Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system ...
Transcript of Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system ...
UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND
AERONAUTICS
LABORATORY OF MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS AND
AUTOMATION
DIPLOMA THESIS
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system
for an electric FSAE racecar
Siangas Georgios
246631
Dr. Panagiotis Stavropoulos,
Associate Professor
This Diploma Thesis is submitted to the Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics
Engineering of the University of Patras.
PATRAS, [07/2020]
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector ii
University of Patras,
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering,
Georgios Siangas
© [2020] – All rights reserved.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector iii
UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL AND AERONAUTICS
ENGINEERING
MANUFACTURING SECTOR
LABORATORY OF MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS AND
AUTOMATION
This current diploma thesis was presented
by
Mr. Georgios Siangas
246631
at 30/07/2020.
The approval of this diploma thesis does not declare the acceptance of the writer‟s opinions.
During the writing of this diploma thesis the principles of academic ethic were respected.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector iv
ABSTRACT
The current diploma thesis describes the design and the development of the drivetrain system
used by the UoP5e, an electric racecar which took place in Formula Student UK 2017 and FSG
2017 competitions, representing the University of Patras, and specifically the department of
Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering. Formula Student competition is an international
design competition organized by the SAE International (former Society of Automotive
Engineers). The concept of the competition is the design of a single seat open wheeled racecar,
for a fiction manufacturing company, focused on the weekend racer. The student teams design
and manufacture their own prototypes, based on rules published by the competitions. The final
scoring divides into two categories, the static events which include the design presentation (150
points), the cost and manufacturing (100 points) and the business plan presentation (75 points),
and the dynamic events which include acceleration (75 points), skidpad (75 points), autocross
(100 points), endurance (325 points) and finally efficiency (100 points). Considering the current
developments in the field of the automotive industry, the competition has created an electric
racecar class, and UoP Racing has been developing electric racecars since 2012, when the
change from internal combustion power units to full electric power units was decided. This
diploma thesis will cover the decision making process, the mechanical design and development
and the manufacturing of the drivetrain system of an electric racing vehicle.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system
for an electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector v
Key Words
Drivetrain, Gearbox, Electric Racecar, Electric Motor, Mechanical design
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: UoP4e Powertrain Characteristics (Baseline Design). ..................................................... 6
Table 2: Weight Table of UoP4e Powertrain. ................................................................................. 6
Table 3: Demographic powertrain setup comparison. .................................................................... 9
Table 4: Comparison between direct drive HTEM and HREM. .................................................. 10
Table 5: Entry data for HTEM and HREM [Optimum Lap]. ....................................................... 11
Table 6: Time lap comparison between HREM and HTEM. ....................................................... 14
Table 7: EMRAX 228 CC HV Technical Specifications. ............................................................ 18
Table 8: Dynamometer testing specifications. .............................................................................. 19
Table 9: Battery voltage selection. ................................................................................................ 23
Table 10: Endurance load case. .................................................................................................... 27
Table 11: Motor shaft material properties. ................................................................................... 29
Table 12: Cross section properties. ............................................................................................... 29
Table 13: Motor shaft – Section A‟A stress –strain calculation. .................................................. 30
Table 14: Motor shaft – Static analysis results. ............................................................................ 31
Table 15: Dynamic structural analysis loads. ............................................................................... 31
Table 16: Motor shaft- Dynamic stresses calculation. .................................................................. 31
Table 17: Motor shaft – Dynamic analysis results........................................................................ 32
Table 18: Motor shaft- Involute spline characteristics. ................................................................ 32
Table 19: Motor shaft - Spline stress analysis. ............................................................................. 33
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector vii
Table 20: Electric motor mount FEA model results. .................................................................... 36
Table 21: Electric motor mount - Factors of fatigue life. ............................................................. 36
Table 22: UoP4e characteristics - COF extrapolation. ................................................................. 40
Table 23: UoP5e characteristics. ................................................................................................... 42
Table 24: Coefficients of aerodynamic load. ................................................................................ 44
Table 25: Newton‟s second law expressed for the transmission shafts. ....................................... 46
Table 26: Angular acceleration of each shaft. .............................................................................. 47
Table 27: Service life of chain drive reduction estimation. .......................................................... 53
Table 28: Chain load factor K1. .................................................................................................... 54
Table 29: Chain lubrication factor K2. ......................................................................................... 54
Table 30: Chain service factor K3. ............................................................................................... 54
Table 31: Geometrical characteristics of DID 520VO chain. ....................................................... 55
Table 32: Chain mechanical properties. ........................................................................................ 56
Table 33: Sprockets pitch action diameters. ................................................................................. 56
Table 34: Chain drive concept calculations. ................................................................................. 57
Table 35: Spur and helical gears comparison. .............................................................................. 59
Table 36: Enclosed gearbox characteristics. ................................................................................. 61
Table 37: Desired material properties based on components. ...................................................... 64
Table 38: Available materials for gear manufacturing. ................................................................ 65
Table 39: Case carburized and tempered 15CrNi6 [DIN 1.5919] steel material properties. ........ 66
Table 40: Available materials for shaft manufacturing. ............................................................... 67
Table 41: Specific Young‟s Modulus comparison for different materials. .................................. 68
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector viii
Table 42: Specific Yield Strength comparison for different materials. ........................................ 69
Table 43: AL 7075-T6 Material properties at 100 0C. .................................................................. 73
Table 44: Gearbox internal components design constrictions. ..................................................... 75
Table 45: Geometry of gears......................................................................................................... 76
Table 46: Maximum loads applied per stage. ............................................................................... 76
Table 47: Dynamic loads applied per stage. ................................................................................. 76
Table 48: Results of gears structural analysis. .............................................................................. 77
Table 49: 1st shaft bearing reactions. ............................................................................................ 77
Table 50: 1st shaft results of structural analysis. ........................................................................... 78
Table 51: 2nd
shaft bearing reactions. ........................................................................................... 78
Table 52: 2nd
shaft results of structural analysis. .......................................................................... 78
Table 53: 3rd
Shaft bearing reactions. ........................................................................................... 79
Table 54: 3rd
shaft results of structural analysis............................................................................ 79
Table 55: Spline geometry according to DIN 5480. ..................................................................... 80
Table 56: Spline results of structural analysis. ............................................................................. 81
Table 57: Selected ball bearings. .................................................................................................. 81
Table 58: Selected ball bearing load capabilities. ......................................................................... 81
Table 59: Selected ball bearings static safety factor. .................................................................... 81
Table 60: Selected ball bearings rotational speed safety factor. ................................................... 81
Table 61: Selected ball bearings life cycles calculation. .............................................................. 83
Table 62: Gearbox casing parts list. .............................................................................................. 86
Table 63: Results of gearbox casing FEA stress-strain analysis................................................... 89
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector ix
Table 64: Aluminum alloy 7075-T6 material properties at 95 0C. ............................................... 90
Table 65: Factors of fatigue life of AL 7075-T6. ......................................................................... 91
Table 66: ISO interference fit of gearbox end caps bores. ........................................................... 93
Table 67: Thermal expansion of the gears. ................................................................................... 94
Table 68: Oil level angle compared to acceleration. ..................................................................... 99
Table 69: Differential coupling – Bolt pattern calculation. ........................................................ 111
Table 70: Differential coupling FEA model stress results. ......................................................... 111
Table 71: Factors of fatigue life differential coupling. ............................................................... 112
Table 72: Differential ramp angles and theoretical lockup. ........................................................ 114
Table 73: Torque bias ratio and applied torque depending ramp angle. ..................................... 115
Table 74: Stub shaft material properties. .................................................................................... 118
Table 75: Cross section properties. ............................................................................................. 119
Table 76: Stub shaft – Section A‟A stress –strain calculation. ................................................... 119
Table 77: Stub shaft – Static analysis results. ............................................................................. 120
Table 78: Stub shaft- Dynamic stresses calculation. .................................................................. 120
Table 79: Stub shaft – Dynamic analysis results. ....................................................................... 121
Table 80: Stub shaft- Involute spline characteristics. ................................................................. 122
Table 81: Stub shaft - Spline stress analysis. .............................................................................. 122
Table 82: FIAT 127 Sport Edition CV joint specifications. ....................................................... 123
Table 83: Tripod Housing – Bolt pattern calculation. ................................................................ 125
Table 84: Tripod Housing FEA model stress results. ................................................................. 126
Table 85: Factors of fatigue life tripod housing. ......................................................................... 127
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector x
Table 86: Driveshaft material properties. ................................................................................... 129
Table 87: Driveshaft stress –strain calculation. .......................................................................... 130
Table 88: Driveshaft – Static analysis results. ............................................................................ 130
Table 89: Driveshaft- Dynamic stress calculation. ..................................................................... 131
Table 90: Driveshaft – Dynamic analysis results. ...................................................................... 131
Table 91: Driveshaft resonance analysis. .................................................................................... 132
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector xi
LIST OF FIGURES AND DIAGRAMS
Figure 1: Maximum Longitudinal Acceleration to Vehicle Speed UoP4e. .................................... 7
Figure 2: CAD Design of UoP4e Powertrain (Baseline Design). ................................................... 8
Figure 3: Power / Torque to Engine Speed diagram for the HREM concept. .............................. 12
Figure 4: Power / Torque to Engine Speed diagram for the HTEM concept. .............................. 12
Figure 5: Batch run simulation for the selection of initial FDR for the HREM concept. ............. 13
Figure 6: Speed to distance diagram HREM vs. HTEM. ............................................................. 14
Figure 7: Distance to time diagram HREM vs. HTEM. ............................................................... 14
Figure 8: EMRAX 228 CC HV Drawing. .................................................................................... 16
Figure 9: Eddy current brake dynamometer setup. ....................................................................... 19
Figure 10: Dynamometer load cell sensor mounting. ................................................................... 21
Figure 11: Eddy-current brake. ..................................................................................................... 21
Figure 12: Example of logged Torque/Power map from the dynamometer. ................................ 22
Figure 13: Battery DC Voltage selection. ..................................................................................... 23
Figure 14: Power map of EMRAX 228 HV LC at 504 Volt. ....................................................... 25
Figure 15: Torque map of EMRAX 228 HV LC at 504 Volt. ...................................................... 25
Figure 16: Logged endurance run from previous racecar. ............................................................ 26
Figure 17: Motor shaft design. ...................................................................................................... 28
Figure 18: Stress concentration factor Kt. .................................................................................... 29
Figure 19: Section A‟A motor shaft.............................................................................................. 30
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector xii
Figure 20: Electric motor mount design. ...................................................................................... 34
Figure 21: Electric motor mount – FEA stress results. ................................................................. 35
Figure 22: Electric motor mount – FEA displacement results. ..................................................... 35
Figure 23: Electric motor protective casing design. ..................................................................... 38
Figure 24: Electric motor assembly design. .................................................................................. 38
Figure 25: Vehicle speed to engine speed diagram. ..................................................................... 43
Figure 26: Downforce to vehicle speed diagram. ......................................................................... 45
Figure 27: Drag force to vehicle speed diagram. .......................................................................... 45
Figure 28: Inertial losses. .............................................................................................................. 47
Figure 29: Propulsion- Traction Forces to vehicle speed [km/h]. ................................................ 48
Figure 30: DID Chain specifications for O-ring and X-ring chains. ............................................ 55
Figure 31: Chain drive concept. .................................................................................................... 58
Figure 32: Enclosed gearbox concept. .......................................................................................... 61
Figure 33: Comparison of Yield strength between AL 7075-T6 and AL 2024-T3. ..................... 71
Figure 34: Comparison of Young‟s Modulus between AL7075-T6 and AL2024-T3. ................. 71
Figure 35: AL 7075-T6 Material properties to temperature. ........................................................ 72
Figure 36: Gearbox internal components drawing. ....................................................................... 75
Figure 37: 1st shaft drawing. ......................................................................................................... 77
Figure 38: 2nd
shaft drawing. ........................................................................................................ 78
Figure 39: 3rd
shaft drawing. ......................................................................................................... 79
Figure 40: Shafts external spline dimensions according to DIN 5480. ........................................ 80
Figure 41: SKF W61906R ball bearing datasheet. ....................................................................... 83
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector xiii
Figure 42: SKF 16006 ball bearing datasheet. .............................................................................. 84
Figure 43: Kaydon KC042CP0 thin section ball bearing datasheet. ............................................ 84
Figure 44: Gearbox casing drawing .............................................................................................. 86
Figure 45: Meshed gearbox casing model. ................................................................................... 88
Figure 46: Von Mises gearbox casing stress FEA results. ............................................................ 88
Figure 47: Displacement gearbox casing FEA results. ................................................................. 89
Figure 48: Notch sensitivity factor q. ........................................................................................... 90
Figure 49: Static stress concentration factor Kt for plate in axial loading. ................................... 91
