Final Progress Report

David Baker, Adam Baldan, Matthew

Grusenmeyer, Evan Jenkins, & Shane Marcks

• An international collegiate competition regulated by the Society of Automotive Engineers • Build an open wheel race car to participate in both design and dynamic competitions • The UD Formula SAE team will compete in the 2011 FSAE West competition in California

http://www.sdsefi.com/techfsae.htm

Design, Fabricate, and Test a Steel Space Frame Chassis and Fuel System

High considerations to manufacturability

On par with top teams’ performance

• Torsional and Flexural Rigidity

• Weight

• Center of Gravity Height

Seamlessly Integrate all critical System Components

Resources

• Steel Tubing

Cost (<$1000)

Wants • Minimize the weight to stiffness ratio

• Maintain Low Center of Gravity

• Reasonable material and manufacturing costs

• Create a solid base chassis to evolve on for years to come

• Aesthetically pleasing design

Needs • Purposefully integrate all car systems including drivetrain,

driver controls, and suspension together

• Efficiently locate/design or select a fuel tank

• Create a cockpit that can accommodate up to a 95th percentile male

All vehicle systems must fit onto the chassis • Suspension Members, Engine, Fuel Tank, Differential,

Axles, Pedals, etc…

Must comply to all 2011 Formula SAE rules for • Safety

• Geometry

• Materials

Maximum cost of $1000, less donated parts/tools/materials

Top Teams of 2010 FSAE Competitions as well as our Previous Chassis • Rigidity

• Weight

• Type of Chassis (Composite, Steel, Hybrid)

Consultations with CCM Faculty • Dr. Suresh Advani, Dr. John Tierney, Pit Schulze, and Dr. Dirk Heider

Manufacturability

Longitudinal

Torsional Rigidity

Flexure

Resistance

Weight

Reliability

Aesthetics

Vertical Center of

Gravity

Metric Target Values

Metric Target Value

Manufacturability 225 Hrs

Longitudinal Torisonal Rigidity 1800 Foot Pounds per Degree

Flexure Resistance 4500 Pounds per Inch

Weight Under 75 Pounds

Vertical Center of Gravity Under 10 Inches

Our research has shown three prevalent designs in FSAE racing:

Steel Space Frame

• Current standard in FSAE

• Low cost, manufactured with conventional tools

• Easy to repair and modify

• Low strength/weight ratio means a heavier structure

Full Monocoque

• Pinnacle of racing technology – only type used in Formula 1 Racing

• Enhanced strength/weight ratio over steel frames

• Exotic materials add cost, difficult to manufacture

• Difficult to repair/modify, poor accessibility to critical systems

• Difficult to obtain sufficient pull out strength at mount points

Hybrid Monocoque/Spaceframe

• Realize benefits of monocoque while avoiding rear mounting

complications

Tubing Summary

Material Tensile Strength (ksi) Yield Strength (ksi) Appr. Cost ($/ft.)

SAE1010 ERW 45 – 50 30 – 35

1 x 0.049 0.48

1 x 0.65 0.45

1 x 0.095 0.65

SAE1020 DOM 80 – 90 70 – 80

1 x 0.049 1.05 – 1.92

1 x 0.65 1.35 – 2.05

1 x 0.095 1.42 – 2.45

SAE4130 DOM 90 – 100 80 – 90

1 x 0.049 1.96 – 2.45

1 x 0.65 1.90 – 2.38

1 x 0.095 2.79 – 3.57

Design Considerations

Torsional and Flexural Rigidity along the length of the vehicle

Triangulated Sections

Accommodation of Driver and Major Systems

Notching

Tubing bending for Roll Hoops

Welding

Pros: - Based off existing frame - Revised load paths - Lighter than existing frame - Expanded roll hoops for more

driver comfort and accessibility

Cons: - Heavier than Monocoque Designs

Pros: - Realizes the structural benefits

of monocoque construction - Lighter and more aesthetically

pleasing than a space frame with bodywork

- Avoids packaging, manufacturing and accessibility challenges of a full monocoque

Cons: - Difficulty of achieving proper

pull out strength of critical connections

- Limited pedal box Accessibility - General mounting of peripheral

components is a challenge

Design Considerations

Pull out strength of critical connections (>17kN)

Pedal Box Accessibility

Manufacturability of Mold and Foam Core

Joining Rear Steel Frame to Front Composite Monocoque

General Mounting Points of Various Components

• Composite monocoque structure from firewall forward

• Steel space frame utilized for the rear section

Utilized concept selection Matrices

Concepts vs. Weighted Wants, Weighted Metrics, and Constraints

Conclusion

Hybrid Monocoque/Space Frame

The hybrid form utilizes the exceptional weight to stiffness properties and the sleek appearance of a composite monocoque, while maintaining the ease of component mounting and adjustability of a steel frame.

Carbon Fiber Sample Testing ◦ Test panels with

donated materials did not have sufficient mechanical properties to allow for use in chassis

◦ Change was made from

Hybrid Frame concept to Steel Frame concept Driven by poor material

performance

Wooden Spine Jig Flat Tube Profile Patterns

Weight

Center of Gravity

Rigidity (Torsional & Flexural)

Manufacturability 450hrs

Torsional Test Rig

Torsional Test Rig

Part: Price: ($) Notes: Fuel Pump 80 Stock Yamaha Electric Fuel Pump, bracket and o ring

Fuel Lines and Fittings 30

Space Frame Material 350 10-20DOM tubing already purchased

Body Work Materials 0 Donated by CCM Suspension Mounting

Materials 35 Returned Mounts

Fuel Cell Aluminum 60 3’X3’ 1/16 sheet of aluminum

Wood For Frame Jig 50 For manufacturing of tube frame

Engine Bushings 30 4 Bushings

Bimetal Hole Saws 40 1 inch hole saws

Tube Clamps 90 For manufacturing of tube frame Body Work

Manufacturing 100 Foam and wood to build mold

Paint for Frame 50 Rustoleum and Clear Coat

Total: 915