SENIOR PROJECT: Wiper Linkage Design Sept. 2012 – May 2013 Team Leader • Project completed under budget and ahead of schedule • Optimized a conventional 4 bar linkage using a kinematic analysis in Matlab • Designed links in ProE. then simulated realistic loading in Abaqus

1. Objective
• Design, analyze, and fabricate
a wiper mechanism.
• Minimize the driving torque,
shaking force and shaking
moment.
• Apply de-icing mechanism.
An Exceptional Windshield Wiper Mechanism
Conventional
Mechanism
• Constructed simplified system based
off of wiper mechanism from 1990
Caprice
• Mechanism is tested at high and low
speeds
• Forces determined using force
sensors and Pasco Data studio
Optimized
Mechanism
• Fmincon function in Matlab used to
find optimized link dimensions
• Linkages used to verify reduction in
shaking force and driving torque
• Force determined at low and high
speeds
• Heated Blade added to the system
Results
• Observed decrease in shaking
force and driving torque in optimized
system
• Unable to test shaking moment,
can be inferred that there is a
decrease based on the observed
results
Conventional system - simplified geometry
Team ME 16, Members:
Dave Lynch (Team Leader, ME)
Matthew Cross (ME)
Nick Girken (ME)
Andrew Lasko (ME)
James Lee (ME)
Link Dimensions
L2 (in) 2.06
L3 (in) 19.08
L4 (in) 3.96
M2 (lb) 0.12
M3 (lb) 0.61
M4 (lb) 0.48
Cg2 (ft) 1.03
Cg3 (ft) 9.54
Cg4 (ft) 1.98
I2 (lb-in2) 0.04
I3 (lb-in2) 18.50
I4 (lb-in2)) 3.92
Conventional (LINKAGES)
Fs (lbf) 4.87
T12 (lb-ft) 1.76
F14x (lbf) 15.44
F14y (lbf) 3.15
F14 (lbf) 15.69
Optimized (LINKAGES)
Fs (lbf) 2.92
T12 (lb-ft) 1.28
F14x (lbf) 5.68
F14y (lbf) 0.68
F14 (lbf) 5.68
Percent Difference
Fs (lbf) 40.13
T12 (lb-ft) 27.00
F14x (lbf) 63.22
F14y (lbf) 78.47
F14 (lbf) 63.80
Link Dimensions
L2 (in) 2.27
L3 (in) 18.68
L4 (in) 3.56
M2 (lb) 0.11
M3 (lb) 0.55
M4 (lb) 0.52
Cg2 (ft) 0.93
Cg3 (ft) 9.50
Cg4 (ft) 2.18
I2 (lb-in2) 0.00
I3 (lb-in2) 16.69
I4 (lb-in2)) 0.46
Optimized system - simplified geometry
Faculty Advisor:
Prof. Abbas Fattah, (ME)
Instructors:
Professors Victor A. Marcus
Supporting Partner:
John Kennedy Ford of Conshohocken
Design
• Concepts considered to reduce
the shaking force/moment:
i. Optimization.
ii. Counter Rotation
iii. Counter Weight
iv. Elastic Components
v. Flywheel
• Based on a Performance Matrix,
optimization proved to be best
method
Conclusions
• The results indicate that the
shaking force and driving torque
were decreased by over 27%
19 April 2013