Figure 50: Lubrication type selection chart. ................................................................................. 96
Figure 51: Gear oil SAE 75 W-140 specifications. ...................................................................... 97
Figure 52: Gear oil level drawing. ................................................................................................ 98
Figure 53: Gear oil level for splash lubrication. ........................................................................... 98
Figure 54: Gear oil CAD representation. ...................................................................................... 99
Figure 55: Gear oil flow bench test simulation. .......................................................................... 100
Figure 56: Gear oil temperature to time at an endurance event. ................................................. 101
Figure 57: Radial shaft seal......................................................................................................... 102
Figure 58: Sealing of 1st shaft assembly. .................................................................................... 104
Figure 59: Sealing of 1st shaft section. ........................................................................................ 104
Figure 60: Sealing of the 3rd
shaft assembly. .............................................................................. 105
Figure 61: Sealing of the 3rd
shaft section. ................................................................................. 105
Figure 62: Assembly drawing of rear axle. ................................................................................. 107
Figure 63: Assembly drawing of rear axle 2. .............................................................................. 107
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector xiv
Figure 64: Implementation of differential into crown gear drawing. ......................................... 108
Figure 65: Differential coupling drawing. .................................................................................. 109
Figure 66: Differential coupling FEA stress results. .................................................................. 111
Figure 67: Modified DREXLER LSD drawing. ......................................................................... 114
Figure 68: Stub shaft drawing. .................................................................................................... 117
Figure 69: Stress concentration factor Kt. .................................................................................. 118
Figure 70: Section A‟A stub shaft. ............................................................................................. 119
Figure 71: Tripod CV Joint FIAT 127 Automobile. ................................................................... 123
Figure 72: Driveshaft relative movement to differential. ........................................................... 123
Figure 73: Aluminum tripod housing joint drawing. .................................................................. 125
Figure 74: Aluminum tripod housing FEA stress analysis results. ............................................. 126
Figure 75: Driveshaft drawing. ................................................................................................... 128
Figure 76: E-drivetrain photographs. .......................................................................................... 137
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector xv
LIST OF SYMBOLS
ax [m/sec2]: Longitudinal acceleration
F [N]: Force
m [kg]: Mass
ay [m/sec2]: Lateral acceleration
M [Nm] : Moment
U [m/sec]: Velocity
P [kW]: Power
V [V]: Voltage
I [Amp]: Current
n [rpm]: Rotational speed
T [Nm]: Torque
Kt: Stress concentration factor
Kf: Dynamic stress concentration factor
D [mm]: Major diameter
d [mm]: Minor diameter
Ε [GPa]: Modulus of elasticity
v: Poisson ratio
ρ [kg/m3]: Density
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector xvi
a [10-6
/C]: Coefficient of thermal expansion
w [mm]: Width
up [m/sec]: Peripheral speed
r [mm]: Radius
J [mm4]: Polar moment of inertia
τ [MPa]: Torsional stress
θ [0]: Angle of twist
σ [MPa]: Tensile stress
Sf: Safety factor
G [GPa]: Modulus of rigidity
Sy [MPa] Yield tensile strength
Su [MPa] Ultimate tensile strength
Sn [MPa] Fatigue strength
Se [MPa] Modified fatigue strength
Z: Gear teeth
m: Module
a [0]: Pressure angle
N: Safety factor
wb [mm]: Wheelbase
hcog [mm]: Center of gravity height
X [N] : Longitudinal force
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector xvii
μ : Coefficient of friction
ω [rad/sec]: Angular velocity
c : Aerodynamic factors
A [mm2]: Area
fdr: Final drive ratio
rt [m]: Tire radius
α [rad/sec2] : Angular acceleration
Ι [mm4]: Moment of inertia
i : Gear ratio
t [sec]: Time
x [m]: Distance
q : Notch sensitivity factor
C [μm]: Clearance
Q [N]: Shear load
h [mm]: height
TBR : Torque bias ratio
S [%]: Lockup torque percentage
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector xviii
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. IV
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... VI
LIST OF FIGURES AND DIAGRAMS ................................................................................... XI
LIST OF SYMBOLS ................................................................................................................. XV
CONTENTS........................................................................................................................... XVIII
PROLOGUE .................................................................................................................................. 1
1. INTRODUCTION: CONCEPT DESIGN AND DESIGN GOALS ................................. 2
1.1 DESIGN GOALS ................................................................................................. 2
1.2 BASELINE DESIGN ........................................................................................... 5
1.3 POWERTRAIN TYPE COMPARISON ........................................................... 8
1.4 POWERTRAIN LAYOUT SELECTION ......................................................... 9
2. CHAPTER 1: POWER UNIT SELECTION AND DYNAMOMETER TESTING ... 16
2.1 POWER UNIT ................................................................................................... 16
2.2 DYNAMOMETER TESTING ......................................................................... 18
2.3 LOAD CASES .................................................................................................... 26
2.4 MOTOR SHAFT ............................................................................................... 27
2.5 ELECTRIC MOTOR MOUNTING TO CHASSIS ....................................... 34
2.6 ELECTRIC MOTOR PROTECTIVE SHIELD AND ASSEMBLY ............ 37
3. CHAPTER 2: FINAL DRIVE RATIO SELECTION .................................................... 39
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector xix
3.1 POINT MASS SIMULATION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ................... 39
3.2 VEHICLE VELOCITY..................................................................................... 42
3.3 AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION ................................................ 43
3.4 PROPULSION AND INERTIAL FORCES CALCULATION .................... 46
3.5 AVAILABLE TRACTION AND MOTION CALCULATIONS. ................. 48
4. RECHAPTER 3: REDUCTION UNIT TYPE SELECTION ........................................ 52
4.1 CHAIN DRIVE .................................................................................................. 52
4.2 ENCLOSED GEARBOX CONCEPT.............................................................. 58
4.3 REDUCTION DRIVE SELECTION CONCLUSION .................................. 61
5. CHAPTER 4: MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING METHODS SELECTION 63
5.1 MATERIALS AND TREATMENTS. ............................................................. 63
5.2 GEARS MATERIAL SELECTION ................................................................ 64
5.2 SHAFTS MATERIAL SELECTION .............................................................. 66
5.3 GEARBOX AND DIFFERENTIAL CASING MATERIAL ......................... 68
5.4 MOUNTING AND GENERAL-PURPOSE MATERIAL SELECTION. .... 73
6. CHAPTER 5: GEARBOX MECHANICAL DESIGN ................................................... 74
6.1 GEARBOX INTERNAL COMPONENTS DESIGN ..................................... 74
6.2 GEARBOX CASING DESIGN ........................................................................ 85
7. CHAPTER 6: LUBRICATION AND SEALING METHODS ...................................... 95
7.1 LUBRICATION ................................................................................................. 95
7.2 SEALING ......................................................................................................... 101
8. CHAPTER 7: DIFFERENTIAL AND DRIVE AXLES MECHANICAL DESIGN .. 106
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector xx
8.1 DIFFERENTIAL COUPLING....................................................................... 107
8.2 DIFFERENTIAL ............................................................................................. 113
8.3 STUB SHAFT DESIGN .................................................................................. 116
8.4 TRIPOD HOUSING DESIGN........................................................................ 122
8.5 DRIVESHAFTS DESIGN............................................................................... 128
9. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 133
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 138
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 1
PROLOGUE
The realization of the drivetrain system was a four-year project, including initial design,
analysis, manufacturing, testing, and optimization and would not have been possible without the
support of certain individuals. First of all, I would like to thank my family for their unwavering
support during this endeavor. Then I would like to thank the Laboratory of Manufacturing
Systems and Automation "LMS", which housed the entire effort, providing its facilities.
"Pagoulatos BROS" machine shop, especially Mr. Sotiris Pagoulatos, for the manufacturing of
the gears and the splines in the form of a sponsorship. The company "SKLERO SA" and
especially Mr. Euripidis Kechagias, for the sponsorship of the necessary case hardening steels,
and their heat treatment services, as well as for his advice on materials selection and heat
treatment. The company "CNC Solutions" and especially Mr. Panos Gounas, for the sponsorship
of the manufacturing of the gearbox end caps, as well as for the training provided to us, in the
form of seminars, on CNC machining programming and operation. Finally, I would like to thank
the UoP Racing team, the team leader, Mr. Harry Bikas, and all the members of the team who
trusted me to complete this project. I wish the best for the future of the team and I hope that this
diploma thesis will help the future members of UoP racing team and anyone who is interested in
the development of drivetrain systems for electrified vehicles.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 2
1. INTRODUCTION: CONCEPT DESIGN AND DESIGN GOALS
1.1 DESIGN GOALS
The beginning of any design process starts with a clear definition of targets or otherwise
stated “design goals”. During the design phase of the powertrain unit of UoP5e, these goals were
stated, in conjunction with the rest of the sub-teams of “UoP Racing”, at the conceptual design
period. These goals were divided into two distinct categories, firstly the design goals that could
be easily quantified as a marginal improvement over a baseline design, which was considered the
previously developed racecar of the team, and secondly some general goals that cannot be easily
quantified , but they set the design “philosophy” of each component designed and manufactured
for the powertrain unit, both the categories target towards a faster but also reliable racecar, which
is the essence of motorsport engineering. In the conclusion of the diploma thesis the goals are
reevaluated, and the success or failure of the whole process is revealed.
Quantifiable Targets in comparison with the baseline design:
Over 40% Overall weight reduction of the powertrain unit.
Over 20% Increase in the longitudinal acceleration of the racecar.
Over 20 % Reduction of the occupied space.
Non-Quantifiable Targets:
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 3
Safety - Reliability
Cost - Effectiveness
Simplicity – Ease of Manufacturing
The next step is the reasoning of these arguments. Again, the explanation is more
intuitive for the quantifiable goals, but when it comes to the non-quantifiable goals the reasoning
becomes more fluent and is vastly depended on the team‟s and engineer‟s philosophy and
experience on mechanical design. The first two goals, overall weight of the powertrain unit
and longitudinal acceleration are co-depended and can be explained, in the conceptual design
phase, by an oversimplified approach, that of considering the racecar as a point mass with
infinite traction between the wheels and the track, which is Newton‟s Second Law of Motion
Dynamics.
Where is the weight of the racecar minus the weight of the powertrain unit. It is
apparent that a reduction in the weight of the powertrain unit will result in an increase in the
longitudinal acceleration, while the ΣF symbol represents the sum of all the forces that act on the
vehicle, the force that is produced by the powertrain unit is the force of propulsion, thus
intuitively increasing the propulsion force at any moment will result in an increase in the
longitudinal acceleration of the racecar. The next quantifiable target, the reduction of the
occupied space is targeting to the reduction of the polar moment of inertia and the center of
gravity‟s height of the racecar, by locating the powertrain‟s center of gravity lower and closer to
the racecar center of gravity or practically speaking the driver‟s seat. Again, this can be
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 4
explained by utilizing the Newton‟s Second Law of Motion Dynamics expressed for a circular
motion.
Where represents the racecar‟s yaw acceleration, and represents the sum of all
the moments acting on the racecar‟s center of gravity as a result of turning forces experienced by
the tires. It is apparent that lowering the polar moment of inertia of the racecar will result in an
increase in the yaw acceleration of the racecar, thus resulting in a faster change of the heading of
the racecar, or in the motorsport terminology increases the responsiveness of the vehicle. When it
comes to the reduction of center of gravity height, it is counter-intuitive as it leads to fewer
weight transfer to the rear wheels , resulting to a lower traction force between the drive wheels
and the track, but through vehicle dynamics sensitivity analysis performed by the Vehicle
Dynamics sub team indicated that a reduction in the center of gravity would have better
influence on the cornering performance of the vehicle, that outweighs the benefit of increased
traction characteristics in an acceleration situation, the explanation is mainly based on the lateral
weight transfer and it‟s result on the lateral acceleration of the racecar and is not a part of this
diploma thesis, therefore for the purposes of this thesis it is taken for granted. Moving on to the
non-quantifiable targets safety and reliability are two similar notions with the difference that
safety is legally essential in any mechanical design and for this competition is expressed through
the annual published rulebook and is enforced through the technical scrutineering before each
competition by an independent party , whereas reliability depends on the design approach of the
engineering team and separates a dependable product with a questionable product, it is apparent
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 5
that any unreliable product, even if it is theoretically better performance wise, will most likely
result in failure, during an overload situation, possibly harming the rest of the racecar or even
worse harming the driver and the crew that operates the vehicle, this is solved through rigorous
analysis of each component. Cost effectiveness is of paramount importance in any project, as all
projects have certain economic budget limits, the real world engineering dictates to invest on the
aspects that have the most influence of the racecar‟s performance rather than the aspects that
most likely won‟t have a measurable impact on it. Finally simplicity and ease of manufacturing
is the product of the above non quantifiable targets, as a simple mechanical product with purpose
the ease of manufacturing leads not only to a more economically feasible product, but also a
reliable one, as the methods of design, analysis and manufacturing of simple components are
proven through years of the mechanical engineering science rather than supporting your designs
with new and non-standardized analysis techniques, this is why in this diploma thesis, whenever
the geometry allows it, a hand mechanical calculation based on first principle mechanical
engineering criteria is preferred over Computer Aided Engineering software tools and complex
part geometries.
1.2 BASELINE DESIGN
As it is mentioned above, the design of the previously developed racecar UoP4e is
considered as the baseline design. UoP4e powertrain unit consists of a high – torque output 3-
phase axial flux permanent magnet electric motor YASA 750 controlled by a SEVCON
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 6
inverter/controller, with a directly mounted limited slip differential that transfer the power to the
drive wheels through a system of drive shafts. The exact characteristics of this powertrain design
are presented in the table below.
UoP4e Powertrain Characteristics
Power Unit: Electric Motor
Power Unit Type: 3-phase Axial Flux Permanent Magnet
Power Unit Commercial Name: YASA 750
Controller/Inverter: SEVCON
Accumulator DC Voltage: 400 Volt
Differential: Drexler Clutchpack LSD
Transmission: Direct Drive
Driveshafts System: Tubular Steel Shafts/Aluminum CV
Housings
CV Joints: Tripod Joint
Maximum Power Output: 80 kW (Electronic Restriction)
Maximum Torque Output: 750 Nm
Maximum Motor Speed: 2000 RPM Table 1: UoP4e Powertrain Characteristics (Baseline Design).
Weight Table of UoP4e Powertrain
Electric Motor YASA 750: 25.3 kg
HV Cables and HV Connectors: 1.3 kg
SEVCON Inverter, Inverter Mounts: 9.628 kg
Drive shafts Assembly: 5.358 kg
Differential Assembly: 3.069 kg
Impact Safety Structure: 5.052 kg
Total Weight Estimation: 49.7 kg Table 2: Weight Table of UoP4e Powertrain.
A maximum longitudinal acceleration to vehicle speed was extrapolated through logged
data for the UoP4e Racecar.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 7
Figure 1: Maximum Longitudinal Acceleration to Vehicle Speed UoP4e.
The baseline design has been proven through various competitions, amongst an overall
winning one, as simple and very reliable solution. The problem with the baseline design is two
folded, firstly the motor speed range is not matched with the actual vehicle speed range, resulting
in a not optimal torque output range at the drive wheels leading to a reduced longitudinal
acceleration of the vehicle, and secondly it is heavier compared to the competition racecars.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Vehicle Speed [km/h]
Acc
eler
atio
n [
m/s
^2]
Maximum longitudinal acceleration to vehicle speed UoP4e
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 8
Figure 2: CAD Design of UoP4e Powertrain (Baseline Design).
1.3 POWERTRAIN TYPE COMPARISON
The powertrain type of any car has a great impact on its performance characteristics,
since it is quite difficult to perform a sensitivity analysis on every possible combination of
powertrain type, mainly because of the lack of logged data, the main criterion to decide upon it,
was the average power output to average racecar weight ratio of the racecars competing on the
competition FSUK. The typical values are presented in the table below.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 9
Powertrain Type Weight [kg] Power [HP] Power/Weight
Ratio
Single Cylinder NA
Engine:
160 60 0.38
Single Cylinder TC
Engine:
165 70 0.42
V-Twin TC Engine: 175 75 0.43
Four Cylinder NA
Engine:
190 85 0.45
AWD Electric Motors: 180 80 0.44
RWD Electric Motor: 210 107 0.51 Table 3: Demographic powertrain setup comparison.
Through this demographic comparison, along with technical experience gained by
developing a fully electric racecar by the previous team, lead to the decision of proceeding with
the concept of a rear wheel drive, with an electric motor as a power unit, racecar.
