Numerical and Experimental Analysis of Formula SAE Chassis

THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND
Bachelor of Engineering Thesis
NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF

FORMULA SAE CHASSIS,
WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE DESIGN ITERATIONS
Student Name: JONATHAN PETER BLESSING
Course Code: MECH4501
Supervisor: Dr W. Daniel
Submission date: 11th June 2004
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the

Bachelor of Engineering degree program in the
Division of Mechanical Engineering
Jonathan Peter Blessing
27 Julia St
Highgate Hill 4101
11 June 2004
Prof. J. M. Simmons
Head of School
School of Engineering
University of Queensland
Brisbane
Queensland 4072
Dear Sir,
I hereby submit my Thesis titled Numerical and Experimental Analysis of Formula

SAE Chassis, with Recommendations for Future Design Iterations for
consideration as partial fulfillment of the Bachelor of Engineering degree.
All the work contained within this Thesis is my original work except where
otherwise acknowledged.
I understand that this thesis may be made publicly available and reproduced by
the University of Queensland unless a limited term embargo on publication has
been negotiated with a sponsor.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Peter Blessing

Student Number 33627713
Executive Summary
The objective of this thesis is to analyze the design of the University of

Queensland Formula SAE chassis both experimentally and by numerical
methods. These experiments are based on the dynamic loads experienced by
the chassis under normal driving conditions, along with the torsional stiffness of
the chassis. The results from the testing of the 2003 chassis have been
implemented into the 2004 design, with a significant performance increase.
The mass moments of inertia in roll, pitch and yaw of the whole vehicle were
determined experimentally, and compared to the expected values from computer
modeling. There are strong correlations between the CAD calculations and the
experimental results, however, the testing equipment requires some modification
for future experiments about the pitch and roll axis. The experiments and
calculations in the yaw axis are sufficiently accurate at this stage.
The results from this experimentation will be used in future designs of Formula
SAE vehicles at the University of Queensland, with the recommendations made
that the 2005 design incorporate stressed aluminum and carbon-fibre skins on a
tubular spaceframe. This is in preparation for a future semi-monocoque design
from the University of Queensland. Improvements for the testing procedures
include a need for a lighter and more accurate car swing setup, along with a more
rigid torsional test rig.
Recommendations for the 2005 design include a stressed-skin of aluminum and

carbon-fibre on a tubular steel spaceframe, in preparation for a semi-monocoque
chassis design for the 2006 competition.
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ______________________________________________________ i
Table of Contents ________________________________________________________ii
Table of Figures _______________________________________________________ viii
List of Tables ___________________________________________________________x
Chapter 1 ______________________________________________________________1
1.1 Introduction___________________________________________________1
1.2 The University of Queensland FSAE team___________________________1
1.3 The Chassis ___________________________________________________1
1.4 Design Techniques _____________________________________________2
1.5 Design Validation ______________________________________________2
1.6 Design Options ________________________________________________3
1.6.1 Tubular Steel Space Frame ___________________________________3
1.6.2 Metal Monocoque __________________________________________4
1.6.3 Composite Semi-Monocoques ________________________________4
Chapter 2 ______________________________________________________________6
2.0 Test Equipment for Experiments __________________________________6

2.1 Torsional Test Rig______________________________________________6
2.1.1 Concept __________________________________________________6
2.1.2 Construction ______________________________________________7
2.1.3 Method __________________________________________________8
2.2 Car Swing ___________________________________________________10
2.2.1 Theory __________________________________________________10
2.2.2 Construction _____________________________________________12
2.2.3 Calibration of Swing System ________________________________13
2.2.3.1 Calculations____________________________________________14
2.2.4 Results of Calibration ______________________________________15
2.2.5 Inaccuracies______________________________________________15
Chapter 3 _____________________________________________________________16
ii
3.0 The 2003 Vehicle Design and Construction _________________________16
3.1 Design Objective of 2003 Chassis ________________________________16
3.2 Design Requirements __________________________________________16
3.3 Material Selection for 2003 _____________________________________17
3.4 Chassis Construction 2003 ______________________________________18
3.5 Rocker and Driveline Locations __________________________________19
3.6 Bodywork ___________________________________________________20
3.7 Post welding processes _________________________________________20
3.8 Non-Destructive Crack Testing of 2003 chassis______________________21
Chapter 4 _____________________________________________________________22
4.0 Numerical Analysis of 2003 Chassis _______________________________22

4.1 2003 FEA model ______________________________________________22
4.1.1 Engine Model ____________________________________________22
4.1.2 Suspension model _________________________________________23
4.1.3 Weighted model __________________________________________23
4.2 2003 Load Cases for Modeling___________________________________24
4.2.1 Braking Case 2003 ________________________________________24
4.2.2 Lateral Load Case 2003 ____________________________________25
4.2.3 Acceleration case 2003 _____________________________________27
4.3 Finite Element Analysis of 2003 Chassis ___________________________29
4.3.1 Braking Case 2003 ________________________________________29
4.3.2 Lateral Loading Case 2003 __________________________________30
4.3.3 Acceleration Case 2003 ____________________________________31
4.3.4 Torsional Testing 2003 _____________________________________32
4.3.5 Rear Lower Engine Mounts _________________________________33
Chapter 5 _____________________________________________________________34
5.0 Experimental testing of 2003 chassis_______________________________34

5.1 Torsional Testing of 2003 vehicle ________________________________34
5.1.1 Method _________________________________________________34
5.1.2 Results__________________________________________________35
5.2 Measurement of Centre of Gravity ________________________________36
5.2.1 Method _________________________________________________36
iii
5.2.2 Procedure _______________________________________________37
5.2.3 Minimum Requirements for Competition_______________________38
5.2.4 Results__________________________________________________38
5.3 Calculation of Mass Moments of Inertia ___________________________39
5.3.1 Method _________________________________________________39
5.3.2 Results__________________________________________________40
5.3.3 Error and Inaccuracies in Experiments _________________________40
5.3.3.1 Location of Centre of Gravity______________________________40
5.3.3.2 Chain Friction __________________________________________41
5.3.3.3 Weight of Rig __________________________________________41
5.3.3.4 Recording of Period of Oscillations _________________________41
5.4 Nodal Deflections of 2003 Chassis________________________________42
5.4.1 Method _________________________________________________42
5.4.2 Locations measured _______________________________________43
5.4.3 Results__________________________________________________44
5.5 Strain Gauge Correlation of the 2003 Chassis Modeling _______________47
5.5.1 Gauge Selection __________________________________________47
5.5.2 Strain Gauge Setup ________________________________________48
5.5.3 Equipment _______________________________________________48
5.5.4 Strain Gauge Theory _______________________________________49
5.5.5 Calibration of Strain Gauge Amplifier _________________________50
5.5.6 Selection of Gauge locations ________________________________51
5.5.7 Expected stress in Gauge Locations ___________________________51
5.5.7.1 Strain Gauge Location 1 __________________________________51
5.5.8 Method _________________________________________________53
5.5.9 Results__________________________________________________53
5.6 2003 Wet Testing _____________________________________________55
5.7 2003 Competition _____________________________________________56
Chapter 6 _____________________________________________________________57
6.0 Design Objective of 2004 Chassis _________________________________57

6.1 Lessons learnt from 2003 Design _________________________________57
iv
6.1.1 Suspension mounting ______________________________________57
6.1.2 Driver compartment _______________________________________57
6.1.3 Packaging issues __________________________________________57
6.1.4 Location of Rear Sprocket and Disk___________________________58
6.1.5 Engine Mounts ___________________________________________58
6.2 Design improvements of 2004 chassis _____________________________59
6.2.1 Material Change for Minimum Requirements ___________________59
6.2.2 Cockpit Design ___________________________________________59
6.2.3 Engine Mounts ___________________________________________60
6.2.4 Diffbox design ___________________________________________60
6.2.5 General Chassis Improvements_______________________________61
6.2.6 Finalize Design before Construction __________________________61
6.2.7 Material Selection 2004 ____________________________________61
6.3 Construction Process 2004 ______________________________________62
6.3.1 Modular design ___________________________________________62
6.3.2 Bodywork 2004___________________________________________63
6.3.3 Non-Destructive Crack testing of 2004 chassis __________________63
Chapter 7 _____________________________________________________________64
7.0 Numerical Analysis of 2004 Chassis _______________________________64

7.1 2004 FEA Model______________________________________________64
7.2 2004 Load Cases ______________________________________________64
7.2.1 Braking Case 2004 ________________________________________64
7.2.3 Accelerating Case 2004 ____________________________________65
7.3 Finite Element Analysis of 2004 Chassis ___________________________67
7.3.1 Braking Case 2004 ________________________________________67
7.3.3 Acceleration Case 2004 ____________________________________71
7.3.3.1 Change in Turnbuckle Location ____________________________72
7.3.4 Torsional Testing 2004 _____________________________________73
7.3.5 Suspension Pickup Forces 2004 ______________________________74
7.3.6 Rear Engine Mounts _______________________________________75
v
Chapter 8 _____________________________________________________________77
8.0 Experimental Testing of the 2004 chassis ___________________________77

8.1 Torsional Testing of 2004 vehicle ________________________________77
8.2 Strain Gauge Testing of 2004 Chassis _____________________________79
8.2.1 Strain Gauge Location 1 ____________________________________79
8.3 Dynamic Testing of 2004 Vehicle ________________________________82
8.4 Driveline Testing of 2004 Vehicle ________________________________83
8.4.1 Method _________________________________________________83
8.4.2 Results__________________________________________________83
Chapter 9 _____________________________________________________________84
9.0 Conclusions from Experimental Testing ___________________________84
Chapter 10 ____________________________________________________________87
10.0 Recommendations for 2005 Chassis Design and Construction _________87
Chapter 11 ____________________________________________________________88
11.0 Recommendations for Future Testing Procedures ___________________88
Bibliography ___________________________________________________________89
Appendix A ____________________________________________________________91
Extract from 2004 Formula SAE Rules pertaining to Chassis Design and
Construction ________________________________________________________91
Appendix B ___________________________________________________________110
University of Queensland Safety Structure Equivalency ___________________110
Appendix C ___________________________________________________________113
Tube Selection for Minimum Requirements _____________________________113
Appendix D___________________________________________________________114
Calculations for Mass Moment of Inertia________________________________114
Appendix E ___________________________________________________________115
vi
Data plots for Dial Gauge Locations ____________________________________115
Appendix F ___________________________________________________________122
Strain Gauge Data Plots ______________________________________________122
Appendix G___________________________________________________________124
Calculations for 2003 Height of Centre of Gravity ________________________124
Appendix H___________________________________________________________125
2003 Chassis Layout _________________________________________________125
Appendix I ___________________________________________________________126
2004 Chassis Layout _________________________________________________126
vii
Table of Figures
Figure 1. The 2003 University of Queensland FSAE Chassis ____________________________________ 3

