Final Progress Report

David Baker, Adam Baldan, Matthew

Grusenmeyer, Evan Jenkins, & Shane Marcks

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

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

 Design, Fabricate, and Test a Steel Space Frame Chassis and Fuel
System
High considerations to manufacturability
On par with top teams performance

Torsional and Flexural Rigidity

Weight

Center of Gravity Height

Seamlessly Integrate all critical System Components

Resources

Steel Tubing

Cost (<$1000)

Wants

Minimize the weight to stiffness ratio

Maintain Low Center of Gravity
Reasonable material and manufacturing costs
Create a solid base chassis to evolve on for years to come
Aesthetically pleasing design

Needs

Purposefully integrate all car systems including drivetrain,

driver controls, and suspension together
Efficiently locate/design or select a fuel tank
Create a cockpit that can accommodate up to a 95th percentile
male

All vehicle systems must fit onto the chassis

Suspension Members, Engine, Fuel Tank, Differential,

Axles, Pedals, etc

Must comply to all 2011 Formula SAE rules for

Safety
Geometry
Materials

Maximum cost of $1000, less donated

parts/tools/materials

Top Teams of 2010 FSAE Competitions as well

as our Previous Chassis

Rigidity
Weight
Type of Chassis (Composite, Steel, Hybrid)

Consultations with CCM Faculty

Dr. Suresh Advani, Dr. John Tierney, Pit Schulze, and Dr. Dirk Heider

Vertical Center of
Gravity
Manufacturability

Aesthetics

Reliability
Longitudinal
Torsional Rigidity
Weight

Flexure
Resistance

Metric Target Values

Metric

Target Value

Manufacturability

225 Hrs

Longitudinal Torisonal Rigidity

1800 Foot Pounds per Degree

Flexure Resistance

4500 Pounds per Inch

Weight

Under 75 Pounds

Vertical Center of Gravity

Under 10 Inches

Our research has shown three prevalent designs in FSAE racing:

Steel Space Frame

Current standard in FSAE

Low cost, manufactured with conventional tools
Easy to repair and modify
Low strength/weight ratio means a heavier structure

Full Monocoque

Pinnacle of racing technology only type used in Formula 1 Racing

Enhanced strength/weight ratio over steel frames
Exotic materials add cost, difficult to manufacture
Difficult to repair/modify, poor accessibility to critical systems
Difficult to obtain sufficient pull out strength at mount points

Hybrid Monocoque/Spaceframe

Realize benefits of monocoque while avoiding rear mounting

complications

Tubing Summary
Yield Strength (ksi)

Material

Tensile Strength (ksi)

SAE1010 ERW

45 50

30 35

SAE1020 DOM

80 90

70 80

SAE4130 DOM

90 100

80 90

Design Considerations

Torsional and Flexural Rigidity along the length of the vehicle

Triangulated Sections

Accommodation of Driver and Major Systems

Notching

Tubing bending for Roll Hoops

Welding

Appr. Cost ($/ft.)

1 x 0.049
0.48
1 x 0.65
0.45
1 x 0.095
0.65
1 x 0.049
1.05 1.92
1 x 0.65
1.35 2.05
1 x 0.095
1.42 2.45
1 x 0.049
1.96 2.45
1 x 0.65
1.90 2.38
1 x 0.095
2.79 3.57

Pros:
Cons:
- Based off existing frame
- Heavier than Monocoque
- Revised load paths
Designs
- Lighter than existing frame
- Expanded roll hoops for more
driver comfort and
accessibility

Design Considerations

Pull out strength of critical connections (>17kN)

Pedal Box Accessibility
Manufacturability of Mold and Foam Core
Joining Rear Steel Frame to Front Composite Monocoque
General Mounting Points of Various Components
Pros:
- Realizes the structural benefits
of monocoque construction
- Lighter and more aesthetically
pleasing than a space frame
with bodywork
- Avoids packaging,
manufacturing and accessibility
challenges of a full monocoque

Cons:
- Difficulty of achieving proper
pull out strength of critical
connections
- Limited pedal box Accessibility
- General mounting of peripheral
components is a challenge

 Composite monocoque structure from firewall forward

Steel space frame utilized for the rear section

Utilized concept selection Matrices

Concepts vs. Weighted Wants, Weighted Metrics, and Constraints

Conclusion

Hybrid Monocoque/Space Frame

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

Carbon Fiber Sample

Testing
Test panels with
donated materials did
not have sufficient
mechanical properties
to allow for use in
chassis

Change was made from

Hybrid Frame concept
to Steel Frame concept
Driven by poor material
performance

Wooden Spine Jig

Flat Tube Profile Patterns

Weight
Center of Gravity
Rigidity (Torsional & Flexural)
Manufacturability 450hrs

Torsional Test Rig

Torsional Test Rig

Part:

Price: ($)

Notes:

Fuel Pump
Fuel Lines and Fittings
Space Frame Material
Body Work Materials
Suspension Mounting
Materials
Fuel Cell Aluminum
Wood For Frame Jig
Engine Bushings
Bimetal Hole Saws
Tube Clamps
Body Work
Manufacturing
Paint for Frame
Total:

80
30
350
0

Stock Yamaha Electric Fuel Pump, bracket and o ring

35
60
50
30
40
90

Returned Mounts
3X3 1/16 sheet of aluminum
For manufacturing of tube frame
4 Bushings
1 inch hole saws
For manufacturing of tube frame

100
50
915

Foam and wood to build mold

Rustoleum and Clear Coat

10-20DOM tubing already purchased

Donated by CCM