1.4 POWERTRAIN LAYOUT SELECTION
There are two distinctive layout choices for a rear wheel drive electric racecar. A high
torque output electric motor directly driving the drive wheels (HTEM) or a high revving motor
with a reduction unit (HREM). The three main advantages of using a high-revving electric motor
in conjunction with a reduction unit are, firstly that the torque output range can be shifted to
match the autocross and acceleration track velocities, thus increasing the longitudinal
acceleration of the racecar, due to the increased propulsion force applied at the drive wheels,
while also increasing the maximum torque output figure to the drive wheels. Secondly the torque
output capacity of a motor is directly associated with its size, specifically its diameter, a high
torque output electric motor setup results in heavier powertrain unit, with increased rotational
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 10
mass moment of inertia. Due to the mismatch of typical vehicle speeds and the engine speed
range of a direct drive electric motor, the motor is operating for a longer period of time, in areas
of the motor map that are less efficient, compared to an electric motor with a reduction drive
engineered to perform in a certain vehicle speed range. This leads to excessive heat losses of the
motor, leading to the design of a larger cooling system to dissipate the heat from the motor.
Having explained the advantages of a high – revving electric motor coupled with a reduction
drive, the development of a reduction drive adds complexity to the design and manufacturing
process. A table below summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the two options.
Comparison between HTEM and HREM
Design target HTEM HREM Reason
Weight
Reduction:
Disadvantage Advantage Smaller EM,
Less Cooling
Requirements
Acceleration: Disadvantage Advantage Increased
Propulsion Force
Occupied Space: Disadvantage Advantage Smaller EM
Reliability: Advantage Disadvantage Fewer Components
Cost
Effectiveness:
Disadvantage Advantage Higher Cost HTEM
Simplicity: Advantage Disadvantage Less development Table 4: Comparison between direct drive HTEM and HREM.
The performance advantages of choosing a high revving electric motor as opposed to
using a high torque output electric motor were investigated, through a commercially available
open source point mass vehicle dynamic simulations program Optimum Lap. This software is
great for selecting between different concepts of design, with the need of basic data. The
disadvantage relies on accuracy of the calculation mainly because it doesn‟t take into account
several factors that actively affect the outcome of the simulation, such as dynamic load transfer
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 11
or mass moment of inertia of the powertrain unit. In the design process, a self – developed
software tool is developed to predict accurately how certain aspects of the powertrain affect its
acceleration.
Entry Data for HTEM and HREM [Optimum Lap]
Entry Data HTEM HREM
Overall Weight [Incl.
Driver]:
300 kg 280 kg
Drag Coefficient: 0.7 0.7
Downforce Coefficient: 3.63 3.63
Frontal Area: 1.024 1.024
Air Density: 1.25 1.25
Traction: Unlimited Unlimited
Tire Radius: 0.2286 m 0.2286 m
Rolling Resistance: 0.015 0.015
Drive Efficiency: 70 % 80 %
Final Drive Ratio: 1 4 Table 5: Entry data for HTEM and HREM [Optimum Lap].
The entry data reflect the design targets of the team regarding the development of the
racecar. The only change between the entry data of the two concepts are the advantages
described previously regarding weight, efficiency and concept of propulsion.
Weight
Assuming the previous racecar powertrain as a baseline design, it weighs roughly 50 kg,
and the expected weight reduction target of the unit approaches 40%, hence the difference of 20
kg in the overall weight entry.
Drive Efficiency
The drive efficiency of the unit is expected to be higher in the HREM reduction drive
unit, and this is represented in a conservative 10% increase in the drive efficiency.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 12
Power – Engine Speed Diagrams
The power – engine speed diagram for its concept was entered through the typical
advertised engine maps for each electric motor.
Figure 3: Power / Torque to Engine Speed diagram for the HREM concept.
Figure 4: Power / Torque to Engine Speed diagram for the HTEM concept.
To calculate an initial final drive ratio, the build-in batch run simulation of the software
was used. The final drive ratio is set as a sweep parameter, in a simulated track of acceleration
from standstill to 75 m. The concept design FDR is in the 3.8-4.2 range, according to the
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 13
software. The final FDR will be calculated, through a self-developed racecar acceleration model
based on experimental data later in this diploma thesis.
Figure 5: Batch run simulation for the selection of initial FDR for the HREM concept.
Finally, by simulating the two proposed concepts in an acceleration event, the results are
presented as motion curve plots.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 14
Figure 6: Speed to distance diagram HREM vs. HTEM.
Figure 7: Distance to time diagram HREM vs. HTEM.
Elapsed time for acceleration 0-75 m
Concept: HREM HTEM
Elapsed Time: 3.85 s 4.43 s Table 6: Time lap comparison between HREM and HTEM.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 15
The slope of each curve in the elapsed distance vs. elapsed time plot represents the
momentary speed of the vehicle.
Therefore, the steeper the slope of the curve means higher momentary velocities of the
vehicle, resulting in smaller lap times. This is reflected in the vehicle speed vs. elapsed distance
plot (Figure 5), where the HREM concept has higher momentary velocities until it reaches a top
speed, at an elapsed distance of 42.5 m, and it maintains this speed until the finish line. The
HTEM concept constantly increases its speed, until it reaches a higher top speed at the finish
line, but at a slower rate than the other concept. This clearly depicts the performance gains from
following the HREM concept. The HREM concept was chosen as powertrain unit of UoP5e, due
to the significant performance gains.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 16
2. CHAPTER 1: POWER UNIT SELECTION AND DYNAMOMETER
TESTING
2.1 POWER UNIT
The decision of using a high revving electric motor, lead to reviewing the commercially
available motors based on three main criteria power to weight ratio, available budget and lead
time for the order. EMRAX 228 CC HV was chosen, an engine used for amateur aviation
purposes, as a prime mover for propellers.
Figure 8: EMRAX 228 CC HV Drawing.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 17
EMRAX 228 CC HV Electric Motor Technical Specifications (According to manufacturer)
Cooling Method: CC: Combined Cooling
Ingress Protection: IP 21
Weight: 12.3 kg
Maximum DC Battery Voltage: 670 Vdc
Peak Power: 100 kW (Restricted to 80 kW)
Maximum Rotational Speed: 5500 RPM
Maximum Motor Current: 240 Arms
Torque per Motor Current: 1.1 Nm/Arms
Maximum Windings Temperature: 120 cC
Internal Phase Resistance: 18 mOhm
Input Phase Wire Cross Section: 10.2 mm2
Wire connection: Star
Motor signal: Sine wave / Resolver sensor type
Specific load speed: 8 – 9.8 RPM/Vdc
Temperature sensor: Thermistor (kty 81/210) Silicon type
Pole Pairs: 10
Rotor Inertia: 421 kg*cm2
Power to Weight Ratio: 6.5 kW/kg
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 18
Table 7: EMRAX 228 CC HV Technical Specifications.
2.2 DYNAMOMETER TESTING
The development of a semi-automatic eddy-current brake dynamometer setup was
decided in the second year of the development of UoP5e racecar for the physical testing of the
powertrain unit outside of the racecar. The testing allowed quick changes and experimenting on
the power unit without the need of modifying the racecar‟s element each time, and actively
contributed in the optimization of the unit. The performance tests were mainly focused around
two elements.
Dynamometer testing elements
Accurate power/torque vs. engine speed plots.
Selection of optimal DC battery voltage input.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 19
Figure 9: Eddy current brake dynamometer setup.
Dynamometer Testing Specifications
Electric Motor: EMRAX 228 HV CC
Controller/Inverter: Unitek BAMOCAR D3
DC Battery Voltage: 400-600 Volt
Brake Type: Eddy current brake
Control Unit: Dynastar
Table 8: Dynamometer testing specifications.
The setup consisted of an eddy current brake, with a control unit developed by Dynastar,
and the powertrain unit to be tested. The components are mounted in a self-developed rigid steel
welded frame that was anchored to the ground through hinge joints. The eddy current brake is
mounted to the steel frame by using two industrial type ball bearing Plummer type units. The
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 20
powertrain spins the rotor through a commercial driveshaft system to counterbalance the possible
misalignment between the eddy current brake and the powertrain unit. The engine speed is
logged through a four-tooth optical speed sensor mounted in the main shaft, while the stator is
restrained by a load cell unit as shown in the drawing below.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 21
Figure 10: Dynamometer load cell sensor mounting.
Figure 11: Eddy-current brake.
The working function of the semi-automatic dynamometer is the following. The
powertrain spins the rotor close its engine speed limitations, while the speed is monitored
through the four - tooth optical shaft speed sensor. As the operator starts to gently applying the
brake, the powertrain starts to lose engine speed, while increasing its applied torque on the main
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 22
shaft. The rotation of the eddy current brake stator is only restrained through a load cell unit. The
increasing torque applied at the main shaft, is logged at the load cell unit as force units. Through
the static equilibrium at the eddy current brake a linear relation between the force applied at the
load cell and the torque applied at the main shaft is expressed.
Then by constantly logging torque [Nm] – engine speed [RPM], a torque to speed
diagram is created for a certain torque demand at the accelerator pedal, also as a derivative curve
the power to speed diagram is created, as power is the product of torque times rotational speed.
An example of a logged torque/power to engine speed map is presented below.
Figure 12: Example of logged Torque/Power map from the dynamometer.
The first main variable of the test is the battery dc voltage input. Various voltage setups
were tested in the range of 400 Volts to a maximum of 600 Volts as permitted by the FSAE
Rulebook.
The results of the testing are presented below.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 23
Battery Voltage Selection
Battery Voltage: 400 V 500 V 550 V 600 V
Average Efficiency: 76 % 81 % 82 % 82 %
Battery Cells Weight: 41.208 kg 40.32 kg 41.8 kg 42.3 kg
Maximum Power Output: 65.4 kW 90.5 kW 95.3 kW 99.4 kW
Battery Cells Space: 0.01763 m3
0.01737 m3
0.01833 m3
0.01877 m3
Table 9: Battery voltage selection.
Figure 13: Battery DC Voltage selection.
In the diagram above (Figure 12) the only strong correlation between an input variable
and an output value is between the battery DC voltage [Volts] and the maximum power output
[kW]. The maximum current drawn from the batteries is fixed at a safe value to prevent any
damage due to unsafe discharge of LiPo battery cells, so increasing the DC Voltage, by Joules
Law, results in increased power drawn from the battery pack.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 24
The power drawn from the battery pack is also restricted by the rules to 80 kW. The
lowest voltage that could produce maximum power output over 85 kW was chosen. The safety
implications of high voltage systems, and the battery cells arrangement dictates that the final
input DC Voltage is 504 Volt. The load depended maximum speed is calculated below.
( )
With dynamometer testing at the final battery DC Voltage the torque/power map at full
throttle is extrapolated. The values represented below are corresponding to the actual values of
mechanical power as all the efficiency power losses are incorporated in this diagram.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 25
Figure 14: Power map of EMRAX 228 HV LC at 504 Volt.
Figure 15: Torque map of EMRAX 228 HV LC at 504 Volt.
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Power (Watt)
Engine Speed (RPM)
Power map EMRAX 228 HV LC at 504 Volt
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Torque(Nm)
Engine Speed (RPM)
Torque Map of EMRAX 228 HV LC at 504 Volt
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 26
2.3 LOAD CASES
With the electric motor selected it is possible to estimate the load cases that all the
components of the drivetrain will be subjected to. Every component at the powertrain is
subjected to the maximum theoretical torque figure that the electric motor can produce.
As for the dynamic structural analysis a half endurance run from a previous racecar is
analyzed regarding average engine speed, average engine power and average speed of the vehicle
is extrapolated from the logged data, as shown below.
Figure 16: Logged endurance run from previous racecar.
The logged data represent half an endurance run.
Dynamic Load Case
Average motor speed navg: 2648 RPM
Average motor power Pavg: 24000 Watt
Average motor torque Tavg: avg ( avg) / navg = 86.5Nm
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 27
Average vehicle speed: 63.6 km/h
Table 10: Endurance load case.
Every mechanical component of the drivetrain is subjected to fluctuating loads as shown
in the logged data, so it is critical to perform a dynamic structural analysis, a static analysis at the
maximum theoretical torque figure, and a critical speed calculation for every rotor in the system.
The gears are the only component sized according to DIN 3990 Part 41 Standard, specialized for
vehicle transmissions.
2.4 MOTOR SHAFT
The motor shaft is the component that connects the electric motor with the transmission.
The final design is a tubular steel shaft with a flanged end that connects to the motor and a
splined end that connects to the transmission.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 28
Figure 17: Motor shaft design.
Motor shaft material properties
Material: AISI 4340 (DIN 1.6582) (+QT) [Nitrided]
Young‟s Modulus E: 200 GPa
Poisson ratio v: 0.3
Tensile strength Su: 1200 MPa
0.2% Proof strength Sy: 1000 MPa
Fatigue strength Se: 290 MPa
Modulus of rigidity G: 80 GPa
Surface Hardness: 58-60 HRC
Core Hardness: 30-35 HRC
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 29
Table 11: Motor shaft material properties.
Stress concentration factor Kt, for stepped shaft loaded in torsion.
Figure 18: Stress concentration factor Kt.
Cross section properties
Outer Diameter D: 24 mm
Inner Diameter d: 16 mm
Radius/Chamfer r: 5x450
D/d coefficient: 2.5
r/d coefficient: 0.18
Stress concentration factor Kt: 1.35
Table 12: Cross section properties.
The critical point of the shaft is located at connection of the main shaft with the motor
flange. The section A‟A below is showing the critical point of the shaft.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 30
Figure 19: Section A‟A motor shaft.
Section A‟A stress –strain calculation
Polar moment of inertia: ( ) 26138 mm4
Torsional stress: ( ) (
)
148.5 MPa
Angle of twist: ( ) ( ) 0.329 0
Table 13: Motor shaft – Section A‟A stress –strain calculation.
Static analysis results
Von Mises equivalent stress: =√ 256.9 MPa
Tresca equivalent stress: =√ 297 MPa
0.2% Proof strength: Material Property 1000 MPa
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 31
Safety factor Von Mises:
3.9
Safety factor Tresca:
3.3
Table 14: Motor shaft – Static analysis results.
Dynamic structural analysis loads
Mean applied torque :
Applied torque range
Table 15: Dynamic structural analysis loads.
The motor shaft speed is 2648 RPM and the average vehicle speed is 63.6 km/h. The load
cycles are calculated to the 106
area and the motor shaft is not an expendable part, the motor
shaft is designed for infinite life.
Dynamic stress calculation
Torsional stress τm: ( ) (
)
53.6 MPa
Torsional stress τr: ( ) ( ) 53.6 MPa
Table 16: Motor shaft- Dynamic stresses calculation.
Soderberg equation for dynamic torsional loads:
=√ (
)
, where α = 3 for Von Mises theory, and α = 4 for Tresca theory.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 32
Dynamic analysis results
Von Mises equivalent dynamic stress: 413.2 MPa
Tresca equivalent dynamic stress: 477 MPa
0.2% Proof strength: 1000 MPa
Safety factor Von Mises: 2.2
Safety Factor Tresca: 2.1
Table 17: Motor shaft – Dynamic analysis results.
An involute spline is used to transmit the power from the electric motor to the transmission.
