heinzboehmer's 2002 Topaz 6MT Coupe

[George Hill]

Round 2

[heinzboehmer]

I was referring to varying the thickness of the 3D printed part. I believe the lower half doesn't have any role in supporting the cabin air housing.

Ah gotcha. Redesigning the 3D printed part is a lot of work for not much benefit. Since you can print (mostly) hollow volumes, a thinner part is not necessarily lighter. Also, thinner would lead to higher thermal conductivity.

[bigjae46]

We used cork as core in the Slon version to get the thermal insulation properties back in line with the factory part, for what it’s worth.

The varying thickness of this part makes a normal core material tough if you want to preserve factory fit like Heinz is targeting. You could always print a plastic shell and wrap it in carbon though, which would work. I just don’t see the benefit there though, I think this is actually a pretty good application for a 3D printer vs carbon (and my car has a carbon part here).

I was referring to varying the thickness of the 3D printed part. I believe the lower half doesn't have any role in supporting the cabin air housing. If making a carbon part, you could use a 2mm core in some places and a thicker 3 to 4 mm core in other spots.

Didn't even consider using cork for NVH reduction which I would think would do better than soric. I looked up the coefficient of thermal conductivity, cork is .036 to .065 W/m.K, Soric is .064. So thermal performance should be similar. Actually this is great info that I will eventually need for a different project.

[heinzboehmer]

What is the total volume of the part and how does it compare to the carbon strut mount? You could get a pretty accurate approximation of what the weight would be in carbon. One option is to use a core material which can reduce the weight by up to 33%. Lantor soric is a flexible core material which would work in this application.

Couldn't you make the areas that don't support the cabin filter or seal against the firewall thinner? Use some foam if NHV might be an issue.

Volume is 702.9 cm3, but like Bryson said, there's varying thicknesses everywhere on this piece, so design would need to be modified quite a bit to make it suitable for carbon. Volume of the current design isn't really a good representation of what the volume of a carbon version would be.

Like you mentioned, it can be made a lot thinner, but then you start running into fitment issues. Slon part requires spacers for the fasteners, for instance.

We'll see what happens...

45min down, 17hrs to go, lol

Hell yeah! I'm excited to see how it turns out.

The varying thickness of this part makes a normal core material tough if you want to preserve factory fit like Heinz is targeting.

Yeah factory fit is the big thing. The aftermarket parts I've handled do not fit nearly as nicely as the BMW part does. I'd like to have my version fit as close to factory as possible.

[Bry5on]

What is the total volume of the part and how does it compare to the carbon strut mount? You could get a pretty accurate approximation of what the weight would be in carbon. One option is to use a core material which can reduce the weight by up to 33%. Lantor soric is a flexible core material which would work in this application.

Couldn't you make the areas that don't support the cabin filter or seal against the firewall thinner? Use some foam if NHV might be an issue.

We used cork as core in the Slon version to get the thermal insulation properties back in line with the factory part, for what it’s worth.

The varying thickness of this part makes a normal core material tough if you want to preserve factory fit like Heinz is targeting. You could always print a plastic shell and wrap it in carbon though, which would work. I just don’t see the benefit there though, I think this is actually a pretty good application for a 3D printer vs carbon (and my car has a carbon part here).

[George Hill]

We'll see what happens...

45min down, 17hrs to go, lol

[bigjae46]

Hmm, going from 10% to 75% cubic increases weight from 345 g to 746 g.

I know 75% is a lot, but it's right around what looks correct for a moderately closed cell insulator:

Stock is fully solid, so any air volume inside the part (assuming identical exterior dimensions) should increase thermal impedance, no?

What is the total volume of the part and how does it compare to the carbon strut mount? You could get a pretty accurate approximation of what the weight would be in carbon. One option is to use a core material which can reduce the weight by up to 33%. Lantor soric is a flexible core material which would work in this application.

Couldn't you make the areas that don't support the cabin filter or seal against the firewall thinner? Use some foam if NHV might be an issue.

[heinzboehmer]

The air in the print should increase thermal impedance vs stock, yes. But also CF will decrease it, so this is an application where fiberglass filament will beat carbon filament.