Figure 2. University of Wollongong with Stressed Carbon-Fibre Panels ___________________________ 4
Figure 3. University of Western Washington's Composite Tub Chassis ____________________________ 5
Figure 4. Torsional Test Rig with 2003 FSAE Vehicle _________________________________________ 6
Figure 5. Front Left Stand of Torsional Test Rig _____________________________________________ 7
Figure 6. Front Right Stand of Torsional Test Rig ____________________________________________ 7
Figure 7. Swingarm on Central Bearing ____________________________________________________ 8
Figure 8. Schematic of Test Procedure _____________________________________________________ 8
Figure 9. Calibration of Torsional Test Rig _________________________________________________ 9
Figure 10. Plot of Calibration of Torsional Test Rig __________________________________________ 9
Figure 11. Huygens Theorem ___________________________________________________________ 10
Figure 12. Calculation of Mass Moment of Inertia of Platform_________________________________ 10
Figure 13. Mass Moment of Inertia of Vehicle______________________________________________ 11
Figure 14. Mass Moment of Inertia in Yaw with a Three-Point Swing ____________________________ 11
Figure 15. Trial 1 for Pitch Calibration ___________________________________________________ 13
Figure 16. Trial 3 for Yaw Calibration ____________________________________________________ 13
Figure 17. Mass moment of inertia of cylinder ______________________________________________ 14
Figure 18. Parallel Axis Theorem for Calibration ___________________________________________ 14
Figure 19. Jig for 2003 Chassis Construction ______________________________________________ 18
Figure 20. Front Suspension Geometry 2003_______________________________________________ 19
Figure 21. Rear Suspension Geometry 2003________________________________________________ 19
Figure 22. Bodywork Construction 2003 __________________________________________________ 20
Figure 23. Non-Destructive Testing of 2003 Chassis _________________________________________ 21
Figure 24. Braking Load Case 2003 ______________________________________________________ 24
Figure 25. Lateral Load Case 2003 ______________________________________________________ 25
Figure 26. Acceleration Load Case 2003 __________________________________________________ 27
Figure 27. Schematic of Rear Sprocket ____________________________________________________ 28
Figure 28. Fibre Stress in Chassis under Braking ___________________________________________ 29
Figure 29. Fibre Stress in Chassis with Lateral Loads ________________________________________ 30
Figure 30. Fibre Stress in rear section of Chassis under Acceleration ___________________________ 31
Figure 31. FEA Torsional Test of 2003 Chassis _____________________________________________ 32
Figure 32. Schematic of Torsional Stiffness Calculation ______________________________________ 32
Figure 33. Torsional Test of 2003 Chassis with Modeled Lower Engine Mounts ___________________ 33
Figure 34. Torsional Testing of 2003 vehicle_______________________________________________ 34
Figure 35. Plot of Torsional Test of 2003 Chassis ___________________________________________ 35
Figure 36. Process for Finding Height of Centre of Gravity of Vehicle __________________________ 36
viii
Figure 37. Finding Centre of Gravity of 2003 Vehicle________________________________________ 37
Figure 38. Finding Mass Moment of Inertia in Yaw of 2003 vehicle _____________________________ 39
Figure 39. Locations for Nodal Displacements______________________________________________ 44
Figure 40. Comparison of Nodal Displacements to FEA ______________________________________ 45
Figure 41. Wheatsone Bridge for Strain Gauge Wiring _______________________________________ 47
Figure 42. Strain Gauge Locations for 2003 Testing_________________________________________ 52
Figure 43. Axial Stresses In Torsional Testing ______________________________________________ 52
Figure 44. Bending Stresses in Torsional Testing ___________________________________________ 52
Figure 45. UQ FSAE at 2003 FSAE-A Competition _________________________________________ 56
Figure 46. 2001-2002 Georgia Institute of Technology _______________________________________ 60
Figure 47. Jigs for 2004 Construction ____________________________________________________ 62
Figure 48. Non-Destructive Testing of 2004 Chassis Diffbox _________________________________ 63
Figure 49. Fibre Stress in 2004 Chassis Under Braking_______________________________________ 67
Figure 50. Axial Stress in 2004 Chassis under Braking _______________________________________ 68
Figure 51. Bending Stresses in 2004 Chassis under Braking ___________________________________ 68
Figure 52. Fibre Stress from Lateral Load Case 2004 ________________________________________ 69
Figure 53. Fibre Stresses in Rear Section Under Lateral Load _________________________________ 70
Figure 54. Fibre Stress in 2004 Rear Section Under Acceleration Load Case______________________ 71
Figure 55. Fibre Stresses in Rear Section with Alternate Driveline Support_______________________ 72
Figure 56. Torsional Testing of 2004 Model________________________________________________ 73
Figure 57. Von Mises Stress in Suspension Pickup Points _____________________________________ 74
Figure 58. Global Displacement of Rear Lower Engine Mounts ________________________________ 75
Figure 59. Global Displacement of Upper Engine Mounts_____________________________________ 75
Figure 60. Torsional Testing of 2004 Chassis ______________________________________________ 77
Figure 61. Plot of Torsional Testing of 2004 Chassis_________________________________________ 78
Figure 62. Strain Gauge Locations for 2004 Chassis ________________________________________ 80
Figure 63. Axial Stresses Under Braking __________________________________________________ 80
Figure 64. Axial Stresses in 2004 Chassis Under Lateral Forces _______________________________ 81
Figure 65. Bending Stresses under Acceleration ____________________________________________ 81
Figure 66. 2004 Vehicle under Initial Dynamic Testing ______________________________________ 82
ix
List of Tables
Table 1. 2003 Braking Load Case Parameters _____________________________________________ 24

Table 2. 2003 Lateral Load Case Parameters ______________________________________________ 25
Table 3. 2003 Acceleration Load Case Parameters __________________________________________ 27
Table 4. Torsional Stiffness Experiments __________________________________________________ 35
Table 5. Examples of Mass Moments of Inertia______________________________________________ 40
Table 6. Locations for Nodal Displacements _______________________________________________ 43
Table 7. Results for Nodal Displacements__________________________________________________ 44
Table 8. Calibration of Strain Gauge Amplifier _____________________________________________ 50
Table 9. Results of 2003 Strain Gauge Testing ______________________________________________ 53
Table 10. 2004 Braking Load Case Parameters_____________________________________________ 64
Table 11. 2004 Lateral Load Case Parameters______________________________________________ 65
Table 12. Analysis of 2003 Data, with Initial Rig Calibration __________________________________ 84
Table 13. Analysis of Testing Data, Including Dial Gauge Results ______________________________ 85
Table 14. Analysis of Testing Data for 2003, Applied Moment and Recorded Stress _________________ 85
x
Chapter 1
1.1 Introduction
Extract from the 2004 Formula SAE Rules:

The Formula SAE competition is for SAE student members to conceive,
design, fabricate, and compete with small formula-style racing cars. The
restrictions on the car frame and engine are limited so that the knowledge,
creativity, and imagination of the students are challenged. The cars are built with
a team effort over a period of about one year and are taken to the annual
competition for judging and comparison with approximately 120 other vehicles
from colleges and universities throughout the world. The end result is a great
experience for young engineers in a meaningful engineering project as well as
the opportunity of working in a dedicated team effort.
In addition to this, there are now competitions held in Australia, United Kingdom
and recently Japan that are available for all Formula SAE teams to compete.
1.2 The University of Queensland FSAE team
The University of Queensland started its first team in 2001, with an initial placing
in the Australian competition of 14th, followed by 10th in 2002. At the 2003
competition held at the Mitsubishi proving grounds in Talem Bend, the University
of Queensland placed 3rd overall, and 1st out of the Australian teams. At the time
of writing, the 2004 vehicle is under construction, with the intention of competing
in the 2004 Formula Student competition in the UK in July. The team has every
intention of another podium finish, and has its sights set on first place in both the
UK and Australian competitions in 2004.
1.3 The Chassis
One of the critical components in these vehicles is the chassis design and
construction. The initial chassis for the 2001 vehicle was the first time anyone at
the University had built this style of vehicle, and so was heavy, poorly designed
1
and suffered some initial failures. The design was modified for 2002, but the
chassis still suffered the same problems. The next iteration for 2003 was a
definite improvement on the 2002 design in terms of weight and component
packaging; however it was a very floppy design, with a torsional stiffness that
affected the tuning of the suspension. The chassis design at the University of
Queensland has been improving with each year of the competition, with the 2004
design already proving itself as light, stiff and reasonably well packaged.
1.4 Design Techniques
The 2003 chassis design was made with the packaging of the other vehicle
components in mind, without significant finite element analysis used in the
design. FEA was used in the selection of wall thickness for the members in the
chassis to keep the predicted stresses in the chassis below 50% of the yield
strength of the material. The load cases used were calculated from the expected
dynamic forces that would be experienced by the vehicle in normal driving
conditions. The torsional stiffness of the chassis was only investigated once the
initial design had been finalized, which made options to stiffen the chassis fairly
constrictive. For the 2004 chassis, by designing for a target torsional stiffness of
3000Nm/deg, did not require significant modifications to handle the expected
dynamic loads. A minimum torsional stiffness of 2000Nm/deg was discussed as
a minimum requirement from discussions with the technical adviser for the
Australian competition, Pat Clarke. From computer modeling in Matlab treating
the chassis as a spring, a minimum torsional stiffness of 3000Nm/deg was
chosen.
1.5 Design Validation
The purpose of this thesis is to experimentally compare the design of the chassis
compared to the finite element model. The parameters of the entire vehicle,
centre of gravity and mass moments of inertia about the yaw, roll and pitch axis
will also be determined.
2
1.6 Design Options
During the years of competition of formula SAE, there have been 3 major styles
of chassis construction tubular steel space frame, composite semi-monocoque
and stressed skin designs.
1.6.1 Tubular Steel Space Frame
Tubular steel space frames are possibly the most popular chassis design in
Formula SAE. Part of the competition process is the validation of your design to
the design judges; the tubular space frame is easiest. As the design judges have
only a limited amount of time to inspect the vehicles, they need to see that the
chassis performs as the team claims. As tubular steel structures are common in
motorsports, it is easy for judges (with or without motorsport backgrounds) to
visually access the design of a space frame. The University of Queensland has
only constructed tubular steel spaceframes for all of its vehicles to date.
Figure 1. The 2003 University of Queensland FSAE Chassis
3
1.6.2 Metal Monocoque
Metal Monocoque or stressed-skin designs can also be easily visually assessed

for load paths and expected forces, as they are usually a tubular space-frame
with bonded aluminum panels used to increase stiffness and to act as bodywork.
The aluminum sheeting is only to thick, but the claimed stiffness increase
is significant. (Gadola 2003) Instead of aluminum, carbon-fibre panels can be
used to the same effect, which is more effective for complicated geometry and
sections that are out of plane.
Figure 2. University of Wollongong with Stressed Carbon-Fibre Panels
1.6.3 Composite Semi-Monocoques
Composite semi-monocoques are usually a tub design, with the material used a
carbon-fibre matrix with an epoxy resin. There are usually several materials
included in the lay-up process to modify the properties for strength, stiffness, and
weight. There is a wide scope in the properties of composite materials available
for chassis construction compared to the known and familiar properties of steel.
Because of this there are significant equivalency rules in place to ensure that the
minimum safety requirements for the chassis are met. (See Appendix A, section
3.3.3)
4
As the judges cannot easily assess the load lines and forces in the chassis when
looking at a composite construction, there is an inherent disadvantage from the
view of competition points. On the other hand, composite constructions have the
possibility of being lighter, stiffer, stronger and simpler to construct than any
tubular space frame.
Figure 3. University of Western Washington's Composite Tub Chassis
5
Chapter 2
2.0 Test Equipment for Experiments
2.1 Torsional Test Rig
2.1.1 Concept
The concept behind the torsional test rig is to apply a moment about the roll axis
of the vehicle, applied at the uprights. This is done with dummy shocks
replacing the normal shock absorbers, and will measure the stiffness of the entire
vehicle.
The construction of this test rig was necessary for this research, as well as being
a useful tool for future years in the team. This is an excellent method for
comparing different chassis designs, even though the exact same loading is not
experience by the vehicle in normal use, it is more of a benchmark load case. As
the stiffness of the vehicle is dependent on the wishbone linkages, suspension
members, uprights and hubs, its a fair test of the stiffness of the whole vehicle.
Figure 4. Torsional Test Rig with 2003 FSAE Vehicle