Involute spline characteristics, according to DIN 5480
Module m: 1.25
External diameter D: 24 mm
Teeth z: 18
Pressure Angle a: 30
Effective Length Le: 35 mm
Maximum Applied Torque: 240 Nm
Application Factor Ks: 2
Tooth Thickness t: 1.9625 mm
Pitch Diameter: 22.5 mm
Tooth Height h: 1.125 mm
Table 18: Motor shaft- Involute spline characteristics.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 33
Motor shaft spline analysis results
Maximum shear stress: ( )
Maximum compressive stress: ( )
Equivalent stress: = √ 150 MPa
0.2% Proof strength Sy: Material Property 1000 MPa
Safety Factor Tresca:
6.67
Table 19: Motor shaft - Spline stress analysis.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 34
2.5 ELECTRIC MOTOR MOUNTING TO CHASSIS
An aluminum 12 mm 7075-T6 milled plate is developed to mount the electric motor onto
the chassis.
Figure 20: Electric motor mount design.
The electric motor mount design incorporates flange for the motor mounting, cut-out hole
for the resolver sensor and its wiring, cut-out holes for the three phase cables input and milled
sockets for the coolant fluid input and output. A finite element model is constructed, to
investigate the structural integrity of the motor mount.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 35
Figure 21: Electric motor mount – FEA stress results.
Figure 22: Electric motor mount – FEA displacement results.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 36
Electric motor mount FEA model results.
Equivalent maximum Von Mises stress: 46.7 MPa
Equivalent mean Von Mises stress: 16.8 MPa
Maximum displacement: 0.142 mm
Table 20: Electric motor mount FEA model results.
The maximum displacement is in an acceptable range, as the motor will be also mounted
in the transmission through the motor shaft. The static safety factor under full load is calculated.
Factors of fatigue life
Factor: Reason: Value:
Yield Strength Sy: Aluminum 7075-T6 503 MPa
Laboratory fatigue strength Sn: Aluminum 7075-T6 156 MPa
Surface factor Cf : Machined aluminum surface 0.9
Reliability factor CR: 90% Reliability 0.897
Size factor CS: Plane-axial stress 1
Welding factor Cw: No welding 1
Dynamic stress concentration
factor Kf:
Estimate 2
Table 21: Electric motor mount - Factors of fatigue life.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 37
Modified Fatigue Strength Se:
Soderberg equivalent static stress:
√(
)
The dynamic safety factor is.
2.6 ELECTRIC MOTOR PROTECTIVE SHIELD AND ASSEMBLY
The electric motor is housed inside the chassis, so according to the rulebook, there is no
need to implement an impact safety structure. The FSAE rulebook states that a 1 mm thick
aluminum protective shield must be implemented in the design to protect the electric motor from
various environmental hazards. The design and implementation of the electric motor protective
shield is presented below.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 38
Figure 23: Electric motor protective casing design.
Having concluded with the electric motor choice and mounting configurations, an
assembly design is presented in order to visualize the final product.
Figure 24: Electric motor assembly design.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 39
3. CHAPTER 2: FINAL DRIVE RATIO SELECTION
3.1 POINT MASS SIMULATION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
The reduction unit‟s final drive ratio selection is based upon a self-developed
acceleration simulating model that considers the available tractive forces, the aerodynamic forces
and the inertial forces of the power unit. The simulation is coded in Matlab, to allow the
experimenting in the characteristics of the racecar, in a software environment, with the purpose
of predicting the performance gains or losses of a change in the system. The simplification of the
simulation is based on two assumptions. Firstly it is assumed that the coefficient of friction
between the tire and the tarmac is stable.
To estimate the minimum coefficient of friction for the simulation, data from the previous
racecar are used. UoP4e achieved a longitudinal acceleration of 0.95g, by using the same tires as
UoP5e. It is safe to get an estimate of the coefficient of friction between the tire and the tarmac,
as UoP4e was traction limited, meaning that the actual coefficient of friction is expected to be
higher than the simulated one. The values used to extrapolate the coefficient of friction from the
previous racecar are presented below.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 40
UoP4e characteristics for COF extrapolation
Maximum longitudinal acceleration ax: 0.95g
Weight m (including 68kg driver): 303 kg
Weight distribution rear WD: 55%
Wheelbase wb: 1600 mm
Center of gravity height hcog: 300 mm
Table 22: UoP4e characteristics - COF extrapolation.
The trust force needed to accelerate the vehicle at a rate of 0.95g is calculated.
The normal force acting upon the rear tires as the vehicle starts from a standstill is
calculated.
The ratio of the thrust force and the normal force is the coefficient of friction between the
tire and the tarmac.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 41
The second assumption made in the simulation is that the acceleration of the vehicle
remains stable between the step points of the calculation. The average value of the two calculated
acceleration values at the step points is used. This represents the type of the numerical method
used to calculate the integral of the vehicle speed to time [v(t)] function.
UoP5e Characteristics
Tire radius rt: 0.2286 m
Aerodynamic drag coefficient cd: 0.7
Aerodynamic downforce coefficient cl: 3.63
Aerodynamic force distribution rear AD: 40%
Frontal area of the racecar Af: 1.024 m2
Air density ρ: 1.225 kg/m3
Vehicle weight mc: 210 kg
Driver weight md: 70 kg
Rolling resistance μr: 0.02
Weight distribution rear WD: 60 %
Wheelbase wb: 1.6 m
Center of Gravity Height h: 0.25 m
Drivetrain efficiency: 100%
Motor Inertia: 0.0421 kgm2
Tire-Rim-Axle Shafts Inertia: 0.2 kgm2
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 42
Table 23: UoP5e characteristics.
3.2 VEHICLE VELOCITY
To calculate the vehicle velocity to engine speed, the engine speed n [RPM] is converted
to engine rotational speed ω [rad/s].
Since the wheel is coupled to the engine through a reduction gear unit , the wheel „s
rotational speed is equal to the engine‟s rotational speed divided by the final drive ratio, to
simulate the direct drive option the final drive ratio is set to 1.
[
]
Assuming zero tire slip, the linear velocity of the tire contact patch is equal to the
velocity of the vehicle. The linear velocity of the tire contact patch is equal to the rotational
speed of the wheel times the tire radius.
*
+
Substituting these equations and multiplying by 3.6 to convert [m/s] to [km/h], the
resulting expression calculates the vehicle velocity for a given engine speed n [RPM] .
[
]
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 43
Figure 25: Vehicle speed to engine speed diagram.
3.3 AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION
The aerodynamic force acting upon the racecar, as it accelerates, has two components.
The first component acts along the x-axis slowing down the vehicle and is referred to as the drag
force. The second component acts along the z -axis and is divided to two categories according to
its direction. If the direction is upwards, the second component of the aerodynamic force is
referred to as the lift force, else if the direction is downwards is referred to as the downforce. The
optimal design of a racecar is having a combination of low drag force and high downforce, as the
downforce increases the vertical load applied to the tires, thus increasing the traction provided by
the tire, without adding any extra inertial weight to the racecar. The aerodynamic load is
proportional to the vehicle speed squared and is characterized by two coefficients, the drag
coefficient and the downforce coefficient. These coefficients are provided from the
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 44
aerodynamics sub-team of UoP Racing, after multiple iterations of Computational Fluid
Dynamics analysis of the racecar 3D model. The final coefficients are provided in the table
below.
Coefficients of aerodynamic load
Drag Coefficient cd: 0.7
Downforce Coefficient cl: 3.63
Table 24: Coefficients of aerodynamic load.
The aerodynamic load is equal to the air density ρ times the aerodynamic factor c times
the frontal area of the vehicle Af times the vehicle velocity squared divided by 2.
The aerodynamic factor c is substituted for the drag or the downforce coefficient.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 45
Figure 26: Downforce to vehicle speed diagram.
Figure 27: Drag force to vehicle speed diagram.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 46
3.4 PROPULSION AND INERTIAL FORCES CALCULATION
In the simplified point mass simulation, it is assumed that the motor torque is statically
applied throughout the driveline chain and it is reduced through the driveline efficiency factor nd.
Τhe propulsion force applied to the drive wheels of the simplified model is expressed below.
This approximation is fine for a conceptual design phase of the vehicle development, but
in order to simulate between different types of engines, transmissions and various driveline
components it is imperative to take into account the rotational mass inertia of the rotating
components and the aerodynamic drag force. To estimate the inertial losses in the driveline, the
Newton‟s second law is used in polar form is expressed for each shaft.
Newton‟s second law expressed for the transmission shafts
1st (Input) Shaft:
2nd
(Counter) Shaft: ( )
3rd
(Output) Shaft: ( )
Table 25: Newton‟s second law expressed for the transmission shafts.
Combining the equations of table 26, the expression of the output torque is the following.
The propulsion force is expressed, and the driveline efficiency factor is added.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 47
The angular acceleration of each shaft is expressed in terms of the vehicle‟s longitudinal
acceleration .
Angular acceleration of each shaft
1st (Input) Shaft:
2nd
(Counter) Shaft:
3rd
(Output) Shaft:
Table 26: Angular acceleration of each shaft.
The expression of the propulsion force, aerodynamic and inertial loads included.
( (
) (
) (
) )
Figure 28: Inertial losses.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 48
3.5 AVAILABLE TRACTION AND MOTION CALCULATIONS.
The available traction of the vehicle X is expressed through the following equation.
(
)
(
)
Figure 29: Propulsion- Traction Forces to vehicle speed [km/h].
The calculations on figure [28], were based on the torque map retrieved from the
dynamometer testing described in CHAPTER 1. In the calculation the lowest value (Fuseful)
between propulsion force and available traction is selected to proceed with the motion analysis.
The first calculation is the acceleration at the calculation points.
Then the calculation continues with the average acceleration calculation between the step
points.
The time elapsed between step points is calculated.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 49
The distance elapsed between step points is calculated
( )
The total time of the acceleration run is calculated.
(
)
Through experimenting with the acceleration model, it was decided that a final drive ratio
in the range of 3.6 to 3.8 for UoP5e, yielding a theoretical acceleration run at a lap time of 4.1 to
4.2 sec. The final lap time simulation code is presented in the next two pages.
%Acceleration Model%
clear; clc;
%Input Vehicle Variables%
fdr = 3.625; %Final Drive Ratio% N = 0.9; %Drivetrain Efficiency% rt = 0.2286; %Tire Radius [m]% cd = 0.7; %Aerodynamic Drag Coefficient% cl = 3.63; %Aerodynamic Downforce Coefficient% AD = 0.4; %Aerodynamic Load Distribution Rear% Af = 1.024; %Frontal Area [m2]% d = 1.225; %Air density [kg/m3]% mc = 210; %Vehicle Weight [kg]% md = 70; %Driver's Weight [kg]% RR = 0.02; %Rolling Resistance Coefficient% WD = 0.6; %Weight Distribution Rear% wb = 1.6; %Wheelbase [m]% hcog = 0.25; %Center of Gravity Height [m]% COF = 1.5; % Tire Coefficient of Friction% Accel = 75; %Acceleration Distance% Imotor = 0.0421; %Motor Inertia kg*m2%
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 50
Idrive = 0.2; %Driveline Inertia kg*m2%
%Calculated Vehicle Variables% me_motor = Imotor*((fdr/rt)^2); %Equivalent inertia mass motor [kg]% me_drive = Idrive*((1/rt)^2); %Equivalent inertia mass driveline [kg]% mt = mc + md ; %Total weight [kg]% K1 = (WD - (RR * hcog / wb))/(1-(COF * hcog / wb)); %Weight Transfer
Coefficient K1% K2 = AD/(1 - COF * hcog / wb) ; %Weight Transfer Coefficient K2% FRR = mt * RR * 9.81 ; %Rolling Resistance Force%
%Engine Map%
max_rpm = 4800; %Engine Maximum RPM% rpm_steps = 100; %RPM Steps% steps = max_rpm / rpm_steps; %Steps of calculation%
c_m = zeros (steps,18);
Torque =
[220,217,214,211,208,205,202,199,196,193,190,189,188,187,186,185,184,183,182,
181,180,179,178,177,176,175,175,175,175,175,175,175,175,175,175,175,175,175,1
75,175,175,175,175,175,174,91,87,84,84];
for i = 1:steps+1 c_m(i,1) = (i-1)*rpm_steps; %Engine Speed Table [RPM]% c_m(i,2) = Torque(i); %Engine Torque Table [Nm]% c_m(i,3) = (c_m(i,1)/9.55)*c_m(i,2); %Engine Power Table [Watt]% c_m(i,4) = (c_m(i,1)/9.55)*rt/fdr ; %Vehicle Speed [m/s]% c_m(i,5) = 0.5*d*cd*Af*((c_m(i,4))^2); %Aerodynamic Drag Force [N]% c_m(i,6) = 0.5*d*cl*Af*((c_m(i,4))^2); %Aerodynamic Downforce Force [N]% c_m(i,7) = COF*9.81*mt*K1 +COF*c_m(i,6)*K2; %Available Traction [N]%
%Propulsion and Inertia Forces calculation% if i==1 c_m(i,8) = c_m(i,2)*fdr*N/rt - c_m(i,5);%Thrust [N]% c_m(i,18) = 0;%Inertia Forces% else c_m(i,8) = c_m(i,2)*fdr*N/rt - c_m(i,5) - (Imotor*((fdr/rt)^2) +
Idrive*((1/rt)^2))*c_m(i-1,10); %Thrust [N]% c_m(i,18) = (Imotor*((fdr/rt)^2) + Idrive*((1/rt)^2))*c_m(i-1,10);
%Inertia Forces% end
%Useful Thrust% if (c_m(i,8)>c_m(i,7)) c_m(i,9) = c_m(i,7); %Useful Thrust [N]% else c_m(i,9) = c_m(i,8); %Useful Thrust [N]% end
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 51
c_m(i,10) = c_m(i,9) / mt; %Acceleration [m/sec2]% c_m(i,11) = c_m(i,9)*c_m(i,4); % Wheel Power [Watt]%
if(i==1) c_m(i,12) = c_m(i,10); %Average Acceleration% c_m(i,13) = 0; %Stepped Time [s]% c_m(i,14) = 0; %Stepped Time Difference [s]% c_m(i,15) = 0; %Stepped Distance[m]% else c_m(i,12) = (c_m(i,10)+c_m(i-1,10))/2; %Average Acceleration% c_m(i,13) = ((c_m(i,4)-c_m(i-1,4))/c_m(i,12)) + c_m(i-1,13); %Stepped
Time [s]% c_m(i,14) = c_m(i,13)- c_m(i-1,13); %Stepped Time Difference [s]% c_m(i,15) = c_m(i-1,4)*c_m(i,14) + 0.5*c_m(i,12)*c_m(i,14)*c_m(i,14)
+ c_m(i-1,15); %Stepped Distance[m]% end
end time = c_m(steps+1,13) + ((Accel-c_m(steps+1,15))/c_m(steps+1,4)); %Elapsed
Time Total[sec]% X= sprintf('Lap Time: %0.3f sec\n',time); disp(X);
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 52
4. RECHAPTER 3: REDUCTION UNIT TYPE SELECTION
The main options for a reduction unit of an electric rear wheel drive formula style racecar are
gearbox and chain drive. The design goals set in the introduction of this diploma thesis can be
evaluated in this design decision. The design constraints performance wise are the weight,
occupied space, driveline efficiency and safety wise the behavior of the device under an
overloaded condition.