For temps I’d probably assume 150C max, which is a 50ish C premium over coolant/head temp to account for heat from the exhaust manifolds from heavy ripping straight to idling and heat soaking. Keep in mind your setup is effectively vented to atmosphere through the hood right now.

Yeah good points all around.

But also, to the carbon point, higher infill means more thermal bridges. Sounds like there's an optimal point somewhere. Might need to do some testing to find it.

[Bry5on]

Alright, some data. Car up to temp for a while, couple redline pulls then straight into the garage to measure temps:



It in the 60s today, so I'm guessing the firewall can easily reach 100 C on an actual hot day, once everything is nicely heatsoaked. PET-CF should be fine for this application. If I start seeing warping, it'll be an excellent excuse to try out PPA-CF.

The air in the print should increase thermal impedance vs stock, yes. But also CF will decrease it, so this is an application where fiberglass filament will beat carbon filament.

For temps I’d probably assume 150C max, which is a 50ish C premium over coolant/head temp to account for heat from the exhaust manifolds from heavy ripping straight to idling and heat soaking. Keep in mind your setup is effectively vented to atmosphere through the hood right now.

[heinzboehmer]

Alright, some data. Car up to temp for a while, couple redline pulls then straight into the garage to measure temps:



It in the 60s today, so I'm guessing the firewall can easily reach 100 C on an actual hot day, once everything is nicely heatsoaked. PET-CF should be fine for this application. If I start seeing warping, it'll be an excellent excuse to try out PPA-CF.

[George Hill]

For reference here is 40%

[heinzboehmer]

Generally the best thermal impedance will come from the smallest air volumes and the lowest gravimetric density you can get away with, so you’re on the right track. I’d probably pick a reasonably high infill personally as the weight penalty isn’t that great. Cubic is a good choice as you definitely want closed cells. You should re-run the Slon test with a desk heater and an IR thermometer!

Hmm, going from 10% to 75% cubic increases weight from 345 g to 746 g.

I know 75% is a lot, but it's right around what looks correct for a moderately closed cell insulator:



Stock is fully solid, so any air volume inside the part (assuming identical exterior dimensions) should increase thermal impedance, no?

[Bry5on]

Yep! That's the plan. I've been doing some research to see what the optimal infill config would be. At first glance, I would think a fairly high infill percentage would work better, as that would minimize convection in the small air pockets. But then you also get more thermal bridging from the infill walls, so would need to do testing to find the optimum balance.

However, I did have a thought this morning. "My" design is a 1:1 copy of the stock piece (i.e. same thickness), so if I print it out of a material with similar thermal conductivity to UP-GF, then any amount of air in the interior should result in a lower thermal conductivity.

Quick (unsubstantiated) search says that UP-GF and PET-CF have similar enough thermal properties, so I'll probably just choose an infill with a non-continuous volume (e.g. cubic) and print it with the lowest infill percentage that still results in a strong and dimensionally accurate part.

Generally the best thermal impedance will come from the smallest air volumes and the lowest gravimetric density you can get away with, so you’re on the right track. I’d probably pick a reasonably high infill personally as the weight penalty isn’t that great. Cubic is a good choice as you definitely want closed cells. You should re-run the Slon test with a desk heater and an IR thermometer!

[heinzboehmer]

Depending on the design, you're also getting infill with a 3DP part. So effectively, some open cell "insulation" is created.

Yep! That's the plan. I've been doing some research to see what the optimal infill config would be. At first glance, I would think a fairly high infill percentage would work better, as that would minimize convection in the small air pockets. But then you also get more thermal bridging from the infill walls, so would need to do testing to find the optimum balance.

However, I did have a thought this morning. "My" design is a 1:1 copy of the stock piece (i.e. same thickness), so if I print it out of a material with similar thermal conductivity to UP-GF, then any amount of air in the interior should result in a lower thermal conductivity.

Quick (unsubstantiated) search says that UP-GF and PET-CF have similar enough thermal properties, so I'll probably just choose an infill with a non-continuous volume (e.g. cubic) and print it with the lowest infill percentage that still results in a strong and dimensionally accurate part.

[discoelk]

Depending on the design, you're also getting infill with a 3DP part. So effectively, some open cell "insulation" is created.