2. Formula Student
Competition in which universities design,
build and run their vehicles with the aim of
scoring as many points as possible in the
following areas:
• Design
• Business Plan
• Cost
• Acceleration
• Skid Pan
• Sprint
• Endurance & Fuel Economy
Key PointsWhat is Formula Student
• Small engine displacement – 600cc
• Very narrow coned track
• Emphasis on agility not outright
power or speed
3. • Design a chassis for the 2012 Formula Student Vehicle
• Develop an analysis method to help future chassis development
Brief
Exploration
• Performance Increase
• Can be confidently
manufactured on time
• Within budget
• Software for chassis
analysis
• Test of chassis
Constraints
• Must meet Formula
Student regulations
• Interface with other
major systems;
suspension &
powertrain
• Analysis methods
must be usable by
future students
Timeframe
• Final designs to be
reviewed in January
• Manufactured by 1st
May
4. Research – Chassis Types
Steel Tubular Spaceframe Composite Monocoque
• Relatively easy
manufacture
• Cost effective
• Previous experience
• Inexperienced in manufacture
• Relatively expensive
• Possible performance gain
8. Purpose
• Chassis has a major impact on
vehicle performance
• No current proven simulation model
or test equipment
Development Model
Options
• Finite Element Analysis
o Optimisation of chassis in design
phase
• Physical testing
o Requires test rig
o Time consuming
o Vehicle is already manufactured
• Physical test work of a previous
chassis
• FEA simulation of a previous
chassis
• Validation of modelling and
simulation techniques from test
work
• Model parameters can be used
for future chassis designs
Conclusion
9. Finite Element Analysis
Software Package
• Solidworks
• Abaqus
• Other software packages
Modelling Methods
• Frame constrained to replicate dynamic
loading scenarios
• Beam element model used
o Fewer elements required for a given
structure size
o Method is readily available and usable in
Abaqus
o Linear stiffness matrix used
Data
• Torsional Stiffness
o Performance indicator
o Comparison to previous frames
• High/low stress areas
• Comparison of designs
o Ultimate stiffness
o Mass
o Stiffness per unit mass
Future use
11. Testing
Procedure
• Aim: Measure torsional stiffness
• Dial gauges located between the
spaceframe and the flatbed
Dial gauges
• Front clamped down
• Rear set-up on pivot
Pivot Rear beam
• Masses placed on one side of rear
beam (5Kg increments)
Masses
Front beamPhil’s Shoe
• Gauges measured at each interval
12. Results
FEA Results Graph
Linear graph – Load applied is directly
proportional to angular displacement
Test Results Graph
Vertical displacement to angular displacement
13. Results
Comparison of Simulated and Tested Data – With Engine
Overall Stiffness
(Nm/deg)
Front to Centre
Stiffness (Nm/deg)
Centre to Rear
Stiffness (Nm/deg)
Tested with
engine
1462.75335 1880.519508 6602.482826
Simulated with
engine
1273.056176 1598.578421 6251.73906
Simulated
Percentage
Difference
-13.0% -15.0% -5.3%
14. Results
Comparison of Simulated and Tested Data - Without Engine
Overall Stiffness
(Nm/deg)
Front to Centre
Stiffness (Nm/deg)
Centre to Rear
Stiffness (Nm/deg)
Tested without
engine
955.5590512 1568.896077 1768.588146
Simulated without
engine
1117.957557 1548.504062 4020.847449
Simulated
Percentage
Difference
+ 12.3% -1.3% +127.3%
16. Summary
• Chassis designed and manufactured on
time
• All sub-systems fitted correctly
• Mass of 29.5Kg - 29% mass saving over
previous spaceframe
• Vehicle competed at scheduled events
Part 1: Design a chassis for the 2012
Formula Student Vehicle
• Simple test rig designed and
manufactured
• Abaqus model of PFK-01 and HARE 12
created
• Validation has proved promising
• Further validation work required,
particularly regarding engine
Part 2: Develop an analysis method to
help future chassis development