4.1 CHAIN DRIVE
A chain drive reduction unit is a straightforward design. The components needed for a
chain drive reduction unit can be purchased from the motorcycle spare parts industry. This
design simplicity is the biggest advantage of the chain drive, as the build time for a transmission
unit is significantly minimized. The disadvantages with the chain drive reduction unit are the
occupied space, the rotational mass inertia of the chain and the increased sensitivity to outside
factors, because it is a non-fully enclosed rotating component. A brief examination of the chain
drive reduction unit will be performed.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 53
The final drive ratio is set to i = 3.6, according to the simulation. For smooth operation at
moderate and high speeds it is considered a good practice to use a driving sprocket with at least
17 teeth. Where space limitations are severe, smaller tooth numbers may be used by sacrificing
the life expectancy of the chain.
Service life of chain drive reduction estimation
Average vehicle speed uavg:
Expected distance covered dc: 600 km
Service Life in hours: L=dc/uavg=10 hr
Table 27: Service life of chain drive reduction estimation.
The service life is very low compared to a nominal service life of a chain drive application
(L=15.000 hours). Since it is a racing application, the chain drive will be inspected thoroughly
and lubricated properly before every testing or racing session, the small sprocket is set to have 15
teeth Z1=15 T.
The teeth number of the large sprocket is calculated by multiplying the teeth of the small
sprocket [Z1] with the final drive ratio [i].
The workload correction factor [Ks] is calculated, by choosing the coefficients depending
on the nature of the machine.
Chain load factor K1
Smooth operation: 1 Medium shock loads: 1.25 High shock loads: 1.5
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 54
Table 28: Chain load factor K1.
Since it‟s a chain drive for a motorsport vehicle application with sudden load changes, a
load coefficient for high shock loads is chosen K1=1.5.
Lubrication factor K2
Continuous lubrication: 0.8 Interrupted lubrication: 1 Periodical lubrication: 1.5
Table 29: Chain lubrication factor K2.
Since there is no lubrication system, and the lubrication is achieved by spray lubricant
before every testing or racing session, a lubrication coefficient for periodical lubrication is
chosen K2=1.5.
Service factor K3
Less than 8 hrs/day : 1 Less than 16 hrs/day: 1.25 Continuous operation: 1.5
Table 30: Chain service factor K3.
The maximum service hours per day are 2 hours, so a service factor of 8 hours per day or
less is chosen K3=1.
The workload correction factor can be calculated by multiplying the three coefficients.
The design power PD can be calculated by multiplying the peak power of the engine Pe =
80 kW with the workload correction factor Ks=2.25.
To select a roller chain drive for industrial application, the next step is to consult
DIN/ANSI chain selection diagrams and according design power and rpm, make a first selection
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 55
of a roller chain. But since it is motorsport application, it is preferable to consult a motorsport
chain manufacturer chart.
Figure 30: DID Chain specifications for O-ring and X-ring chains.
For the first design iteration a 520VO chain is selected, for its O-ring design, which leads to
increased wear resistance, high load capacities, low weight, and readily available.
Geometrical characteristics of DID 520VO chain
Chain Type: Pitch: Roller Diameter: Pin Length: Width:
DID 520VO 15.875 mm 10.16 mm 20.20 mm 7.94 mm
Table 31: Geometrical characteristics of DID 520VO chain.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 56
Chain mechanical properties
Chain Type Weight/100 links m100 Tensile Strength F Seal Type
DID 520 VO 1.5 kg 35.6 kN O-ring
Table 32: Chain mechanical properties.
The pitch action diameter of a sprocket can be calculated using the following formula.
( )
Sprockets Pitch Action Diameters
Pinion sprocket action diameter D1 Pinion sprocket action diameter D2
76.32 mm 273.7 mm
Table 33: Sprockets pitch action diameters.
Chain drive calculations
Factor: Reason: Value:
Maximum engine torque Te: Fact 240 Nm
Peak engine power Pe: Fact 80 kW
Design Power Pd: Pd=Ks x Pe 180 kW
Design engine speed nd: nd = Pe / Te 3183 rpm
Peripheral speed ud: ud= (pi x D1 x n) / 60 12.71 m/s
Peripheral design load Fd: Fd = Pd / ud 14.162 kN
Tensile strength of chain F: Manufacturer 35.6 kN
Safety Factor: N=F / Fd 2.51
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 57
Table 34: Chain drive concept calculations.
The center distance can be calculated from setting an arc of contact for the small
sprocket, since reliability is a serious factor, an arc of contact a=1500 is chosen:
The center distance can be calculated from the following equation:
(
)
Through an iterative procedure a center distance of c= 320mm with a=150.770, is chosen.
The number of chain links can be calculated through the following formula:
(
)
Rounding up to the next even number K=78 links. The chain length is equal to the link
number times the pitch.
The chain weight is equal to the specific weight per 100 links multiplied by K/100.
The final center distance can be calculated:
((
) +√ (
) (
) ) = 330.6 mm
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 58
Figure 31: Chain drive concept.
4.2 ENCLOSED GEARBOX CONCEPT
There are two options of mounting an electric motor in a rear wheel drive single seat
racecar, perpendicular and across the longitudinal axis of the racecar. In the perpendicular
way of mounting the engine rotation is transferred to the rear wheels through a bevel or
hypoid gear transmission, while in the across way through a spur or helical gear transmission.
The perpendicular way of mounting was dismissed, because of the following reasons. Bevel
and hypoid gears are more difficult to precision manufacture, the rotation of the engine will
result in a roll moment in the chassis which can affect the handling of the racecar and the
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 59
reaction forces in a bevel gear couple lead to a heavier casing, shaft and bearing selection.
The across way motor mounting (transaxle gearbox) is leading to the choice between spur
and helical gears.
Spur and helical gears comparison
Advantages Disadvantages
Spur Gears Helical Gears Spur Gears Helical Gears
No axial forces Slightly better load
bearing capabilities
Slightly worse load
bearing capabilities
Axial Forces
Ease of manufacturing Silent operation Noisy operation Difficult manufacturing
Table 35: Spur and helical gears comparison.
In vehicle transmission helical gears are preferred, due to their silent operation and better
load bearing capabilities. In the design of this gearbox spur gear design was chosen, due to the
absence of axial forces transmission from the gear couple. Axial forces in a gearbox lead to
bending loads in the gearbox casing and axial loads to the bearings. Bending loads in the casing
are compensated with the design of a heavier structure and axial loads in the bearings lead to the
choice of thrust bearings that add unnecessary complexity and weight to the design.
The conclusion of a transaxle gearbox of spur gears sets the next design decision, the
arrangement of the gears inside the gearbox. There three possible ways of arrangement the 1-
stage transmission, the 1.5-stage transmission and the n-stage transmission. The 1-stage
transmission is a single gear couple between the electric motor and the drive wheels. The 1.5-
stage transmission is the same arrangement, as the 1-stage, with a reversing gear between the
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 60
gears. The n-stage transmission is the use of n gear couplings. The reduction ratio of the 1 and
1.5 –stage is the division of the gear wheel teeth with pinion wheel teeth.
The reduction ratio for an n-stage is the product of the gearing couplings reduction ratios.
The main criteria in the decision of the arrangement of the gears are the minimum
allowable center distance to avoid collision with the electric motor which is over 160 mm and
minimum gear teeth that could be manufactured without undercut (Z=16 T). Through multiple
iterations of preliminary structural analysis, considering weight, efficiency and rotational mass
inertia, the choice of a 2-stage design was made.
Enclosed gearbox characteristics
Gearbox type: Transaxle
Gears type: Spur gears
Arrangement of gears: 2-stage design
First gear couple teeth: 16-29
Second gear couple teeth: 23-46
Module: 3
Reduction Ratio: 3.625
Center Distance: 171 mm
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 61
Table 36: Enclosed gearbox characteristics.
Figure 32: Enclosed gearbox concept.
4.3 REDUCTION DRIVE SELECTION CONCLUSION
The comparative analysis between a chain drive concept and an enclosed gearbox drive
concept lead to the following conclusions.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 62
An enclosed drive of rotating parts is always safer and more reliable than an open
drive of rotating parts.
The occupied space of a chain drive is significantly larger, due to the increased
center distance.
The weight of the components of the two concepts is similar, but the weight
added by the increased center distance of the chain drive (e.g. longer chassis, need
of differential mounts, chain tensioner, steel chain scatter shield etc.) is
significantly higher.
Therefore the enclosed gearbox casing was selected.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 63
5. CHAPTER 4: MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING METHODS
SELECTION
5.1 MATERIALS AND TREATMENTS.
The main criterion in material selection is their immediate availability in the Greek market. The
materials are then selected based on the desired material properties for the optimal function of
each design component. For the drivetrain design the material selection is broken to four main
parts, material selection for the shafts, for the gears, for the gearbox and differential housing and
finally material for the mounting of the powertrain components.
Desired material properties based on components
Shaft Design: High Modulus of Elasticity, Yield strength
Gear Design: Wear resistance, Ductility, Fatigue strength
Gearbox /Diff Casing: Low density, High modulus of elasticity in increased temperatures.
Mounting: Low Density, High Yield strength
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 64
Table 37: Desired material properties based on components.
5.2 GEARS MATERIAL SELECTION
A gear pair, during its operation, develops bending stresses at the root of the tooth, while
also develops surface pressure stresses at the flank of the tooth. The material selection for the
given load conditions, according to bibliography, is case hardened steel. Its hardened outer layer
bears the developed surface pressure stresses making the gear wear resistant and its soft core can
withstand shock loading without the development of internal cracks. Its retained ductility after
the heat treatment increases the fatigue strength of the gear. All possible combinations of
materials and heat treatments, that could be delivered by the steel provider of the team, were
evaluated according to the standard ISO 6336-5 over the two previously stated criteria, fatigue
strength and allowable surface pressure in order to select the best combination.
Material Type Material Name Heat-Treatment Fatigue Strength Surface Pressure
Carburizing
Steels
15CrNi6
[DIN 1.5919]
Case carburizing
and tempering
430 MPa 1500 MPa
Alloy Steels 34CrNiMo6
[DIN 1.6582]
Induction
hardening
370 MPa 1180 MPa
34CrNiMo6
[DIN 1.6582]
Nitriding 370 MPa 1000 MPa
34CrNiMo6 Quench and 290 MPa 700 MPa
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 65
[DIN 1.6582] tempering
42CrMo4
[DIN 1.7225]
Induction
hardening
370 MPa 1220 MPa
42CrMo4
[DIN 1.7225]
Nitriding 370 MPa 1000 MPa
42CrMo4
[DIN 1.7225]
Quench and
tempering
280 MPa 650 MPa
31 CrMoV9
[DIN 1.8519]
Nitriding 425 MPa 1250 MPa
Carbon Steels Ck45 Quench and
tempering
210 MPa 540 MPa
Ck45 Induction
hardening
370 MPa 1220 MPa
Ck45 Nitriding 370 MPa 1000 MPa
Ck60 Quench and
tempering
215 MPa 560 MPa
Table 38: Available materials for gear manufacturing.
The comparison shows that the use of 15CrNi6 [DIN 1.5919], along with the case
carburizing and tempering process show the best performance results. The only downside of the
case carburizing particularly for small sized gears is the possible dimensional distortions that
could happen, due to the increased temperatures of the process. The gears that will be used will
be in the medium size region, so the solution of case carburizing and tempering is selected along
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 66
with a lapping manufacturing technique that will enhance the surface roughness of the flank of
the gear and the meshing quality of the gears.
Case carburized and tempered 15CrNi6 steel [DIN 1.5919]
Case Hardness: 60 HRC
Core Hardness: 27 HRC
Tensile Strength: 1000 MPa
Yield Strength: 685 MPa
Young‟s Modulus: 206 GPa
Poisson Ratio: 0.3
Density: 7830 kg/m3
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion: 11.5 10-6
/0C
Fatigue Strength: 430 MPa
Allowable Surface Stress: 1500MPa
Table 39: Case carburized and tempered 15CrNi6 [DIN 1.5919] steel material properties.
5.2 SHAFTS MATERIAL SELECTION
The drivetrain shafts are mainly susceptible to combined bending and torsion loads such
as the gearbox‟s shafts or to pure torsion loading such as the drive-shafts. The material properties
that matter in these load conditions is the Young‟s Modulus in order to attain the least possible
displacements at the gearbox shafts, thus maintaining optimal meshing conditions for the gear
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 67
teeth under load and the Yield Strength for the bearing of the load conditions. The increased
Young‟s modulus property leads to the use of steel, which overall has very little differences
regarding Young‟s Modulus, depending on its alloys and carbon percentage. The second
property Yield Strength leads to a comparison similar with the comparison of the gear materials,
except that the sweep parameter is the Yield Strength of the materials. It is worth mentioning that
the steel used for the shafts is not going to be heat treated, but it is rather going to be used in the
quench and tempered delivery condition (+QT) . The post – heat treatment processes such as the
grinding of the bearing seats, that are necessary to counterbalance the dimensional distortion due
to the heat treatment process complicates the manufacturing of the shafts. The machining of the
material in the +QT condition requires tungsten carbide tooling in the lathe processes and surface
coated hobbing tools in the spline manufacturing.
Material Type Material Name Yield Strength
Carburizing Steels 15CrNi6 [DIN 1.5919] 685 MPa
Alloy Steels 34CrNiMo6 [DIN 1.6582] 1000 MPa
42CrMo4 [DIN 1.7225] 900 MPa
31CrMoV9 [DIN 1.8519] 900 MPa
Carbon Steels Ck45 490 MPa
Ck60 580 MPa
Table 40: Available materials for shaft manufacturing.
Alloy steel 34CrNiMo6 [DIN 1.6582] was selected due to its high yield strength, and
alloy steel 42CrMo4 [DIN 1.7225], in case there is a shortage in the desired dimension, again
due to its high yield strength.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 68
5.3 GEARBOX AND DIFFERENTIAL CASING MATERIAL
The gearbox casing is susceptible to plane stress, as a reaction to bending forces
developed by the gear meshing and the design goal is the minimum displacement between the
bearing seats. Thus keeping the gear pairs center distances under load, whereas the differential
casing transmits torque from the crown gear to internal mechanism of the differential. The main
material property for the minimization of developed displacements is the Young‟s Modulus and
for attaining the most lightweight design the Yield Strength. As the whole design philosophy is
focused around lightweight design, these parameters are divided with the material density in
order to provide a detailed view over a lightweight design.