2.1.2 Construction
The test rig was constructed out of 50mm SHS steel, with 3mm NWT and 40mm
SHS x 2mm NWT. The plate for the bolting of the hubs is 6mm mild steel, with
25.4mm SHS x 1.5mm NWT bracing. The rig was MIG welded in the Mechanical
Engineering Workshop at the University of Queensland.
There are 3 parts to the test rig, which are used to support the vehicle and apply
the moment. The rear uprights are bolted to the adjustable swingarm with the
front uprights bolted to the remaining two stands. The front left stand is bolted to
the ground. The mount for the swingarm and the front left mount are mounted on
castors, to allow movement in the horizontal direction(s) while resisting motion in
the vertical.
Figure 5. Front Left Stand of Torsional Test Rig
Figure 6. Front Right Stand of Torsional Test Rig
7
Figure 7. Swingarm on Central Bearing
2.1.3 Method
By applying weights to the cantilever on the end of the swingarm, a moment is

produced about the centreline of the vehicle, and the resulting deflection can be
measured. For this testing, a laser pointer was fixed to the swing arm and the
deflection measured on a vertical surface. This will give the rotation of the test
rig, which is proportional to the torsional stiffness of the chassis.
L
La

d
H
Rear of vehicle fixed to swingarm
Figure 8. Schematic of Test Procedure
M = FLa = Moment about centreline

d
tan =
L
M
K= = Torsional stiffness

8
The rig was first calibrated to find the effects of the stiffness of the rig itself,
this was done by rearranging the layout of the test rig to simulate a dummy
vehicle. As the rotation of the swingarm was measured the vertical
displacement of a laser pointer on a vertical board, the accuracy of the
measurement was difficult for small displacements. If the board were moved
further away to increase resolution, the laser point would spread, affecting the
accuracy of the readings.
Figure 9. Calibration of Torsional Test Rig
This gave an effective stiffness of the test rig as approximately 8509Nm/deg.
Torsional Test Rig Calibration
2500
y = 8059.3x - 26.678
2000
R2 = 0.9704
1500
LOADING
Linear (LOADING)
1000
500
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Figure 10. Plot of Calibration of Torsional Test Rig
9
2.2 Car Swing
2.2.1 Theory
The theory behind the car swing is that the mass moment of inertia of an object
can be determined by swinging the object like a pendulum and recording the
period of oscillations. The method used is from the OptimumG, Formula SAE
seminar presented by Claude Rouelle in 2003.
This is based on Huygens theorem, where
J A = Inertia about axis A

J B = Inertia about axis B
J A = J B + (m dist AB 2 )
Figure 11. Huygens Theorem
mi g .Li
Ji =
(2 f )i 2
Figure 12. Calculation of Mass Moment of Inertia of Platform
10
J car =
( mi + mcar ) gL J i (2 f ) 2
( 2 f )
2
Figure 13. Mass Moment of Inertia of Vehicle
where mi = mass of stage

f = frequency of ocillations
L = distance to pivot from centre of gravity of car
To find the mass moment of inertia in yaw, the swing is modified to be a three-
point swing, and the car is rotated about the centre of gravity of the vehicle and
the stage.
Figure 14. Mass Moment of Inertia in Yaw with a Three-Point Swing
11
For the calculations of mass moment of inertia in yaw using a three-point swing,
the formula used is
mcar g r 2T 2 mi gr 2 2
I car =
4 2 L
+
4 2 L
(T Ti 2 )
Where T = Period of movement
r = Distance from centre of gravity to platform supports
L = Vertical distance from pivot point to platform
2.2.2 Construction
The car swing platform was constructed out of 50mm SHS x 3mm NWT steel.
The platform was suspended from 10mm steel chain, fixed into eyebolts on the
platform. The chains were pinned to eye nuts that were bolted into the concrete
ceiling under the Mechanical Engineering building at the St Lucia Campus of the
University of Queensland.
The weight of the stage was 52kg, with 17.1kg of chain suspending the platform.
The horizontal centre of gravity of the platform was found by suspending the
platform from two corners, with a plumb line running vertical. Where the plumb
lines intersected was the centre of gravity of the platform. For the vertical
distance, a model of the platform and chain was made in Solid Edge, to confirm
the horizontal centre of gravity and to find the expected vertical centre of gravity.
The centre of gravity of the frame is in the centre of the three-point yaw setup and
for pitch and roll.
The swing can be pinned from either four or three points, allowing for testing in
the roll, pitch and yaw, however the swing must be dismantled between each set
of experiments, making it time and labour intensive. Each setup for the vehicle
required at least 3-4 people to shift the car into location.
12
2.2.3 Calibration of Swing System
To calibrate the swing system, experiments were done on weight stacks of known
weight and geometry. The mass moment of inertia of the stacks was calculated
by hand, and compared to a Solid Edge model. For the calibration, weight stacks
were used to represent the vehicle in the model of Section 2.2.1.
Trial 1 was a vertical stack of weights at the centre of gravity of the swing,
720mm tall and 180mm in diameter. The stack weighed 120kg, and was used for
the pitch calibration. Trials 2 and 3 were two weight stacks of equal dimensions,
spaced 1165mm apart across the axis of rotation. They were each 360mm tall,
180mm diameter and weighed 60kg. This was for the calibration in pitch and
yaw.
Figure 15. Trial 1 for Pitch Calibration
Figure 16. Trial 3 for Yaw Calibration
13
2.2.3.1 Calculations
The calculations for the mass moment of inertia for the stacks is
y l2 r2
Ix ' = Iy ' = m +
x 12 4
l mr 2
Iz ' =
z
2
Figure 17. Mass Moments of Inertia of Cylinder
Where Ix is the mass moment of inertia about the horizontal axis of a cylinder
through the centre of gravity. For Trials 2 and 3 with two cylinders the mass
moment of inertia is calculated for each stack along an axis parallel to the centre
of the swing at distance x, using
Ix = Ix '+ m(dx) 2
Where dx is the distance from the centre of mass of each individual stack to the
centre of mass of the load, and the axis of interest for finding the moment of
inertia.
Pivot
Weights
Cog of
weights
Stage
dx
Figure 18. Parallel Axis Theorem for Calibration
This is also used for calculations about the y and z-axis. This will give the mass
moment of inertia about the centre of gravity of the weight stack(s).
14
2.2.4 Results of Calibration
Calculated Experiment % Calculated Experiment %

MMOI in al MMOI in error MMOI in al MMOI in error
2 2
Pitch Pitch Yaw (kgm ) Yaw (kgm )
(kgm2) (kgm2)
Trial 1 5.427 6.9 27% - - -
Trial 2 43.1 60.4 40% - - -
Trial 3 - - - 42.0 41.5 2%
From these results, it can be seen that there are significant inconsistencies in the
pitch and roll experiments, but that the yaw experiment is relatively accurate.
The pitch and yaw experiments give values that are consistently large (30-40%),
and will have to be taken only as a rough approximation.
2.2.5 Inaccuracies
There are some possible explanations for the errors in these measurements and
calculations, which are
The stage and supporting chains are too heavy, which is reducing the
measurable effects of the load, affecting the calculated values
There is excessive friction in the chain arrangement which is affecting the
results
There were minor errors in the location of the load on the platform for the
tests
Minor measurement errors in the dimensions of the platform and vehicle
may have affected this output.
In the testing in pitch and roll there may have been development of
secondary oscillations in other axes.
Errors in the recorded period of oscillation
These errors will be discussed in Section 5.3.3.
15
Chapter 3
3.0 The 2003 Vehicle Design and Construction
3.1 Design Objective of 2003 Chassis
The primary objective of the 2003 FSAE chassis was the reduction of weight from
the 2002 chassis design. The 2002 chassis was fabricated from mild steel and
weighed in at 55kg. The projected weight of the 2003 chassis was 30kg, which
would be a 25kg improvement. This would be obtained the use of thin-walled
High Tensile 4130 Alloy for the material selection. At final assembly, the 2003
chassis weighed in at 35kg.
3.2 Design Requirements
The primary requirements for the chassis as outlined by the rules of the
competition are to protect the driver of the vehicle from minor impacts and
rollover situations. (See Appendix A). The chassis has to allow for all of the
vehicle components to be appropriately contained on the vehicle. Packaging
issues should be kept to a minimum for the final assembly of the vehicle, and
access to components is critical during testing and on-track. In this competition,
the aesthetics of the vehicle plays a crucial role; with the winners of the
competition always producing very presentable vehicles. The layout of the
chassis is a major factor in the appearance of the vehicle, which is then
expanded upon by the bodywork.
From a structural perspective, the chassis is required to provide a stable base for
the mounting of the engine, driveline and suspension of the vehicle. Depending
on the suspension design, there should not be significant flex in the chassis.
Suspension design can be based on both stiff and flexible chassis designs; an
example of this is in go-kart design, where the frame of the go-kart acts as the
suspension. The design judges do not encourage flexible chassis design in this
competition. Another possible problem of a flexible chassis with a spool
differential is that there may be problems in tuning the vehicle for wet conditions,
again a go-karting comparison, which are notorious for understeer in wet
condition.
3.3 Material Selection for 2003
The 2001 and 2002 chassis were constructed out of 1 mild steel tubing, with a
minimum wall thickness of 1.6mm. This was a sturdy construction, and was fairly
tolerant of design flaws. However, it was heavy, at 55kg it was a significant
weight in the vehicle. For 2003 the team chose High Tensile 4130 Chrome-
Molybdenum steel for the frame construction. The primary advantage with this
steel is the high yield strength and its availability in thin-walled sections. This
was a new material for the team, and so some fairly conservative tube sizes were
used for the 2003 construction.
Including wishbones, the tubing used was (OD x NWT x total length used)
25.4 x 3.0mm x 3.63m
25.4 x 1.65mm x 10.6m
25.4 x 0.9mm x 9.6m
25.4 x 0.7mm x 6.2m
19.05 x 0.9mm x 6.3m
31.75 SHS x 1.65mm x 1.5m
25.4 x 44.45 RHS x 1.65mm x 0.34m
This steel is significantly more expensive than mild steel, with approximately
$AUD2000 spent for the material, with substantial excess. In the cost report
event in the competition, the costing for 4130 steel is rated at US$0.6/pound,
which makes the cost of the chassis material approximately US$35.
The chassis was TIG welded, using CroMo1 ER70S-6 filler rods. For some
sections of the framework, depending on the weld operator some stainless steel
filler was used. Various combinations of inert gas were used in the welding of the
chassis, with an argon mix the most common.
17
3.4 Chassis Construction 2003
The chassis construction in 2003 was intended to be as fast as possible. The

