequent analysis, two designs (SA2 and SA3) were kept under consideration. Materials used in SA2 and SA3 are AISI 4340 steel and Aluminium alloy 6061 T6 respectively. Both SA2 and SA3 were observed to be laterally and torsionally stiffer than SA1. The final models were observed to have an improved factor of safety than the existing model. Weight of SA2 was slightly more than SA1 (16% increase) whereas SA3 weighed considerably less (27.59% reduction) than the existing design SA1. From the manufacturing point of view, SA2 is relatively easy and cheap to manufacture especially when the number of units are less compared to SA3, where it has to be either machined or casted.
Keyword: Factor of safety, Stiffness, Swingarm, Weight reduction.
Scope of the Article: Manufacturing Processes.