Material Young‟s Modulus Density Young‟s Modulus/
Density
Aluminum 70000 MPa 2780 kg/m3
25.2
Steel 210000 MPa 7850 kg/m3
25.47
Magnesium 45000 MPa 1700 kg/m3
26.47
Titanium 110000 MPa 4400 kg/m3
25
Table 41: Specific Young‟s Modulus comparison for different materials.
Material Yield Strength Density Yield Strength/
Density
Aluminum 7075-T6 570 MPa 2780 kg/m3 0.205
Steel 34CrNiMo6 1000 MPa 7850 kg/m3 0.127
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 69
Magnesium AZ31C 200 MPa 1700 kg/m3 0.1176
Titanium Ti-6Al-4V 910 MPa 4400 kg/m3 0.207
Table 42: Specific Yield Strength comparison for different materials.
For the displacement – oriented design (i.e. the gearbox casing design) it is evident that
there is no observable performance gains between the available materials. The expensive
materials titanium and magnesium are ruled out. Aluminum alloys are chosen for the
displacement-oriented design for two reasons, firstly due to its lower density. Considering that
with the selection of steel, in order to attain the same displacement levels of an aluminum design
would lead to a thin sectioned profile that would be difficult to manufacture with the
conventional machining procedures (Milling processes). Also the increased rate of thermal
conductivity of the aluminum alloys makes the gearbox casing dissipate heat faster from the the
gear oil. Moving on to the stress -based design (i.e. the differential casing design), there is a clear
difference between the four materials involved. The yield strength to material density factor is
higher for the titanium and the aluminum alloy, given the higher cost and limited availability of
the Titanium Ti-6Al-4V alloy in the Greek market the choice of an aluminum alloy is made for
the gearbox casing and the differential coupling of the drivetrain. Special consideration was
given in the specific alloy selection, as the whole gearbox will operate in increased temperatures,
and a degradation of material properties at these temperatures is to be expected. The typical
range of maximum operating temperatures of a racing gearbox is 90-100 0C, a more detailed
thermal analysis and oil temperature tests will be explained further down in this thesis, but this
range is adequate for the initial material selection.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 70
Maximum Operating Gearbox Temperature: 100 0C
The material properties that were considered are Young‟s Modulus to Temperature and
Yield Strength to Temperature. The selection of aluminum alloy was made between the two
available aircraft grade aluminum alloys 7075-T6 and 2024-T3. These data were extrapolated
from NACA‟s Technical Note 3462 Tensile Properties of 7075-T6 and 2024-T3 Aluminum
Alloy Sheet Heated at Uniform Temperature.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 71
Figure 33: Comparison of Yield strength between AL 7075-T6 and AL 2024-T3.
Figure 34: Comparison of Young‟s Modulus between AL7075-T6 and AL2024-T3.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 72
The point of interest in these diagrams is the temperature of 100 0C, as it is apparent the
difference in the Young‟s Modulus is insignificant, but there is substantial difference of about
100 MPa in the yield strength characteristics between the two alloys. Given this difference
aluminum alloy 7075 -T6 is selected as a construction material for the gearbox casing and the
differential coupling.
Figure 35: AL 7075-T6 Material properties to temperature.
In the above diagram degradation in the Ultimate strength minus the Yield strength is
occurring with the increase of temperature. This means that at increased temperatures this alloy
is becoming brittle, so in case of a failure it is expected for the component to shatter instead of a
permanent deform. A break in these components, especially in the gearbox casing would be
catastrophic for the racecar and possibly harmful to the driver. Increased attention should be
given in the structural analysis and physical testing of this component.
Aluminum Alloy 7075-T6 Material Properties at 100 0C
Young‟s Modulus: 68 GPa
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 73
Yield Strength: 450 MPa
Ultimate Strength: 475 MPa
Shear Strength: 280 MPa
Fatigue strength: 130 MPa
Coefficient of thermal expansion: 25.2 10-6
/0C
Density: 2780 kg/m3
Poisson‟s Ratio: 0.33
Table 43: AL 7075-T6 Material properties at 100 0C.
5.4 MOUNTING AND GENERAL-PURPOSE MATERIAL SELECTION.
The selection of a mounting and general-purpose material selection follows a similar
approach to the selection of the gearbox casing and the differential coupling. The main criterion
is the yield strength to density ratio and the availability to the Greek market, so following the
above considerations aluminum alloy 7075-T6 is chosen for this purpose.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 74
6. CHAPTER 5: GEARBOX MECHANICAL DESIGN
6.1 GEARBOX INTERNAL COMPONENTS DESIGN
The internal components of the gearbox are the gears transmitting the power from the
electric motor to the drive wheels, the shafts that they are mounted and the bearings that allow
the rotational movement of the shafts. The design goals and targets described in the previous
chapters pose topological and geometrical constrictions in the design, and are presented below.
Gearbox internal components design constrictions
Specification: Target:
Type of transmission: 2-stage single speed gearbox
Type of gearing: Spur gears, standard 200 pressure angle
Final drive ratio: 3.5-3.7
Input Connection: Splined shaft
Output Connection: Differential mounting in hollow crown gear
Diameter of crown gear bore: 105 mm
Maximum overall width: Under 60 mm
Target center distance (input-output): 160-180 mm
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 75
Minimum clearance between rotating parts: 1 mm
Table 44: Gearbox internal components design constrictions.
After multiple design iterations the final geometry of the internal components of the
gearbox is presented.
Figure 36: Gearbox internal components drawing.
The gearbox internal components design and structural analysis is a subject that was
vastly analyzed in the student thesis „Design, development and manufacturing of an electric
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 76
racecar gearbox‟, and it is out of the scope of this diploma thesis. The final results of the design
are the following.
Gears:
Geometry of gears
Gear Teeth
Z
Module
m
Pressure
Angle a
Base diameter
D0
Width
w
Pinion Ζ11 : 16 3 200
48 mm 15 mm
Gear Ζ12 : 29 3 200
87 mm 15 mm
Pinion Ζ21 : 23 3 200
69 mm 15 mm
Gear Ζ22 : 46 3 200
138 mm 15 mm
Table 45: Geometry of gears.
Maximum loads applied per stage
Stage: Torque: Tangential Force: Radial Force:
First: 240 Nm 10000 N 3640 N
Second: 435 Nm 12608 N 4589 N
Table 46: Maximum loads applied per stage.
Dynamic loads applied per stage
Stage: Torque: Tangential Force: Radial Force:
First: 70 Nm 2917 N 1062 N
Second: 127 Nm 3682 N 1340 N
Table 47: Dynamic loads applied per stage.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 77
Results of gears structural analysis
Gear Root Safety Flank Safety Width
Pinion : 1.413 1.009 15 mm
Gear : 1.664 1.162 15 mm
Pinion : 1.34 1.233 15 mm
Gear : 1.526 1.374 15 mm
Table 48: Results of gears structural analysis.
Shafts:
1st Shaft
Figure 37: 1st shaft drawing.
1st shaft bearing reactions
Rmax1 7204.5 Ν
Rmax2 3437.5 Ν
Rm1 2101.6 N
Rm2 1002.7 N Table 49: 1st
shaft bearing reactions.
1st shaft results of structural analysis
Static Safety Factor: 6.7
Dynamic Safety Factor: 1.2
Maximum Deflection: 3.3 μm
Critical speed according to Rayleigh Ritz: 11531.2 rpm
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 78
Table 50: 1st shaft results of structural analysis.
2nd
shaft
Figure 38: 2nd shaft drawing.
2nd
shaft bearing reactions
Rmax1 -2870.5 N
Rmax2 5646.1 N
Rm1 -836 N
Rm2 1649.9 N Table 51: 2nd
shaft bearing reactions.
2nd
shaft results of structural analysis
Static Safety Factor: 5.6
Dynamic Safety Factor: 1.01
Maximum Deflection: 3.85 μm
Critical speed according to Rayleigh Ritz: 11438 rpm Table 52: 2nd
shaft results of structural analysis.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 79
3rd
Shaft
Figure 39: 3rd shaft drawing.
3rd
shaft bearing reactions
Rmax1 9137.1 Ν
Rmax2 4280.1 Ν
Rm1 2668.5 N
Rm2 1250 N Table 53: 3rd
Shaft bearing reactions.
3rd
shaft results of structural analysis
Static Safety Factor: 11.8
Dynamic Safety Factor: 7.1
Maximum Deflection: 0.124 μm
Critical speed according to Rayleigh Ritz: 63729 rpm Table 54: 3rd
shaft results of structural analysis.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 80
External Spline
Figure 40: Shafts external spline dimensions according to DIN 5480.
Spline geometry according to DIN 5480
Module m: 1.25
External Diameter De: 34 mm
Teeth Z: 26
Pressure angle a: 300
Operation coefficient KA: 1.25
Tooth width s: 1.9625 mm
Base Diameter Do: 32.5 mm
Tooth Height h: 1.125 mm
Effective length Le: 15 mm
Table 55: Spline geometry according to DIN 5480.
Spline results of structural analysis
Static Safety Factor Shaft: 11.8
Static Safety Factor Hub: 7.1
Dynamic Safety Factor Shaft: 0.124 μm
Dynamic Safety Factor Hub: 63729 rpm
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 81
Table 56: Spline results of structural analysis.
Bearings:
Selected ball bearings
Location: Left: Right:
1st Shaft: SKF 16006 SKF W61906R
2nd
Shaft: SKF 16006 SKF 16006
3rd
Shaft: Kaydon KC042CP0 Kaydon KC042CP0 Table 57: Selected ball bearings.
Selected ball bearings load capabilities
Bearing Static Load Capacity: Dynamic Load
Capacity:
Rotational Speed
Limit:
SKF W61906R: 5000 Ν 6240Ν 19000 RPM
SKF 16006: 7350 N 11900N 17000 RPM
Kaydon KC042CP0: 9875 N 10542N 1600 RPM Table 58: Selected ball bearing load capabilities.
Selected ball bearings static safety factor
Location: Bearing: Maximum
load Applied:
Safety Factor:
1st Shaft Right: SKF W61906R 3437.5 Ν 1.45
1st Shaft Left: SKF 16006 7204.5 Ν 1.02
2nd
Shaft Right: SKF 16006 5646.1 Ν 1.3
2nd
Shaft Left: SKF 16006 2870.5 Ν 2.56
3rd
Shaft Right: KC042CP0 4280.1 Ν 2.3
3rd
Shaft Left: KC042CP0 9137.1 Ν 1.1 Table 59: Selected ball bearings static safety factor.
Selected ball bearings rotational speed safety factor
Location Bearing Maximum
rotational
speed:
Safety Factor:
1st Shaft Right: SKF W61906R 5000 RPM 3.8
1st Shaft Left: SKF 16006 5000 RPM 3.4
2nd
Shaft Right: SKF 16006 2760 RPM 6.15
2nd
Shaft Left: SKF 16006 2760 RPM 6.15
3rd
Shaft Right: KC042CP0 1380 RPM 1.16
3rd
Shaft Left: KC042CP0 1380 RPM 1.16 Table 60: Selected ball bearings rotational speed safety factor.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 82
Selected ball bearings life cycles calculation
Location Bearing Dynamic Load Life Cycles
1st Shaft Right: SKF W61906R 1002.7 N 241013141
1st Shaft Left: SKF 16006 2101.6 N 181547680
2nd
Shaft Right: SKF 16006 1649.9 N 375204481
2nd
Shaft Left: SKF 16006 836 N 2884177947
3rd
Shaft Right: KC042CP0 1250 N 599844935
3rd
Shaft Left: KC042CP0 2668.5 N 61654873
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 83
Table 61: Selected ball bearings life cycles calculation.
Figure 41: SKF W61906R ball bearing datasheet.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 84
Figure 42: SKF 16006 ball bearing datasheet.
Figure 43: Kaydon KC042CP0 thin section ball bearing datasheet.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 85
6.2 GEARBOX CASING DESIGN
The design of the gearbox casing needs to incorporate the following considerations.
Accurate location of bearings, and minimum deflection between those distances,
to ensure the optimal meshing of the gearing.
Structural integrity under the dynamic loading of the gears.
Lightweight characteristics.
Complete sealing of the transmission oil and separation from the environment.
Incorporation of oil temperature sensor and vent hose for air depressurizing, as
the temperature of the gear oil is expected to reach 95 0C.
Design that can be manufactured with conventional machining processes.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 86
Figure 44: Gearbox casing drawing
Gearbox casing parts list
A: Radial oil seal housing
B: Gearbox end cap
C: Gearbox bell housing
E: Guide pin
F: Vent hose fitting
G: Vent hose fitting mount
H: Oil temperature sensor
Table 62: Gearbox casing parts list.
The lubrication, air depressurizing and sealing will be further discussed in the Chapter
lubrication and sealing. The first three targets require an iterative process of stress – strain
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 87
analysis that is difficult to present in this diploma thesis. Instead the finite element analysis
model of the final design of the gearbox casing will be presented below. The simulation contains
the two gearbox end caps connected through a virtual connection with bolts to the bell housing.
The whole assembly is rigidly mounted to the points that will be fixed on the transmission
mounts. The maximum loads posed by bearing reactions to the gear forces are acting upon the
two end caps. To estimate the tightening force between the end caps and the bell housing a hand
calculation is needed.
The whole assembly is pressed together and tightened with sixteen M5x60 mm grade 8.8
bolts and metal lock nut configuration, to prevent the bolt-nut assembly to loosen under
increased temperatures and vibrations. Since there are no axial forces acting upon the end caps
and the bolts, the empirical method of loading the bolts to 50% of their yield strength is chosen
for the gearbox application. The yield strength of the M5x60mm grade 8.8 bolt is Sy = 640 MPa
and its tensile area A = 14.2 mm2. The tightening force and the tightening torque are calculated
below.
A tightening force of 5000 N is selected for the clamping of the end caps to the bell
housing, to calculate the tightening torque the following method is used, where coefficient
K=0.2 for dry steel bolt.
The total tightening force of the gearbox is 80 kN, and it is plugged in the simulation as
tightening force between the end caps and the bell housing holes.
Meshed gearbox model.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 88
Figure 45: Meshed gearbox casing model.
Von Mises gearbox stress FEA results.
Figure 46: Von Mises gearbox casing stress FEA results.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 89
Displacement gearbox FEA results.
Figure 47: Displacement gearbox casing FEA results.
Results of gearbox casing FEA stress – strain analysis
Maximum Stress σmax: 216 MPa
Mean stress σm: 62 MPa
Maximum displacement between shafts: 20 μm
Mean displacement between shafts: 7.2 μm
Table 63: Results of gearbox casing FEA stress-strain analysis.
To evaluate the structural integrity of the gearbox casing, it is imperative to estimate the
materials strengths at the operating temperature of the gearbox. The material, as stated above is
Aluminum 7075-T6 and the maximum operating temperature is estimated to reach 95 0C.