suspension points and roll hoops were fixed to a board on a seismic block, which
ensured that the suspension points were fixed relative to the ground. The rest of
the chassis was then built around these suspension points, ensuring that
everything was aligned and restrained. The welding was done in stages, as each
set of tubes was prepared by hand they would be welded on.
Figure 19. Jig for 2003 Chassis Construction
The major disadvantage of this method was that it created difficulties for access
to the weld area. The chassis would have to be taken off the jig and rotated to
allow for welding access, which resulted in some unrestrained warping of the
frame due to weld cooling.
18
3.5 Rocker and Driveline Locations
Due to the restrictions of the suspension design, the front and rear rockers and
shock mounts had to be orientated at difficult angles to the chassis. To ensure
that the suspension performance was not compromised, the rocker and shock
mounts were directly jigged to the board on the seismic block, ensuring the
relative location from the board and the suspension points were fixed
Figure 20. Front Suspension Geometry 2003
Figure 21. Rear Suspension Geometry 2003
19
3.6 Bodywork
Once the chassis was completed, the suspension pickup points were trimmed to
size, allowing the construction of the seat, nosecone and drivers cockpit. For the
bodywork and cockpit a plug was built around the chassis from plaster and
foam. This was then filed and smoothed, with an overlay of fiberglass for a
female mould. This female mould was used for the final carbon-fibre lay-up.
This resulted in a perfectly fitting bodywork, however the chassis and rest of the
vehicle was unusable during the lengthy construction of the plaster and foam
mould.
Figure 22. Bodywork Construction 2003
3.7 Post welding processes
Minor heat-treating was done on the large section welds, using an oxy-acetylene
torch. The welds were brought up to a cherry red colour, and left to cool slowly,
minimizing any hardening effects. Ideally, the welds should be wrapped in an
insulated welding blanket, to slow the cooling of the welds as much as possible.
To manipulate and adjust brackets and tubes on the chassis after welding, the
20
oxy-acetylene torch was used to soften the area before bending into shape.
However, as the majority of welds on the frame are less than 0.120 thickness,
substantial stress relief and heat-treating was not necessary. (ref
http://www.lincolnelectric.com)
3.8 Non-Destructive Crack Testing of 2003 chassis
The team undertook a thorough NDT of the 2003 chassis before testing and final
assembly. All the welds were inspected and hand-filed to remove the stress
concentrations, with only 3 weld beads needing minor re-welding. The NDT
process was fairly laborious, mainly due to the number of joints and restrictive
geometry of the chassis.
The process used was a Magnetic-Particle inspection, a process suitable for

ferromagnetic materials such as steel. This is suitable for locating discontinuities
in the weld bead at the surface and within the weld.
Figure 23. Non-Destructive Testing of 2003 Chassis
21
Chapter 4
4.0 Numerical Analysis of 2003 Chassis
4.1 2003 FEA model
The FEA model of the 2003 chassis was constructed from beam members, with
cross sectional areas and material properties to correspond with the material of
the frame. After several design iterations of the suspension, the initial chassis
design was determined based on the suspension pickup points for the
wishbones. The model was then built around the expected location of the driver
and engine. The suspension geometry for the front and rear of the vehicle had
not been finalized, so an approximate orientation of the suspension hardware
was made.
After the construction of the chassis, and the orientation and location of the
suspension was finalized, a complete model of the chassis was generated in
Strand7, a finite element program. Strand7 was chosen as it is suitable program
for the analysis of beam structures such as in this style of chassis.
4.1.1 Engine Model
Discussions with the University of Swinbourne Formula SAE-A team suggest a

torsional stiffness of the engine at approximately 9000Nm/deg, when bolted at
the engine mounts. The actual experiments conducted and final results were not
available, and the University of Queensland team hasnt yet repeated the
experiment. Because of this, the engine has been approximated as a rigid
member in all of the finite element analysis of the chassis. The engine mounts
for the 2003 vehicle have been included in the model; with the rear lower engine
mounts modeled as both rigid and as a meshed element.
4.1.2 Suspension model
The milled aluminum uprights and rockers will be approximated as rigid links, as
there should not be significant deflection in these components. The outboard
pushrod connection on the lower wishbone has been approximated to be at the
upright, which is a reasonable approximation, as the line of force of the pushrod
is close to the lower spherical housing on the wishbones.
The rocker location has been modeled as a mechanism, with the rocker restricted
to motion in the plane of the shock-rocker-pushrod system. All of the suspension
wishbones and push/pull rods were included in the model. (Not modeled as solid
links). The tyre stiffness was not included in the model, as the dynamics of the
vehicle were not specifically under investigation.
4.1.3 Weighted model
For the dynamic analysis of the 2003 vehicle, the model was fully weighted with
an engine mass, driver mass and peripheral masses to simulate the whole
vehicle. The location of these lumped masses was to correspond to the expected
centre of gravity of the actual vehicle. The model was then subjected to
appropriate global accelerations with reactive forces applied at the tyre patches.
This will give a good approximation of the forces experienced about the
suspension points of the vehicle. To prevent the whole model acting as a
mechanism the model is restrained at a non-critical member away from the area
of interest. The tyre patch forces and the global acceleration forces should
closely match, resulting in minimal reactive forces or moments at the restraint.
The reactive forces about the restraints were kept at a minimum by slight
modification of the applied forces in order to keep the models balanced.
23
4.2 2003 Load Cases for Modeling
4.2.1 Braking Case 2003
Assuming that the maximum braking acceleration of the vehicle is 1.1g, the
maximum forces in the vehicle will be found about the front uprights.
Half car model Side view
ac
mc
A B Hc
Ha Hb
Va Lf Vb
Lt
Figure 24. Braking Load Case 2003
Table 1. 2003 Braking Load Case Parameters
Height of centre of gravity, Hc = 0.293m

Weight distribution Front:Rear= 55:45
Distance from front axle to CoG Lf = 0.732m
Wheelbase Lt = 1.525
Max deceleration a c= 1.1g
Tyre Coefficient of friction u= 1.1
Mass of vehicle + driver, mc= 360kg
Gravity G= 9.81m/s2
Va + Vb = mc g
H a + H b = mc ac
Moments about A = 0
mc a c H c mc gL f + Vb Lt = 0
As the coefficent of friction between tyre and road limits the braking rate,
the maximum horizontal force at the front is
H a = uVa
24
Vrear = 949N
Vfront = 2583N
Hrear = 1044N
Hfront = 2841N
Moment about front uprights = 373Nm
4.2.2 Lateral Load Case 2003
The maximum cornering forces expected from the suspension part of the team is
a sustained 1.32g corner. This has also been verified through track testing of the
2003 vehicle, using a skid pad test track.
Assuming the car can be modeled as a half car from the rear, the lateral weight
transfer of the vehicle can be determined. As the track of these vehicles is
different front to rear, there will be different calculations for the front and the rear.
It is assumed that the centre of gravity of the vehicle is the same over the front
and rear wheels.
Half Car Model from rear

al
mc
Hc
Ho Hi
O I
Vo Vi
Tc
Figure 25. Lateral Load Case 2003
Table 2. 2003 Lateral Load Case Parameters

Track front Tf = 1.2m
Track rear Tr= 1.15m
Max lateral cornering rate al = 1.32g
Weight Split Front:Rear 55:45
Mass of vehicle + driver mc= 360kg
25
Vi + Vo = mc g
Moment about I = 0
T
mc g ( c ) VoTc + al mc H c = 0
2
As the horizontal forces correspond to the vertical forces by the maximum cornering acceleration,
H o = alVo
Vorear = 1420N
Virear = 277N
Horear = 1874N
Hirear = 366N
Vofront = 1596N
Vifront = 346N
Hofront = 2107N
Hifront = 457N
26
4.2.3 Acceleration case 2003
The maximum acceleration expected from the vehicle is 0.9g, which is what the
driveline section of the FSAE team is expecting to produce.
Half car model Side view
aa
mc
A B Hc
Ha Hb
Va Lf Vb
Lt
Figure 26. Acceleration Load Case 2003
Table 3. 2003 Acceleration Load Case Parameters

Track rear Tr= 1.15m
Maximum acceleration al = 1.32g
Mass of 2003 vehicle + driver mc = 360kg
Gravity g= 9.81m/s2
The inline force Hb at the tyre patch will be restricted by the maximum
acceleration,
F = ma
H b = ma
The vertical force Vb at the tyre patch is found by the rear weight transfer in
acceleration,
Moments about A = 0
mc aa H c + mc gL f Vb Lt = 0
Vb = 1981N
27
These forces are evenly split between the two rear wheels. This acceleration
corresponds to a torque transfer from the axle to the ground through a tyre of
radius 0.263mm, resulting in a moment about the rear axle of 857Nm. This
torque is reacted in the chain tension and the bearing hangers. The rear
sprocket has a 230mm diameter, which results in a chain tension of 7.5kN. The
chain angle from rear sprocket to the main gear is 37. It is assumed that the
chain forces act directly through the bearing hangers, as the rear sprocket is
bolted directly to the bearing shaft.
TH
TV

Tc Ha
Va
Figure 27. Schematic of Rear Sprocket
Using statics,
Va + TV = 0
H a + TH = 0
TV = Tc sin
TH = Tc cos
The chain force is then reacted at the main gear, with a diameter of 70mm,
resulting in a torque reduction of 3.2. The reaction forces in the horizontal and
vertical directions are the same at the main gear as at the sprocket, with a
moment of 261Nm about the engine output shaft. Reaction forces about the rear
axle, with chain angle = 37
Vrear = 4374N
Hrear = 5805N
Moment about motor output shaft = 261Nm
28
4.3 Finite Element Analysis of 2003 Chassis
As the maximum braking force in the vehicle is found about the front uprights, this
will be the section of the vehicle that is under investigation. The entire weighted
model is subjected to a global acceleration of 1.1g in the braking direction, along
with the vertical acceleration of gravity. The tyre patch loads from the load case
are then applied to the tyre patch in the model. The vehicle is then restrained
about the rear tyre patch to prevent the model acting as a mechanism. This
should balance the forces in the chassis, and result in only minimum reaction
forces about the restraints, minimizing artificial stiffness.
Figure 28. Fibre Stress in Chassis under Braking
There were peak stresses around the driver mounts; however the model was run
with rigid links as replacements without change affecting in the members around
the front suspension. From inspection of the members under interest, the
maximum fibre stress found was 293MPa, which was on the vertical member
between the top and bottom forward suspension pickups. This is a significant
stress in the vehicle, especially as it is a frequent force, as the vehicle tends to be
driven either hard on the throttle or hard on the brakes. However, in the short life
of the 2003 vehicle, there were no noticeable effects from this loading. If the
2003 chassis is stripped and crack tested again however, some serious fracture
developments may be found.
29
4.3.2 Lateral Loading Case 2003
The maximum forces experienced by the vehicle in a cornering situation are

found on the tyres on the outside of the corner. For this modeling, the vehicle is
subjected to a global acceleration of 1.32g across the vehicle along with a vertical
acceleration due the gravity. The tyre patch loads from the load case are applied
to the four uprights, and the model is restrained on the front bulkhead. As the
tyre patch forces will balance the forces from the global acceleration, there
should be minimal forces about the restraint.
Figure 29. Fibre Stress in Chassis with Lateral Loads
The forces due to the wishbone loads seem to be fairly well distributed in the
frame. The wishbone and pushrod forces correspond to the expected forces
from the suspension analysis. The stress about the front suspension points is
fairly evenly distributed, mainly within the range of 80-110MPa. The front engine
mounts experience some strong bending stresses up to 130MPa. This bending
force is mainly due to the angle that the supports make with the engine,
cantilevering the beams.
30
4.3.3 Acceleration Case 2003
The maximum acceleration loads of the vehicle are broken into tyre patch forces
(upright forces) at the rear wheels and reactions of the driveline. Again, the tube
across the main roll hoop was an anomaly with highly stressed seat restraint, so
the model was run both with a rigid link and the original member. The maximum
loads experienced in this model were in the forward lower front diffbox bulkhead,
and in the bracing around the driveline. The maximum stress experienced in the
lower diffbox bulkhead was close to 350MPa, with the maximum stresses in the
diffbox bracing of 300Mpa. These are extremely high numbers, and even though
the vehicle competed and survived testing without incident there was
redevelopment for the 2004 design to lower these stresses.
Figure 30. Fibre Stress in rear section of Chassis under Acceleration
31
4.3.4 Torsional Testing 2003
To determine the torsional stiffness of the 2004 chassis, the vehicle is restrained
at the rear tyre patches, one point fixed in three-directions and the other in one,
to allow for displacement across the centerline of the car and to have the same
restraints as the test equipment. The rear two uprights are displaced 9.59mm to
simulate a 1 twist of the chassis. This model is run without any gravitational
forces. The vertical reaction force at the front tyre patches will be used to
determine the moment applied about the centerline of the vehicle.
Figure 31. FEA Torsional Test of 2003 Chassis
Fr
Fr
Lt
Figure 32. Schematic of Torsional Stiffness Calculation
Fr = 763 N
Lt = 1.2 m
d = 9.59 mm
= 1
Torque = K
Fr Lt = K
K = 916 Nm / deg
32
4.3.5 Rear Lower Engine Mounts
One of the areas of interest in the model is the rear lower engine mount, as they
were initially modeled as rigid links. The torsional test model was remade with an
approximation of the lower engine mounts included. The two lower engine
mounts were each modeled as 2 sections of 30x3mm plate.
Figure 33. Torsional Test of 2003 Chassis with Modeled Lower Engine Mounts
(Global Beam Displacments Shown)
There was no significant difference in the overall torsional stiffness of the chassis,
only dropping to 915Nm/deg, suggesting that the lower engine mounts were
sufficient to not affect the stiffness of the vehicle. When the model is run with
without rear lower engine mounts, the torsional stiffness only drops to
889Nm/deg, suggesting that these are low stressed members. As these
members are heavy the lightening of these will be one of the changes for the
2004 design.
33
Chapter 5
5.0 Experimental testing of 2003 chassis
5.1 Torsional Testing of 2003 vehicle
Figure 34. Torsional Testing of 2003 vehicle
5.1.1 Method
The 2003 vehicle with engine was loaded on the test rig and a moment of up to
1275Nm was applied about the centreline of the vehicle. The torsional stiffness
of the chassis was found after taking into account the deflection of the test rig,
and taking a linear interpolation of the data points. The test was completed four
times, with the deflection recorded in loading and unloading, to check for
irregularities in the data recording. There were only minor deviations between
the loading and unloading data plots, suggesting the test was valid.
5.1.2 Results
This experiment was repeated for consistency and stiffness values for the
torsional stiffness of the chassis were determined from both the unloading and
loading cases. The stiffness of the chassis appeared to be linear. Over all of
these tests, an average of 746Nm/deg was found for the entire vehicle. This is
80% of the torsional stiffness of the finite element model in the same load case.
Loading
2003 FSAE Vehicle Torsional Testing
Unloading
Linear (Loading)
Linear (Unloading)
y = 621.41x + 1211.2 y = 614.03x - 33.248

R2 = 0.9888 R2 = 0.9902
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -200 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Figure 35. Plot of Torsional Test of 2003 Chassis
Table 4. Torsional Stiffness Experiments
Loading Nm/deg Unloading Average

Nm/deg
Test 1 638.5 772.4 705.5
Test 2 670.4 661.8 666.1
Test 3 670.4 645.9 658.15
Test 4 755.6 779.4 767.5
Test 5 - 8 769 769 769
Average 746Nm/deg
35
5.2 Measurement of Centre of Gravity
The vertical height of the centre of gravity of a vehicle is required in the tuning of
the suspension of the vehicle, along with the calculations of the mass moments of
inertia. For the 2003 vehicle, the rollover angle of the vehicle dictates the height
of the centre of gravity.
Figure 36. Process for Finding Height of Centre of Gravity of Vehicle
5.2.1 Method
For the 2003 vehicle, the original plan for finding the height of the centre of
gravity was to utilize the swing platform constructed for the mass moment of
inertia testing. As there were some time constraints before the 2003 competition
in Adelaide, an effective temporary method of simulating a rollover situation was
devised. With the suspension members locked with dummy shocks, the car was
tilted until it reached the balance point. As there is a track difference from front to
rear, the rear tyre was spaced with a 50mm offset. The two tyres that the car
was balancing upon were sat in sections of angle to give a smaller balance point.
This also helped to minimize the deflection of the tyre at the balance point.
36
5.2.2 Procedure
To find the angle that the car was balanced at, firstly a plumb was used to find
the horizontal distance from the outside edge of the raised tyre to the pivot point.
This was repeated front and rear of the vehicle, with the angle calculated using
trigonometry. This was repeated with a digital inclinometer on the main roll hoop.
Both methods gave an angle of 66 to the horizontal, which resulted in a height of
centre of gravity of 280mm with a 78kg driver. This value is low, as the expected
centre of gravity from the modeling process was 293mm. The data from this
experiment can be found in Appendix G.
Figure 37. Finding Centre of Gravity of 2003 Vehicle
37
5.2.3 Minimum Requirements for Competition
For the competition there is a similar event where the vehicle is tilted to 57 and
checked for leaks and the likelihood of rollover. This is to simulate the vehicle
taking a 1.5g corner. There has been a rule change for the 2004 competition that
will require a tilt test of 60 to be passed, however this will not affect the design of
future cars designed by this university, as the team aims to keep the centre of
gravity low.
5.2.4 Results
The measured centre of gravity of the vehicle with driver is 13mm lower than the
expected height of centre of gravity from the CAD drawing system. This is an
excellent result from the perspective of the performance of the vehicle; however
this is a significant difference to the expected value. This might be explained by
errors in the modeling and construction process, or possible deflections in the
suspension members may have skewed the measurements.
38
5.3 Calculation of Mass Moments of Inertia
5.3.1 Method
For the experiments in pitch, roll and yaw the 2003 vehicle was sat above the
centre of gravity of the platform, with dummy shocks installed. The centre of
gravity of the vehicle was found from the wheel weights of the vehicle using
scales with accuracy to 0.5kg. The vehicle was tested with both an 82kg driver
and without. For the experiments in yaw, the vehicle was again sat on the centre
of gravity of the platform.
The installation was given a small displacement, and the time taken to swing 30
oscillations was recorded with a stopwatch, with the frequency of the oscillations
calculated from that. This was repeated 4 times for each test, in order to check
for consistency.
Figure 38. Finding Mass Moment of Inertia in Yaw of 2003 vehicle
39
5.3.2 Results
From this it can be seen that the experimental values are all slightly different to
the expected values from Solid Edge, however the data is within the same order
of magnitude as the expected values. (Example data supplied in OptimumG
seminar notes) as can be seen below. If the variations from the calibration of the
test rig are taken into account, the value for the yaw moment of inertia should be
very accurate, with the pitch and roll calculations larger than expected.
Table 5. Examples of Mass Moments of Inertia
Prototype CAD Test results CAD Test results

2
Car kgm empty empty car with with driver
car kgm2 kgm2 driver kgm2
kgm2
Roll 70 31.5 46 36 49
Pitch 290 107 135 127 156
Yaw 450 121 125 144 151
5.3.3 Error and Inaccuracies in Experiments
The length of the chain was made as long as possible, with the intention to keep
the angle of oscillation as small as possible. This will help keep the
approximations made in the calculations close to the actual values.
5.3.3.1 Location of Centre of Gravity
The centre of gravity of the vehicle must be located above the centre of gravity of
the stage for this experiment to work. The centre of gravity of the vehicle was
found using wheel weights, using scales that an accuracy within 0.5kg. There
could be some error in the location of the centre of gravity of the vehicle in the
correct spot on the platform. Small differences in the height of the centre of
gravity of the vehicle had a significant effect on the pitch and roll experiments,
15mm difference in the vertical centre of gravity measurement would affect the
pitch and roll by 7kgm2. Any errors in the measurements of the stage and
equipment will have a significant effect on the final calculations
40
5.3.3.2 Chain Friction
There is excessive friction in the chains that the platform is swung from, which
should be accounted for in the calibration of the equipment. There is significant
decay in the amplitude of the oscillations of the experiment, which is directly
linked to friction at the pivot point. This is definitely a place for improvement for
the design of the test rig, most likely using light cable, preferably with roller
bearings at the pivots.
5.3.3.3 Weight of Rig
The weight of the test rig is definitely an issue in the experiment, and should be
kept as light as possible. A rig weight of 69kg when measuring a vehicle of only
240-360 kg could prove to be a problem. Again, this would be a factor in any
redesign of the equipment, with a lighter platform and cable system.
5.3.3.4 Recording of Period of Oscillations
For the calibration experiments, the time taken for 50 oscillations was recorded,
and this process was repeated four times. For the recordings of the period in
pitch and yaw, a difference of one second over the average recorded period of
160 seconds (0.64%) will cause a difference of approximately 10kgm2 over the
calibration of the test pieces.
The system in pitch and roll is very sensitive to errors in the recorded time; this
can only be improved by increasing the number of recorded oscillations and more
accurate recording methods. The same error in the calculation of yaw
experiments only affected the final value by 1.5kgm2. The strong decay in the
amplitude of the oscillations of the car swing restricted the number of oscillations
that could be confidently recorded.
The only way to verify this process is a repeat of the experiment with a lighter
platform and chain or cable system, with preferably a solid axle on bearings at
the pivot point of the swing. This will minimize the decay of the amplitude of the
swing, and allow the time for more oscillations to be recorded.
41
5.4 Nodal Deflections of 2003 Chassis
To compare the nodal deflections of the chassis in the FEA model to the actual
displacement of the nodes of the chassis. This will help determine which parts of
the vehicle deviate from the model of the chassis. The vehicle was loaded into
the torsional test rig, and the displacements of nodes measured for each of the
load cases.
5.4.1 Method
The chassis was loaded the same as for the torsional stiffness test on the test rig,
with the deflection of the chassis recorded in several locations by dial gauges. At
each of these locations a flat measuring surface perpendicular to the measured
direction was arranged. This was done with flat pieces of aluminum or steel
temporarily but rigidly fixed to the frame. This would minimize errors due to the
surfaces finish of the material, and account for the shape of the member being
measured.
Each measurement was repeated for the both loading and unloading cases,
again checking for validity of the measurement.
42
5.4.2 Locations measured
The locations to measure were chosen on a combination of ease of access to the

node and magnitude or expected displacement, with preference for locations of
large displacement.
Table 6. Locations for Nodal Displacements
Number Description
A1vert: Vertical displacement relative to ground of left fore lower front suspension
pickup
A2hoz Horizontal displacement of left fore upper front suspension pickup
B1vert: Vertical displacement relative to ground of left fore lower rear suspension
pickup
B3hoz: Horizontal Displacement of upper cockpit member and front roll hoop
C1vert: Vertical displacement relative to ground of left main roll hoop base
C1hoz: Horizontal displacement of left main hoop base
C2hoz: Horizontal displacement of left upper SIP and main hoop node
C3hoz: Horizontal displacement of left widest node on main roll hoop