Aluminum Alloy 7075-T6 Material Properties at 95 0C
Young‟s Modulus E: 68 GPa
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 90
Yield Strength Sy: 450 MPa
Ultimate Strength Su: 475 MPa
Fatigue strength Sn: 130 MPa
Coefficient of thermal expansion a: 25.2 10-6
/0C
Density ρ: 2780 kg/m3
Poisson‟s Ratio ν: 0.33
Table 64: Aluminum alloy 7075-T6 material properties at 95 0C.
Static structural analysis:
The static safety factor under full load is calculated.
Dynamic structural analysis:
Notch sensitivity factor q:
Figure 48: Notch sensitivity factor q.
The minimum radius of the gearbox casing is r = 4 mm, so the equivalent notch
sensitivity factor for an aluminum alloy is q = 0.85.
Static stress concentration factor Kt for plate in axial loading:
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 91
Figure 49: Static stress concentration factor Kt for plate in axial loading.
The width w=9 mm, the lowest thickness d=3 mm and the radius is r=4 mm. From
extrapolating the plot in Figure 48, the static stress concentration factor is Kt=1.4.
Dynamic stress concentration factor:
( )
Factors of fatigue life of AL7075-T6
Factor: Reason: Value:
Surface factor Cf : Machined aluminum surface 0.9
Reliability factor CR: 90% Reliability 0.897
Size factor CS: Plane-axial stress 1
Welding factor Cw : No welding 1
Dynamic stress concentration
factor Kf:
Calculation 1.34
Table 65: Factors of fatigue life of AL 7075-T6.
Modified Fatigue Strength Se:
Soderberg equivalent static stress:
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 92
√(
)
The dynamic safety factor is.
Dimensional Tolerances:
The final manufacturing drawing of the gearbox needs to incorporate tolerances on the
called dimensions. The critical dimensions of the end caps are the dimension tolerance of the
bearing fit and the tolerance between the three bearing bores.
The outer ring of a bearing deforms proportionately to the load applied. This deformation
can loosen the interference fit between the outer ring and the gearbox casing bore, causing the
bearing to spin freely inside the bore and inducing catastrophic damage to the aluminum gearbox
end cap. The required interference is estimated for the most loaded bearing of the assembly
(Radial Force Fr=7.2kN, diameter d=47mm, width B=9mm), according to the bearing
manufacturer.
√
The gearbox end caps are machined at a room temperature of 25 0C and reach and an
operation temperature of 95 0C. The aluminum alloy thermally expands by approximately twice
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 93
the rate of steel. For this reason it is decided to double the interference of the aluminum bore to
the steel bearing at Δ=30μm. To achieve this interference an ISO bore tolerance P6 was called in
the manufacturing drawings for the 1st and 2
nd shaft bearings and an ISO bore tolerance N6 for
the 3rd
shaft.
ISO interference fit of gearbox end caps bores
Bore dimension Lower interference Higher interference
1st shaft d=47 mm P6: -21 μm -37 μm
2nd
shaft d=55mm P6: -26 μm -45 μm
3rd
shaft d=127mm N6: -20 μm -45 μm
Table 66: ISO interference fit of gearbox end caps bores.
To set the dimension tolerance between bearing seats, it is important to mention that the
gears are machined with 100 μm deeper hobbing cut, in order to compensate for the tolerance of
the bearing bores, the thermal expansion and possible run out of the gears. The maximum
permissible run out in the gears was called 20 μm. The thermal expansion of the gears is
simulated as the thermal expansion δ of a steel disk (a=11.5 10-6
/0C, ΔΤ=70
0C).
Thermal expansion of gears
Pinion : 38 μm [δ/2=19μm] Interference between pair:
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 94
Gear : 70 μm [δ/2=35μm] 54 μm
Pinion : 55 μm [δ/2=27.5μm] Interference between pair:
83 μm Gear : 111 μm [δ/2=55.5μm]
Table 67: Thermal expansion of the gears.
The tolerance between the gearbox end caps bores is set to +-15 μm. In order for the
gears not to bind at operating temperatures, the operating clearance under load must be positive
at the worst case scenario.
The maximum deformation of the end cap, between the bearing bores is estimated at
approximately 20 μm, according to the FEA displacement model [Figure 46]. The operating
clearance under load is estimated.
Clearance of first stage:
Clearance of second stage:
The gearbox loses efficiency through this clearance as there is sliding induced in the
meshing of the gears, but the reliability of the gearbox is significantly increased.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 95
7. CHAPTER 6: LUBRICATION AND SEALING METHODS
7.1 LUBRICATION
The lubrication of a gearbox is described by three parameters.
The type of lubrication.
The lubricant.
The quantity of lubricant.
Type of lubrication:
There are three distinct methods of lubricating a gearbox, grease lubrication, oil splash
lubrication and forced circulation lubrication. The main criterion of selecting a lubrication
method is the pitch line velocity of the meshing gears.
According to bibliography, at pitch line velocity under 3 m/s grease lubrication is
preferred, at a pitch line velocity between 3 m/s and 12 m/s splash or oil bath lubrication is
preferred and at a pitch line velocity over 12 m/s forced circulation or oil mist lubrication is
preferred, as shown in Figure 49.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 96
Figure 50: Lubrication type selection chart.
The splash method lubrication is chosen for the gearbox application, with gear oil as
lubricant.
Lubricant selection:
The first step in the gear oil selection is an estimation of the kinematic viscosity needed.
√
Where V40 is the oil viscosity at 40 0C and V is the maximum pitch line velocity of the
fastest gear in fpm. Since our application is heavily loaded and our expected operating
temperature is 50 0C over ambient temperature slightly higher viscosity gear oil is selected. In
addition to the viscosity number the use of extreme pressure and anti-foam additives is preferred,
so synthetic oil SAE 75W-140 is selected.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 97
Figure 51: Gear oil SAE 75 W-140 specifications.
Gear oil SAE 75W-140 has a kinematic viscosity of V40=173 cSt. If the gearbox runs on
lower oil temperatures, in case of other events (acceleration, skidpad, autocross), it is safe to
operate at full load because of the higher viscosity levels, but viscous oil drag losses are to be
expected, so the efficiency of the power unit will be reduced.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 98
Quantity of lubricant:
Figure 52: Gear oil level drawing.
The gear oil level in a splash lubrication system is defined from the height submersion of
the gears in the oil bath.
Figure 53: Gear oil level for splash lubrication.
For spur gears and horizontal shaft transmission each gears must be submerged to the oil
bath from 1h to 3h, where h is the tooth height of the gears.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 99
A CAD representation of the gear oil is created, where the oil bath level is set to 3h, and
the gears and shafts volumes are removed.
Figure 54: Gear oil CAD representation.
The computed gear oil volume needed, according to the CAD representation is 182 ml.
The gear oil level also reaches the lower side of each shaft, to ensure adequate lubrication of the
ball bearings. The gear oil volume specification for the gearbox is set to 0.2 lt.
Since the gearbox is accelerated both longitudinally and laterally the oil bath level poses
an angle θ compared to the ground.
( )
Event Acceleration (m/s2) Angle (
0)
Acceleration 11 48.2
Braking 15 56.8
Cornering 19 62.7 Table 68: Oil level angle compared to acceleration.
The acceleration and the braking event are causing the oil level to move towards the
crown gear and the pinion gear, which through their rotation will feed the rest of the system with
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 100
lubricating oil. In the case of lateral acceleration the width of the gearbox is so small, that at least
one gear in either direction will be submerged to the oil bath and feed the rest of the gears with
lubricating oil.
Gear oil bench test:
To visualize the oil flow inside the gearbox, a transparent gearbox end cap was
manufactured, the gearbox was mounted on the lathe in the same level that it is mounted on the
racecar and with the use of a high fps camera the following images were taken.
Figure 55: Gear oil flow bench test simulation.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 101
As it is apparent in the shots the crown gear, by having a small clearance of 1mm with
the bell housing acts as an oil pump, feeding the rest of the components with oil lubricant at a
high flow rate.
Figure 56: Gear oil temperature to time at an endurance event.
The gear oil heating rate can be extrapolated from [Figure 54], for potential future
analysis of the system. The gear oil heating rate is 0.12 0C/s.
7.2 SEALING
The complete sealing of the gearbox is important for the reliability and safety of the
drivetrain system. It is regulated in the FSAE Rules that any leakage of fluid during a dynamic
event will lead to the disqualification of the team. There are two distinct problems with oil
leakage the first is the potential hazard that can be caused by lubricant leakage, such as slippery
track or potential fire hazard if the oil comes in touch with a hot surface. The second one is the
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 102
reliability of the unit as if the gearbox runs dry, the increased temperatures at gear contacts and at
the ball bearings will result in a possible seizing of the gearbox.
To achieve an oil tight transmission radial shaft seals are used in the rotating parts
openings and chemical gasket in the static flanges. Radial shaft seals are placed between the
shaft and the seal bore. A radial shaft seal depends on two components to seal. The first one is a
press fit that seals the housing bore. The second one is a sealing lip that ensures the dynamic and
static seal against the shaft. HMSA10 design radial shaft seals were used in the design of the
gearbox as they are specifically designed for oil retention, while also having an extra sealing lip
to protect the gearbox from contamination with dirt. These type of seals are rated up to 100 0C,
with a permissible short term temperature of 120 0C. The maximum operating pressure of the
seal in 0.03 MPa, but since the gearbox is depressurized through the oil ventilation system, the
working pressure difference is zero.
Figure 57: Radial shaft seal.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 103
The sealing of the input shaft is achieved through a HMSA10 30x47x6 mm radial shaft
seal, as shown in figures 56 and figure 57.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 104
Figure 58: Sealing of 1st shaft assembly.
Figure 59: Sealing of 1st shaft section.
The sealing of the output shaft is achieved through a HMSA10 110x130x12 mm radial
shaft seal, as shown in figures 58 and figure 59.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 105
Figure 60: Sealing of the 3rd
shaft assembly.
Figure 61: Sealing of the 3rd
shaft section.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 106
8. CHAPTER 7: DIFFERENTIAL AND DRIVE AXLES MECHANICAL
DESIGN
The implementation of the differential inside the crown gear of the gearbox led to a
design of a rear axle that is mounted on the 3rd
gearbox shaft‟s ball bearings. The final
assembly drawing of the rear axle is shown in figure 60, 61.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 107
Figure 62: Assembly drawing of rear axle.
Figure 63: Assembly drawing of rear axle 2.
8.1 DIFFERENTIAL COUPLING
The first component in the transmission of power is the differential coupling. It transmits
the power from the crown gear to the differential housing. The main design feature of the rear
axle is the implementation of the differential into the crown gear. This feature saves space and
weight by eliminating the need of extra differential mounts, bearings, and splined shafts, leading
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 108
to an integrated differential - rear axle design. The implementation is achieved as shown in figure
62.
Figure 64: Implementation of differential into crown gear drawing.
The differential coupling besides the torque transfer point between the crown gear and
the differential housing, also serves as a radial shaft seal bearing surface. As stated at the radial
shaft seal manufacturers handbook the bearing surface must be machined at a standard ISO h8
shaft tolerance, provide a surface roughness under 1.5 Ra and a surface hardness over 45 HRC.
To cope with surface hardness of 45 HRC, the aluminum 7075-T6 differential coupling went
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 109
through a hard anodizing process in order to achieve a rough 65 HRC aluminum oxide surface
layer.
The use of integrated milled alignment pins of the coupling ensures the concentricity of
the rear axle assembly is ensured without the need of extra steel guide pins that complicate the
assembly procedure.
Figure 65: Differential coupling drawing.
To calculate the stresses developed in the differential coupling a finite element analysis
model is made. The maximum torque applied to the differential coupling is calculated.
The torque is transferred through a bolt pattern of 12 x M6x100 mm grade 8.8 bolts,
capped with lock nuts, to prevent the bolt-nut assembly from loosening.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 110
Differential Coupling - Bolt Pattern Calculation
Bolts: Fact 12 x M6x100 mm 8.8 at r=49 mm
Tightening torque M: Design Input 10 Nm
Torque transfer T: Design Input 435 Nm
Bolt Area A:
28.3 mm2
Bolt shear load Q:
740 N
Bolt tensile load F:
8300 N
Bolt shear stress τ:
26.14 MPa
Bolt tensile stress σ:
293.3 MPa
Equivalent stress σv: =√ 298 MPa
Safety factor:
2.14
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 111
Table 69: Differential coupling – Bolt pattern calculation.
Figure 66: Differential coupling FEA stress results.
Differential coupling - FEA model stress results.
Equivalent maximum Von Mises stress: 74.5 MPa
Equivalent mean Von Mises stress: 26.85 MPa
Table 70: Differential coupling FEA model stress results.
The static safety factor under full load is calculated.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 112
Factors of fatigue life
Factor: Reason: Value:
Yield Strength Sy: Aluminum 7075-T6 503 MPa
Laboratory fatigue strength Sn: Aluminum 7075-T6 156 MPa
Surface factor Cf : Machined aluminum surface 0.9
Reliability factor CR: 90% Reliability 0.897
Size factor CS: Plane-axial stress 1
Welding factor Cw: No welding 1
Dynamic stress concentration
factor Kf:
Estimate 2
Table 71: Factors of fatigue life differential coupling.
Modified Fatigue Strength Se:
Soderberg equivalent static stress:
√(
)
The dynamic safety factor is.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 113
8.2 DIFFERENTIAL
A clutch-pack limited slip differential is chosen for the drivetrain design. In this type of
differentials, thrust is not limited by the lowest grip tire, such as in an open or a Torsen type
differential. It provides adjustability over torque bias ratio, through initial preload and ramp
angles adjustment. Essentially the more pressure exercised in the multi-disk clutch of the
differential, the higher the torque bias ratio of the differential.
The differential was purchased from DREXLER Motorsport and it was modified to fit to
the crown gear. The final drawing of the modified limited slip differential is presented.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 114
Figure 67: Modified DREXLER LSD drawing.
Ramp angle and theoretical lockup torque percentage S, according to manufacturer
Ramp angles Acceleration lockup Deceleration lockup
45°/60° 51% 29%
40°/50° 60% 42%
30°/45° 88% 51%
Table 72: Differential ramp angles and theoretical lockup.
The theoretical lockup torque percentage S describes the maximum applied torque
difference between rear wheels of the vehicles. The maximum torque that can be applied in a full
throttle situation in each wheel can be calculated.
High traction wheel maximum applied torque:
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 115
( )
Low traction wheel maximum applied torque:
( )
The ratio of the two applied torques is referred to as the torque bias ratio. It describes
how much higher is the high traction wheel compared to the low traction wheel maximum
applied torque.
Torque bias ratio depending on ramp angle
Ramp angle S TBR Maximum Torque on High
Traction Wheel TH
Maximum Torque on Low
Traction Wheel TL
60° 29% 1.8 561.15 Nm 308.85
50° 42% 2.5 617.7 Nm 252 Nm
45° 51% 3 656.85 Nm 213.15 Nm
40° 60% 4 696 Nm 174 Nm
30° 88% 15.7 817.8 Nm 52.2 Nm
Table 73: Torque bias ratio and applied torque depending ramp angle.