D1vert: Vertical displacement relative to ground of rear left engine cage
E1vert: Vertical displacement of left rear aft engine mount/suspension pickup
E3hoz: Horizontal displacement of the rear rocker mount member

F1vert: Vertical Displacement of aft lower rear suspension pickup
G1vert: Vertical displacement of left front engine mount
G1hoz: Horizontal displacement of left front engine mount
H1vert: Vertical displacement of left rear upright
J1hoz: Horizontal displacement of right fore upper rear suspension pickup and
centre of fore lower rear pickup beam (SHS)
K1vert Vertical displacement of rear engine mount, (Engine end (front))
43
Figure 39. Locations for Nodal Displacements
5.4.3 Results
Table 7. Results for Nodal Displacements
FEA displacement Experimental Average

(mm/deg) - twist Experimental Set 1 Set 2 Displacement %
Location of chassis (mm/deg) (mm/deg) (mm/deg) of FEA
A1vert(mm) 0.25 0.14 0.156 0.148 59.20
A2Hoz(mm) 0.27 0.78 N/A 0.78 288.89
B1vert(mm) 0.5 0.31 0.33 0.32 64.00
B3Hoz(mm) 0.68 0.93 N/A 0.93 136.76
C1vert(mm) 4.12 1.89 2.09 1.99 48.30
C1Hoz(mm) 0.89 0.3 0.284 0.292 32.81
C2Hoz(mm) 4.41 1.7 1.9 1.8 40.82
C3Hoz(mm) 8.66 2.88 3.706 3.293 38.03
D1vert(mm) 4.38 2.57 3 2.785 63.58
E1vert(mm) 0.44 N/A 0.075 0.075 17.05
E3Hoz(mm) 2.01 0.67 0.9 0.785 39.05
F1vert(mm) 1.01 0.59 N/A 0.59 58.42
G1vert(mm) 3.3 1.45 1.47 1.46 44.24
G1Hoz(mm) 4.2 2.78 1.16 1.97 46.90
H1vert(mm) 9.59 5.5 6.04 5.77 60.17
K1vert(mm) 1.1 0.32 0.4 0.36 32.72
44
This data seems to be loosely equating to 35-60% of the expected displacement
in FEA. The closest correlations are in the vertical displacements on the bottom
members of the chassis along the length of the chassis.
There are several recordings that are significantly different from the expected
results in FEA, almost 300% difference in the experimental values. These
extreme measurements deviate significantly from the norm, and will be treated as
errors in measurement.
Figure 40. Comparison of Nodal Displacements to FEA
When the relative displacement compared to the FEA predictions are shown on a
diagram of the chassis, there is some consistency in the deflections. The
majority of the vertical displacements correspond to 60% of the expected FEA
per degree of test rig twist, with the horizontal displacements only deflecting 40%.
This either suggests that the chassis is nearly twice as stiff as the FEA suggests,
that there is excessive deflection in the test rig or the approximation of the
suspension, engine mounts and other peripheries is inaccurate. When the
displacement of the upright is used to determine the actual twist of the chassis
compared to the test rig, using trigonometry,
45
Vertical displacement of rear 6mm
hub per deg rig twist =
Rear track = 1150mm
Angle of rotation per deg twist = 0.6
This suggests that the actual twist of the chassis at the rear uprights is 60% of
the rotation of the test rig. This doesnt correspond to the initial calibration of the
test rig, but using this approximation the majority of the measured locations
match the expected displacements from FEA. To investigate this further, some
experiments with strain gauges were conducted to find the stresses in the
members under torsional loads.
46
5.5 Strain Gauge Correlation of the 2003 Chassis Modeling
As the 2003 vehicle had been disassembled and cannibalized for the 2004
vehicle since the competition in Adelaide, the only further feasible testing
available for the 2003 chassis is on the torsional test rig. To verify the FEA
process, the strain gauges will measure the strain of members of the chassis
compared to the expected strain in the model under similar conditions.
5.5.1 Gauge Selection
The strain gauges selected for this testing were CEA-06-250UT-350 gauges,
primarily chosen for their ease of use (they are a relatively large gauge). These
are dual gauges, with the second gauge aligned perpendicular to the first. The
University workshop is also familiar with these gauges, and was able to offer
support and instruction in the mounting and wiring of the gauges. The gauges
were wired in a Wheatstone bridge circuit, which allowed for temperature
compensation in the axial gauges and tensile force compensation in the bending
gauges. The two resistors used to complete the Wheatstone bridge were 390,
matched within 1ppm temperature variance. This would minimize any errors
generated by the temperature variations between experiments.
R2 Rg
+
Vsource
R1 Rg
Vm
- +
Figure 41. Wheatsone Bridge for Strain Gauge Wiring
47
5.5.2 Strain Gauge Setup
The surface preparation for the strain gauges is a critical process in the
experiment. The surface must be cleaned of all paint, rust and any impurities,
and should ideally not be grit-blasted. The surface is then sanded with 320 to
400-grit paper, finishing with the sanding perpendicular to the intended
measurement of strain. The surface is then cleaned with a solution of phosphoric
acid, and then neutralized with a mild alkaline solution. The gauge is aligned
along the intended axis with tape, before being bonded with a fast curing glue.
The gauge is then soldered into the circuit shown above; with care taken to not
overheat the gauges. The maximum working temperature of these gauges is
275C, however the glue used to attach to the chassis is only rated to 65C. The
circuit is then coated in a resin to help protect the gauge and wiring from
mechanical and environmental damage.
5.5.3 Equipment
The voltage change measured at Vm is amplified through an analogue signal

processor with a variable gain. The output voltage can be adjusted with a rotary
potentiometer to be zero at a set voltage before each experiment. The team has
built a custom data logger to record the data, however the data acquisition
program is still under development, requiring the data to be manually recorded.
The resistance of the lengths of the leads within the bridge itself was assumed to
have a negligible effect on the system, as they were kept short and with a high
quality, low resistance cable.
48
5.5.4 Strain Gauge Theory
The data collected from the strain gauges is a change in voltage; this is
converted to a strain of the gauge through
2Vr R
= 1 + l For Bending
GF Rg
-4Vr R
= (1 + l ) For Axial
GF [(1 + v) 2Vr (v 1)] Rg
and
V V
Vr = m m
Vsource strained Vsource unstrained
With:
v = Poisson's Ratio
GF = Gauge Factor
Vm = Measured voltage
Vsource = Applied Voltage
R g = Gauge resistance
R l = Lead resistance
= Strain
This simplifies to
4e0
= .GF .BF
Vsource
with
Vm Vstrained
e0 =
Gain
With BF = Bending Factor,
BFaxial = 1.3
BFbending = 2.0
49
This strain can be related to an axial or bending stress, through Youngs
= E
Modulus, where = stress
E= Young's Modulus
5.5.5 Calibration of Strain Gauge Amplifier
To confirm the gain of the amplifier, a known dimensioned test piece with a pair
of transverse single gauges was loaded axially and the strain gauge data
collected. The test piece used was a wishbone from the 2002 vehicle; all the
forces experienced by this piece will be purely axial. The gain on the amplifier to
be verified was set at 1000.
Table 8. Calibration of Strain Gauge Amplifier
Weight (kg) 56
Force (N) 549.4
2
Area (mm ) 107.3
Stress (MPa) 5.1
GF 2.09
BF 1.3
Gain 1000
Vsource 10
Vm 2.66
V0 2.5
e0 -0.00016
Strain -2.5E-05
Stress (MPa) -4.98
50
5.5.6 Selection of Gauge locations
The strain gauges can be used to measure the tensional and bending forces in
the members of the chassis. The first choice of strain gauge location is in
members that are axially loaded, with minimal bending forces. There are not
many members in the 2003 chassis that experience pure axial loading, however
some of the frame members do experience single plane bending in a torsional
loading situation. The axial loaded strain gauges were located at the point of
minimum bending stress, on a single side of the tube. For the gauges in bending,
a gauge was placed on either side of the member under investigation
5.5.7 Expected stress in Gauge Locations
The expected stress at each of these points was found by inspection of the FEA
model.
5.5.7.1 Strain Gauge Location 1
In the centre of the member between the lower fore suspension pickup points at
45 to the vertical there is only axial stress. Expected axial stress per degree of
rotation of chassis = 58Mpa
At 445mm from the front roll hoop along the bracing member of the side impact
protection there is minimal bending stress compared to the axial stress.
Expected axial stress per degree of rotation of chassis = 36Mpa
One of the maximum bending forces observed in the FEA and initial testing was
in the members running alongside the driver and above the side impact
protection. There is negligible axial force in this location. This is Location 3, at
40mm from the end of the beam. Expected bending stress per degree of rotation
of chassis =145Mpa
51
Figure 42. Strain Gauge Locations for 2003 Testing
Figure 43. Axial Stresses In Torsional Testing
Figure 44. Bending Stresses in Torsional Testing
52
5.5.8 Method
The 2003 vehicle was loaded into the test rig as per the test for torsional
stiffness. The moment arm was loaded incrementally with the strain gauge
readings taken manually at each addition of weight to the moment arm. The
gauge readings were also recorded for the unloading cases to validate the
experiment. Each experiment was repeated to ensure consistency.
5.5.9 Results
A linear response was recorded from all of the strain gauges, with strong
consistency between the repeated experiments. The data plots for the strain
gauges can be found in Appendix E. (In the manipulations of this data, it is
assumed that for small angles of rotation sin =). Assuming the rig stiffness is
8509Nm/deg, for an applied moment of 746Nm, the rig will account for 9% of the
measured rotation. This is used to find the actual rotation of the chassis.
Table 9. Results of 2003 Strain Gauge Testing
Experimental Experimental FEA % of % of

Stress Stress* Stress expected expected
MPa/deg MPa/deg MPa/deg values from MPa/deg**
rig twist chassis twist chassis FEA
twist
Gauge 1, 27.1 29.9 58 52% 78%
Axial
Gauge 2, 15.3 16.9 36 47% 71%
Axial
Gauge 2, 87.1 94.6 145 66% 100%
Bending
*assuming rig accounts for 9% deflection
**assuming 60% difference between rig and chassis rotation
53
These values are all approximately half of the expected values from FEA. There
is some correlation between the relative magnitudes of the three measured stress
values and the expected value. However, if the rotation of the rear uprights is
only 60% of the rotation of the test rig (from the dial gauge testing results), the
axial stress of location 1 and 2 are both 71-78% of the expected FEA result, with
the bending case at 100% of the expected stress. This seems to be a
reasonable value when compared to the nodal displacements.
The axially loaded members may be experiencing slightly different stresses than
the FEA suggests, as they are experiencing a combination of bending and axial
forces that could be affecting the gauge output. The strain gauge in bending
however is loaded in almost pure bending, which should result in fairly strong
correlation between the calculated and expected stresses.
54
5.6 2003 Wet Testing
The inherent problem of a spool differential driven vehicle such as the 2003
design is that the vehicle will understeer and plow into a corner if there isnt
sufficient weight transfer at the rear of the vehicle. The 2003 vehicle suspension
is designed to unload the inside rear wheel during a corner, giving the outside
wheel full contact. This will allow the outside wheel to maintain full traction and
torque transmission to the ground, with the inside wheel slipping to complete the
turn. This works very similarly to a go-kart suspension.
In normal conditions, the roll stiffness ratio from front to rear dictates this weight
transfer, and for this vehicle it was set at 55/45 front/rear, which worked well.
In wet conditions, for vehicles with a spool differential, the roll stiffness ratio
should be changed, with the rear roll stiffness increased in respect to the front, to
perhaps 53/47 or 52/48. This will tend to make the vehicle oversteer in corners,
which from a racing perspective is a preferable situation than understeer.
The 2003 vehicle was subjected to wet testing at Willowbank raceway in March
2004, as an experiment for the suspension team. This was tested on wet
bitumen, on the same track that all the previous testing had been done. During
all this testing the vehicle would not oversteer until the roll stiffness ratio was set
to at least 46/54 f/r, which is a significant change from the original 55/45. The
theory put forward by the suspension team is that the chassis is acting as a
spring, and that the roll stiffness ratio is dictated by the weight distribution of the
car, which is 55/45. This was the first sign that the torsional compliance may be
affecting the handling of the vehicle. When the 2004 car is complete, the
suspension team will be able to determine if increased stiffness of the chassis
affects the tuning, as the suspension and layout of the 2 cars is very similar.
55
5.7 2003 Competition
Prior to the competition at Talem Bend in South Australia in 2003, the vehicle
was stripped and all the components cleaned, polished and painted, including the
chassis. After the re-assembly of the chassis, the engine did not sit in the same
location, whether this was due to the thickness of the paint, or the engine mounts
had been shifted or bent. This resulted in the gearshift selector clashing with the
chassis, restricting the gear changes. This problem went unnoticed during
testing until the first day of the competition, when the gearbox began falling out
of gear. This was strongly linked to the clash of the gear selector with the
chassis.
During the static events at the competition the judges were impressed with the
design of the diff-box section of the chassis; however there were comments
about the front suspension mount geometry, and the load lines through the
cockpit from the engine bay. Overall, there was no particular criticism from the
design judges, and the vehicle came 4th in design and third overall in the
competition.
Figure 45. UQ FSAE at 2003 FSAE-A Competition
56
Chapter 6
6.0 Design Objective of 2004 Chassis
6.1 Lessons learnt from 2003 Design
The 2003 chassis was a significant improvement over the 2002 chassis, with
some obvious design improvements, however there were some major design
flaws.
6.1.1 Suspension mounting
The orientation of the front suspension was not finalized before the chassis was
completed, which led to severe packaging issues. The need to construct rocker
mounts away from the main body of the chassis resulted in extra weight and
improperly loaded members, which possibly resulted in some yielding of the
chassis either in testing or at the competition. See Section 3.5 for front
suspension geometry.
6.1.2 Driver compartment
The most compliant section of the chassis in the 2003 vehicle was the driver
compartment. This part of the chassis is prone to flexing, as the requirement
that a driver can easily egress the vehicle requires a large open section of the
frame. The 2003 chassis did not adequately accommodate for this problem,
resulting in a very flexible centre of the vehicle. Lack of triangulation in three
dimensions was the major cause of compliancy.
6.1.3 Packaging issues
The position of the battery was not accounted for in the design of the vehicle,
resulting in the battery being placed on the top of the diffbox. However, this
turned into an advantage for the team, as the electrical section of the vehicle
required frequent access to the battery for modifications and testing.
The radiators were kept outboard of the major structure of the chassis, and were
integrated into the side pods. The design of the driver's cockpit made the
construction and location of side pods a simple process.
6.1.4 Location of Rear Sprocket and Disk
Running the main gear and rear disk outside the body of the chassis very good
from the view of the driveline section of the team. This allowed for easy access
to the main bearings, axles, spool and CV joints, and allowed the chassis to save
weight by having a smaller profile in that section. However this generated some
issues in the location of the rear suspension. Again, this was caused by the
suspension not being finalized before the construction of the chassis, but the
solution taken to mount the shock absorbers off the upper engine mounts was
neat and efficient. A slightly modified suspension layout to this will be used in
the 2004 vehicle.
6.1.5 Engine Mounts
For the 2003 vehicle, the engine was a structural member of the chassis, with
the framework surrounding the engine mainly used to locate the rear diffbox. For
the 2004 chassis, the framework allows for easy access to the engine, with the
members there for torsional stiffness. The engine will account for approximately
half of the stiffness of the rear section. Due to the rear suspension location, a
custom rear engine bolt and shock absorber mount had to be manufactured.
This was a 10mm bolt to support the engine, turned down to a 6mm bolt to
mount the shock absorber. This meant that the torque applicable to an M6 fine
thread restricted the torque on the M10 course rear engine bolts. This restricted
the possible joint stiffness at this node.
58
6.2 Design improvements of 2004 chassis
There are some significant design improvements for the 2004 chassis over the
2003 design.
6.2.1 Material Change for Minimum Requirements
Increasing the outer diameter of the main roll hoop, front roll hoop and side
impact protection tubes to 11/8. The wall thickness of the main hoops and SIP
can be reduced with this increased outer diameter, the equivalency submitted for
the 2004 formula student competition can be found in Appendix B. The other
advantage of this section tubing is that 300g is saved in weight as compared to
using the baseline steel section.
6.2.2 Cockpit Design
Significant changes had to be made to the cockpit design to increase the

torsional stiffness in driver compartment, this included the inclination of the front
roll hoop, widening of the base of the front and main hoops, and addition of a
cross member from the front to rear roll hoops. These changes had a huge
effect on the stiffness of the vehicle. For example, the cross-member from the
front to rear hoops adds 400Nm/deg of stiffness alone, based on FEA in
Strand7. The cockpit design also allows for more cockpit space and driver
comfort, helping in the drivability of the vehicle. One of the options considered
for the 2004 designs was bracing from near the top of main roll hoop to the front
roll hoop. This would increase the torsional stiffness of the chassis by
approximately 400-500Nm/deg, but there are some concerns about visibility and
driver egress. This geometry has been used in many of the successful Georgia
Institute of Technology chassis designs.
59
Figure 46. 2001-2002 Georgia Institute of Technology
6.2.3 Engine Mounts
As the engine is a significant structural member of the chassis, the need for joint
stiffness at the engine mounts is important. To overcome the suspension
mounting problems of 2003, heli-coil inserts were fitted to the rear upper engine
mounts, with the rear engine bolts threading directly into the engine. The shock
absorber location at the engine is then mounted in a supported cantilever
fashion, effectively in double shear. The use of 4mm steel plate as the engine
mount between the chassis and the frame, with inserts welded into the tube
sections of the diffbox allow for much simpler engine removal and replacement.
6.2.4 Diffbox design
Slightly modified diffbox design to allow for better battery positioning, with the
battery and overflow tanks kept within the diffbox itself. The battery has been
lowered, and is now suspended under the diffbox, helping to lower the centre of
gravity. The rear geometry and pickup points were slightly modified for the 2004
suspension, mainly affecting the roll centres of the vehicle.
60
6.2.5 General Chassis Improvements
There is a dramatic reduction in weight due to the use of matchstick tubing (5/8
OD, 0.9mm NWT) in all non-critical and bracing members. To keep the
construction as easy as possible, the majority of tubes had a minimum wall
thickness of 0.9mm, this was mainly for ease of welding. (Two members of
0.7mm wall tubing). There are fewer joints, with less welding and simpler
geometry. There is a significant reduction of number of frame members at each
joint.
6.2.6 Finalize Design before Construction
This is possibly one of the most important factors in the current success of the
construction of the 2004 vehicle. With the suspension design finalized before
the construction of chassis serious construction, packaging and logic issues
were avoided.
6.2.7 Material Selection 2004
The material used in 2004 is High Tensile 4130 Chrome-Molybdenum steel; with
both ER80S-2 and ER70S-6 weld filler rods. The tube sizes chosen for 2004 are
thinner wall sections than 2003, (including wishbones)
OD (mm) x NWT x total length used
28.6 x 2.11mm x 4m
28.6 x 1.25mm x 2.5m
25.4 x 0.9mm x 3.3m
25.4 x 0.7mm x 3.2m
19.05 x 0.9mm x 2.6m
15.9 x 0.9mm x 8.6m
19.05 SHS x 0.9mm x 1.1m
25.4 SHS x 1.25mm x 1.6m
25.4 SHS x 0.9mm x 3.3m
61
6.3 Construction Process 2004
As the UQ racing team is planning on competing in the 2004 Formula Student

competition in the UK in July, The new vehicle would have to be constructed in 3
months. The chassis needed to be built quickly and accurately, without the
issues faced in 2003.
6.3.1 Modular design
The chassis was built in separate sections, using an 8mm steel plate for a jig.
The plate was pre-drilled allowing for the jigging of bulkheads in plane, and for
the final assembly. As the chassis and suspension is designed with tolerances
in millimeters, it was critical that there was minimal weld distortion during
welding. Minor distortions of the welds can be rectified through tube
manipulation with an oxy-acetylene torch; however the thin walled tubing used
does not handle this process as well as the thicker sections.
Figure 47. Jigs for 2004 Construction
62
Each section was then aligned and bolted to a seismic block, ready for welding.
The frame was welded around the engine, and the chassis was complete.
The increased use of SHS tubing for the chassis members is a definite bonus for
the manufacturing of the chassis. The SHS tubing allowed for much faster
construction of the chassis, with the attachment of peripheral components (pedal
box area, driveline, shock absorbers) a much simpler and accurate process.
6.3.2 Bodywork 2004
At the time of this writing the bodywork had not been completed, however due to
time and access to the chassis restraints, the bodywork would have to be made
without using the chassis as a mould. This is significant challenge for the
bodywork section of the team, however it is not in the scope of this study.
6.3.3 Non-Destructive Crack testing of 2004 chassis
The team again completed a full NDT of the 2004 chassis after completion of the
welding of sections and of the final chassis. There were very few welds that
needed serious attention, suggesting that the overall weld quality was high. The
crack testing of each of the sections was a much simpler process than the 2003
chassis, with the sections easier to test in pieces than all together.
Figure 48. Non-Destructive Testing of 2004 Chassis Diffbox
63
Chapter 7
7.0 Numerical Analysis of 2004 Chassis
7.1 2004 FEA Model
The 2004 vehicle was modeled the same as the 2003 in Strand7, in order to
maintain consistency
7.2 2004 Load Cases
The method for finding the vehicle load cases for 2004 are identical to the
method for 2003, with the minor differences in the longer wheelbase, lighter
vehicle and smaller track.
Assuming that the maximum braking force of the vehicle is 1.1g, the maximum
forces in the vehicle will be found about the front uprights. The assumptions used
by the suspension section of the team are
Table 10. 2004 Braking Load Case Parameters