The maximum torque that can be applied in a component in the drive shaft assembly can
happen during acceleration, with the 300 ramp angle installed. This value is calculated above at
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 116
817.8 Nm. All the components of the drive shaft assembly will be designed to withstand that
torque value.
8.3 STUB SHAFT DESIGN
The stub shaft is the component that connects the differential with the aluminum tripod
housing. The final design is a tubular steel shaft with a flanged end that connects to the tripod
housing and a splined end that connects to the differential.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 117
Figure 68: Stub shaft drawing.
Stub shaft material properties
Material: AISI 4340 (DIN 1.6582) (+QT) [Nitrided]
Young‟s Modulus E: 200 GPa
Poisson ratio v: 0.3
Tensile strength Su: 1200 MPa
0.2% Proof strength Sy: 1000 MPa
Fatigue strength Se: 290 MPa
Modulus of rigidity G: 80 GPa
Surface Hardness: 58-60 HRC
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 118
Core Hardness: 30-35 HRC
Table 74: Stub shaft material properties.
Stress concentration factor Kt, for stepped shaft loaded in torsion.
Figure 69: Stress concentration factor Kt.
Cross section properties
Outer Diameter D: 28 mm
Inner Diameter d: 25 mm
Radius/Chamfer r: 3
D/d coefficient: 1.12
r/d coefficient: 0.12
Stress concentration factor Kt: 1.2
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 119
Table 75: Cross section properties.
The critical point of the shaft is located at the spline relief cut. The section A‟A below is
showing the critical point of the shaft.
Figure 70: Section A‟A stub shaft.
Section A‟A stress –strain calculation
Polar moment of inertia: ( ) 33380 mm4
Torsional stress: ( ) (
)
367.5 MPa
Angle of twist: ( ) ( ) 1.228 0
Table 76: Stub shaft – Section A‟A stress –strain calculation.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 120
Static analysis results
Von Mises equivalent stress: =√ 636.52 MPa
Tresca equivalent stress: =√ 735 MPa
0.2% Proof strength: Material Property 1000 MPa
Safety factor Von Mises:
1.57
Safety factor Tresca:
1.36
Table 77: Stub shaft – Static analysis results.
To perform a dynamic structural analysis, average engine power and average engine rpm
during an endurance race and a 50-50 torque split from the differential is assumed.
Dynamic stress calculation
Torsional stress τm: ( ) (
)
55.5 MPa
Torsional stress τr: ( ) ( ) 55.5 MPa
Table 78: Stub shaft- Dynamic stresses calculation.
Soderberg equation for dynamic torsional loads:
=√ (
)
, where α = 3 for Von Mises theory, and α = 4 for Tresca theory.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 121
Dynamic analysis results
Von Mises equivalent dynamic stress: 384 MPa
Tresca equivalent dynamic stress: 444 MPa
0.2% Proof strength: 1000 MPa
Safety factor Von Mises: 2.6
Safety Factor Tresca: 2.25
Table 79: Stub shaft – Dynamic analysis results.
The stub shaft critical speeds are not calculated because the distance between the needle
bearing and the spider gear is too short, and the only bending load is the axle‟s own weight,
meaning that axle‟s critical speeds are too high.
An involute spline is used to transmit the power from the spider gear to the stub shaft.
Involute spline characteristics, according to DIN 5480
Module m: 1.058
External diameter D: 28 mm
Teeth z: 25
Pressure Angle a:
Effective Length Le: 20 mm
Maximum Applied Torque: 817.8 Nm
Application Factor Ks: 2
Tooth Thickness t: 1.66 mm
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 122
Pitch Diameter: 26.5 mm
Tooth Height h: 0.95 mm
Table 80: Stub shaft- Involute spline characteristics.
Stub shaft spline analysis results
Maximum shear stress: ( )
Maximum compressive stress: ( )
Equivalent stress: = √ 650 MPa
0.2% Proof strength Sy: Material Property 1000 MPa
Safety Factor Tresca:
1.54
Table 81: Stub shaft - Spline stress analysis.
8.4 TRIPOD HOUSING DESIGN
To proceed with the design of the tripod housing, the continuous velocity joint that will
allow the power transmission at different relative angles of differential - suspension must be
selected. CV Joints allow the drive - shafts to transmit power through a variable angle, produced
due to the relative movement of the suspension to the chassis. It is calculated that the maximum
angle of possible power transmission is 4.10, at the top end of the suspension travel. Due to the
low angle of power transmission a Fiat 127 production tripod joint was chosen, being the lightest
and most efficient design at these relatively small angles, and also available at most automotive
stores at a competitive price.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 123
Figure 71: Tripod CV Joint FIAT 127 Automobile.
FIAT 127 Sport Edition CV Joint specifications
Engine torque FIAT 127: 95 Nm
Maximum gear ratio FIAT 127: 3.91
Final drive ratio FIAT 127: 4.462
Differential type FIAT 127: Open Differential (Equal torque split)
Maximum torque applied to CV Joint FIAT 127: 830 Nm
Maximum torque applied to CV Joint UoP5e: 817.8 Nm
Table 82: FIAT 127 Sport Edition CV joint specifications.
Figure 72: Driveshaft relative movement to differential.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 124
The tripod housing design was made possible, through multiple iterations of CAD design
and physical testing. The final part is a cnc milled hard-anodized aluminum 7075-T6 component
that bolts onto the stub shaft through 3 x M8x60 mm grade 8.8 bolt pattern, capped with lock
nuts.
Tripod Housing - Bolt Pattern Calculation
Bolts: Fact 3 x M8x60 mm 8.8 at r=30 mm
Tightening torque M: Design Input 20 Nm
Torque transfer T: Design Input 820 Nm
Bolt Area A:
50.25 mm2
Bolt shear load Q:
9100 N
Bolt tensile load F:
12500 N
Bolt shear stress τ:
181.11MPa
Bolt tensile stress σ:
248.75 MPa
Equivalent stress σv: =√ 400.3 MPa
Safety factor:
1.6
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 125
Table 83: Tripod Housing – Bolt pattern calculation.
Figure 73: Aluminum tripod housing joint drawing.
A stress analysis was performed in the finite element model of the aluminum tripod
housing.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 126
Figure 74: Aluminum tripod housing FEA stress analysis results.
Tripod Housing - FEA model stress results.
Equivalent maximum Von Mises stress: 119 MPa
Equivalent mean Von Mises stress: 43 MPa
Table 84: Tripod Housing FEA model stress results.
The static safety factor under full load is calculated.
Factors of fatigue life
Factor: Reason: Value:
Yield Strength Sy: Aluminum 7075-T6 503 MPa
Laboratory fatigue strength Sn: Aluminum 7075-T6 156 MPa
Surface factor Cf : Machined aluminum surface 0.9
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 127
Factors of fatigue life
Reliability factor CR: 90% Reliability 0.897
Size factor CS: Plane-axial stress 1
Welding factor Cw: No welding 1
Dynamic stress concentration
factor Kf:
Estimate 2
Table 85: Factors of fatigue life tripod housing.
Modified Fatigue Strength Se:
Soderberg equivalent static stress:
√(
)
The dynamic safety factor is.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 128
8.5 DRIVESHAFTS DESIGN
The final component in the rear axle design is the driveshaft. The driveshaft is the
component that connects the drivetrain assembly with the suspension. The design of the
driveshaft is a tubular steel shaft with splined ends. The CV Joints attach to the splined
ends of the driveshaft and enable the power transmission, between two not co-axial shafts.
The shape of the driveshaft makes it perform as torsional spring between the drivetrain and
the suspension, dampening any sudden shock loads in the system. The importance of its
torsional stiffness plays a major role in the performance of the system. It is worth
mentioning that a difference of torsional stiffness between the two driveshafts, may result
in “torque steer” under full throttle situations. The design of the drivetrain placed the
gearbox at the middle of the racecar, thus allowed the use of equal length driveshafts. Since
the driveshafts are equal in length there is no need of modifying their dimensions to
achieve equal torsional stiffness. They are a symmetrical design.
Figure 75: Driveshaft drawing.
The driveshafts are manufactured from a solid steel rod of 25mm diameter, and then they
are gun drilled to achieve an accurate positioning of the drilled hole.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 129
Driveshaft material properties
Material: AISI 4340 (DIN 1.6582) (+QT) [Nitrided]
Young‟s Modulus E: 200 GPa
Poisson ratio v: 0.3
Tensile strength Su: 1200 MPa
0.2% Proof strength Sy: 1000 MPa
Fatigue strength Se: 290 MPa
Modulus of rigidity G: 80 GPa
Surface Hardness: 58-60 HRC
Core Hardness: 30-35 HRC
Table 86: Driveshaft material properties.
A slightly different approach will be exercised in the static analysis of the driveshaft.
Since the torsional stiffness of the driveshaft needs to be as low as possible, the component will
be designed with safety against shattering and not safety against yielding. This will be achieved
by changing the yield strength in static analysis with the ultimate strength of the material. The
goal of this design strategy is to fully exploit the elastic properties of the material, and develop
safely a shaft with lowest possible torsional stiffness. The material choice in this decision is very
important. Steel alloys have very low differences between them in the modulus of rigidity
material property, while having vast difference in the yield strength property. Choosing the steel
of the highest yield strength property, allows the designer to produce lighter structures that have
the minimum possible torsional rigidity, for a given dimension.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 130
Driveshaft stress –strain calculation
Polar moment of inertia: ( ) 13673 mm4
Torsional stress: ( ) ( ) 598 MPa
Angle of twist: ( ) ( ) 15 0
Table 87: Driveshaft stress –strain calculation.
To perform a static structural analysis, a non-traction limited situation is assumed. The
maximum torque transferred by the drive shaft is 817.8 Nm.
Static analysis results
Von Mises equivalent stress: =√ 1034 MPa
Ultimate Strength Su: Material Property 1200 MPa
Safety factor Von Mises:
1.16
Table 88: Driveshaft – Static analysis results.
To perform a dynamic structural analysis, we take in account average engine power and
average engine rpm during an endurance race and a 50-50 torque split from the differential is
assumed. Mean torque applied and torque range is estimated.
Dynamic stress calculation
Torsional stress τm: ( ) ( ) 90.42 MPa
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 131
Torsional stress τr: ( ) ( ) 90.42 MPa
Table 89: Driveshaft- Dynamic stress calculation.
Soderberg equation for dynamic torsional loads:
=√ (
)
, where α = 3 for Von Mises theory.
Dynamic analysis results
Von Mises equivalent dynamic stress: 568 MPa
0.2% Proof strength: 1000 MPa
Safety factor Von Mises: 1.76
Table 90: Driveshaft – Dynamic analysis results.
The final step of the design of the driveshaft is an estimation of its critical speed,
according to Rayleigh-Ritz method.
(
)
The b term in the calculation is the deflection of the shaft through its own weight bending
moment. A resonance analysis of the driveshaft is performed.
Driveshaft resonance analysis
Own weight estimation m: 0.578 kg
Second moment of Inertia Ixx: 6836.1 mm4
Deflection y: 4 μm
Driveshaft critical speed n: 11220 rpm
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 132
Driveshaft maximum speed: 1380 rpm
Safety factor against resonance: 8.13
Table 91: Driveshaft resonance analysis.
.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 133
9. CONCLUSION
This diploma thesis was focused on the first custom developed e-drivetrain designed and
manufactured in Greece, under the supervision of Laboratory of Manufacturing Systems and
Automation of the University of Patras. The e-drivetrain system has competed in 6
international motorsport engineering FSAE competitions and made over 1000 km. It has
achieved all the design goals, on the arguments stated in the introduction of this thesis,
thanks to the meticulous analysis, the testing and continuous optimization of each component
of the system. This diploma thesis also fulfills a secondary target, as it represents a written
guide for the next team members of UoP Racing and other engineers, who wish to develop a
similar project on fully electric vehicles. My recommendations to UoP Racing on the
development of the e-drivetrain components in the future are the investigation of developing
a multiple-speed gearbox, on profile-shifted gear profiles, on a thermo-mechanical analysis
of the gearbox, on advanced manufacturing techniques such as EDM and additive
manufacturing and on advanced materials, heat treatments and chemical coatings. I
personally believe that the automotive sector is headed to the direction of fully electric
vehicles and that the development and optimization of e-drivetrain units will have a major
role in the efficiency and reliability of the future automotive industry.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 134
In the following pages, there are some photos from the actual e-drivetrain unit.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 135
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 136
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 137
Figure 76: E-drivetrain photographs.
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 138
REFERENCES
[1] Chryssolouris G., Manufacturing Systems: Theory and Practice 2nd Edition. Springer-
Verlag, New York; 2006
[2] Chris A. Papadopoulos, Machine Elements, Tziolas Publications, University of Patras
[3] Th. Kermanidis, Strength of Materials, University of Patras Publications, University of Patras
[4] Thomas D. Gillespie, “Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics”, SAE Publications, Warrendale
[5] K. Salonitis, T. Chrondros, G. Chryssolouris, "Grinding wheel effect in the grind-hardening
process", International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Volume 38, No. 1-
2, pp. 48-58 (2008)
[6] D. Miler, A. Lončar, D. Žeželj, Z. Domitran, "Influence of profile shift on the spur gear pair
optimization", Mechanism and Machine Theory, Volume 117,Pages 189-197 (2017)
[7] C. Xie, L. Hua, X. Han, J. Lan, X. Wan, X. Xiong, "Analytical formulas for gear body-
induced tooth deflections of spur gears considering structure coupling effect", International
Journal of Mechanical Sciences, Volume 148, Pages 174-190 (2018)
[8] M. Hu, H. Xie, C. Fu, “Study on EV transmission system parameter design based on vehicle
dynamic performance”, International Journal of Electric and Hybrid Vehicles, Vol. 6, pp.
133-151(2014)
[9] Budynas, Richard G., J. Keith Nisbett, and Joseph Edward Shigley. “Shigley's Mechanical
Engineering Design”. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011.
[10] Heimerl George J, Inge John E, “Tensile Properties of 7075-T6 and 2024-T3 Aluminum-
a. alloy Sheet Heated at Uniform Temperature Rates Under Constant Load”, NASA Technical
b. Reports Server
[11] KHK Gears Technical Documents, retrieved from, https://khkgears.net/new/
Mechanical design and development of a drivetrain system for an
electric FSAE racecar
Georgios Siangas
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautics Engineering – Manufacturing Sector 139
[12] DIN 5480-1, Splined connection with involute splines based on reference diameters
[13] SKF Rolling Bearings online catalogue, retrieved from,
http://www.skf.com/gr/products/bearings-units-housings/product-tables/index.html
[14] Kaydon bearings online catalogue, retrieved from,
https://www.kaydonbearings.com/RealiSlim_open_bearings.htm
[15] KISSsoft manual, retrieved from, http://www.kisssoft.ch/Manual/en/