Weight distribution Front:Rear= 52:48
Distance from front axle to CoG Lf = 0.756m
Wheelbase Lt = 1.575
Max deceleration a c= 1.1g
Tyre Coefficient of friction u= 1.1
Mass of vehicle + driver, mc= 312kg
Gravity g= 9.81m/s2
Vrear= 843N
Vfront = 2217N
Hfront = 2439N
These forces will be evenly split left and right for the front and rear wheels
Maximum sustained lateral acceleration expected from the 2004 vehicle is 1.32G
Table 11. 2004 Lateral Load Case Parameters

Track rear Tr= 1.1m
Max lateral cornering rate al = 1.32g
Mass of 2004 vehicle + driver mc= 312kg
Gravity g= 9.81m/s2
For the front section of the vehicle,

Vofront = 1329 N
Vi front = 260 N
H ofront = 1754 N
7.2.3 Accelerating Case 2004
The maximum acceleration expected from the vehicle is 0.9g, which is what the
driveline section of the FSAE team is expecting to produce. This is restricted by
the coefficient of friction between the tyre and the track. These calculations are
similar to the 2003 calculations.
H r = 2755 N
Vr = 1981N
These forces are evenly split between the two rear wheels.
This acceleration corresponds to a torque transfer from the axle to the ground
through a tyre of radius 0.263mm, resulting in a moment about the rear axle of
725Nm. This torque is reacted in the chain tension and the bearing hangers.
The rear sprocket has a 230mm diameter, which results in a chain tension of
65
6.3kN. The chain angle from rear sprocket to the main gear is 35.5. It is
assumed that the chain forces act directly through the bearing hangers, as the
rear sprocket is bolted directly to the bearing shaft.
Schematic of rear sprocket

TH
TV

Tc Ha
Va
Using statics,
Va + TV = 0
H a + TH = 0
TV = Tc sin
TH = Tc cos
Va = 3661N
H a = 5132 N
The chain force is then reacted at the main gear, with a diameter of 70mm,
resulting in a torque reduction of 3.2. The reaction forces in the horizontal and
vertical directions are the same at the main gear as at the sprocket, with a
moment of 227Nm about the engine output shaft.
66
7.3 Finite Element Analysis of 2004 Chassis
As the maximum braking force in the vehicle is found about the front uprights, this
will be the section of the vehicle that is under investigation. The entire weighted
model is subjected to a global acceleration of 1.1g in the braking direction, along
with the vertical acceleration of gravity. The tyre patch loads from the load case
are then applied to the tyre patch in the model. The vehicle is then restrained
about the rear tyre patch to prevent the model acting as a mechanism. This
should balance the forces in the chassis, and result in only minimum reaction
forces about the restraints, minimizing artificial stiffness.
Figure 49. Fibre Stress in 2004 Chassis Under Braking
There are some difficulties with the restraint of the driver mass, as the members
for the seatbelt mounts have not been finalized, however it will be fixed to a
structural part of the vehicle. There was a peak in stress at the driver mount on
the beam within the main roll hoop; however the model was run with a rigid link
as a replacement without change to the stresses in the members around the front
suspension. From inspection of the members about the front suspension, the
67
maximum fibre stress found was 152Mpa, which was found on the support for the
front rockers. This was a bending force, and found at the joint at the base of the
rocker mount. The majority of the loads found on the chassis were in bending,
with only small axial loads in most of the frame members.
Figure 50. Axial Stress in 2004 Chassis under Braking
Figure 51. Bending Stresses in 2004 Chassis under Braking
68
The maximum forces experienced by the vehicle in a cornering situation are

found on the tyres on the outside of the corner. For this modeling, the vehicle is
subjected to a global acceleration of 1.32g across the vehicle along with a vertical
acceleration due the gravity. The tyre patch loads from the load case are applied
to the 4 uprights, and the model is restrained on the front bulkhead. The reason
for the single restraint about the bulkhead is that as the tyre patch forces should
balance the forces from the global acceleration, there should be minimal loads
about the restraint.
Figure 52. Fibre Stress from Lateral Load Case 2004
The highest loads found in this load case are the restraints of the driver. These
are localized stresses, which reach a maximum fibre stress of 220Mpa. The
actual restraints for the driver have not been finalized, but the expected mounts
will be distributed along the side impact protection members. This will minimize
the localized stress, as these members have substantial wall thickness. The
forces due to the wishbone loads seem to be well distributed in the frame. The
wishbone and pushrod forces correspond to the expected forces from the
suspension analysis. The stress about the suspension points is in the range of
69
50-75Mpa, with the maximum stress found in the aft SHS member between the
upper and lower pickup points. The maximum peak stress is at the rear of the
vehicle at the tube supporting the lower engine mount and turnbuckle for the
driveline. This gives a maximum bending stress of 100Mpa.
Figure 53. Fibre Stresses in Rear Section Under Lateral Load
70
7.3.3 Acceleration Case 2004
The maximum acceleration loads of the vehicle are broken into tyre patch forces
(upright forces) at the rear wheels and reactions of the driveline. Again, the tube
across the main roll hoop was an anomaly with highly stressed seat restraint, so
the model was run both with a rigid link and the original member. The maximum
loads experienced in this model were in the forward upper engine mount brace,
and in the bracing around the driveline. The maximum stress experienced in the
upper engine mount brace was 100Mpa, with the maximum stresses in the
diffbox bracing of 160Mpa.
Figure 54. Fibre Stress in 2004 Rear Section Under Acceleration Load Case
71
7.3.3.1 Change in Turnbuckle Location
There was a recent change to the geometry of the rear axle, with the mounting
for the bearing hanger turnbuckle being shifted to the lower part of the diffbox
bracing. This was due to loading concerns from the driveline section of the team.
This change has highly stressed the diffbox section, with a maximum stress of
233Mpa near the rear upper engine mount, with 265Mpa at the turnbuckle mount.
This is not a favorable situation, but over the short life of these vehicles there
should not be too many complications.
Figure 55. Fibre Stresses in Rear Section with Alternate Driveline Support
72
7.3.4 Torsional Testing 2004
To determine the torsional stiffness of the 2004 chassis, the vehicle is restrained
at the rear tyre patches, one point fixed in 3-directions and the other in 2, to allow
for displacement across the centerline of the car. The front two uprights are
displaced 10.04mm to simulate a 1 twist of the chassis. This model is run
without any gravitational forces. The reaction force at the front tyre patches will
be used to determine the moment applied about the centerline of the vehicle.
This is the same technique as for the 2003 model.
Figure 56. Torsional Testing of 2004 Model
The vertical reaction force at the front uprights was 2727N,

Fr = 2727 N
Lt = 1.15m
d = 10.4mm
= 1
Torque = K
Fr Lt = K
K = 3136 Nm / deg
73
7.3.5 Suspension Pickup Forces 2004
The suspension pickup points of the 2004 chassis are constructed out of 25.4mm
SHS x 0.9mm NWT. This is a reduction of 0.85mm in wall thickness since 2003.
The verification that these mounts will withstand the wishbone forces, FEA of a
model of the pickup point was done in Cosmos, an FEA program that integrates
well with Solid Edge. The maximum wishbone force found in Strand7 was
4200N, on a suspension pickup point that extended 30mm from the structure of
the chassis. The wishbone ends are rod ends fixed to 6.35mm bolts through the
tube. There are steel locators/spacers either side of the rod ends that will resist
deflection of the tube inwards, along with the compression of the nut and bolt.
Figure 57. Von Mises Stress in Suspension Pickup Points
This model restrained one end of the tube to simulate a rigid chassis mount, and
applied a 4200N pullout force in the direction of the wishbone evenly divided
between the boltholes. The maximum Von Mises stress expected is 294Mpa,
which is 45% of the nominal yield strength of the material. This is a large stress
at a worse case scenario, but for the short working life of these vehicles this
loading should not be an issue.
74
7.3.6 Rear Engine Mounts
The design of the rear engine mounts for 2004 are slightly different than the 2003
design, using 4mm plates to support the engine. To investigate the forces in
these mounts, the forces at the lower engine mounts in the torsional test of the
FEA model of the 2004 chassis were used in a Cosmos model of the mount. The
rear boltholes were restrained in the model as on the chassis.
Figure 58. Global Displacement of Rear Lower Engine Mounts
Figure 59. Global Displacement of Upper Engine Mounts
75
These appear to be large deflections for these components, suggesting that there
are significant forces in the lower engine mounts, with up to 5mm deflection of the
lower mounts, and 2mm in the upper. The model is not quite accurate, as the
face of the bolthole to the engine is flush against the engine block, adding to the
joint stiffness.
However, when the vehicle was loaded in the torsion test rig, there was no visible
deflection of that magnitude seen at the engine mounts, suggesting that perhaps
there are more factors involved. The stresses and deflections of the mounts do
correspond to the forces that are applied, with the forces taken from the end
forces of the engine mounts in the FEA model.
The model was run without the lower engine mounts, to investigate what effect
they had on the torsional stiffness. Without the rear lower engine mounts, the
torsional stiffness of the chassis is reduced by 300Nm/deg, down to
2803Nm/deg. This suggests that the maximum loss of torsional stiffness due the
engine mounts could possibly be is 10%.
76
Chapter 8
8.0 Experimental Testing of the 2004 chassis
8.1 Torsional Testing of 2004 vehicle
The torsional testing of the 2004 vehicle was conducted in the same manner as
the testing of the 2003 vehicle, with the vehicle restrained at the uprights and a
moment applied about the centerline of the vehicle.
Figure 60. Torsional Testing of 2004 Chassis

2004 Vehicle Torsional Testing Loading
Unloading
y = 1596.1x + 889.55 Linear (Loading)
y = 1554.2x + 23.678
R2 = 0.9972 R2 = 0.9981 Linear (Unloading)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
-200
Figure 61. Plot of Torsional Testing of 2004 Chassis
Again, the data was recorded and repeated in unloading and loading, with a
value for the torsional stiffness found to be 2000Nm/deg, accounting for the
deflection of the test rig. This is 64% of the expected torsional stiffness from the
computer modeling of the chassis at 3130 Nm/deg. This is a significant
difference to the 2003 chassis testing, which was 80% of the expected stiffness.
78
As the 2004 vehicle was under construction for the UK competition, there were
some difficulties in the access to the vehicle for further testing before the
submission of this thesis. Ideally these experiments should be completed upon
the teams triumphant return from the Formula Student competition in July 2004.
8.2 Strain Gauge Testing of 2004 Chassis
The intended strain gauge testing of the 2004 chassis was to find a correlation
between the dynamic forces approximated in the modeling and the actual forces
experienced in the chassis.
8.2.1 Strain Gauge Location 1
The SHS member between the front lower suspension pickup points. This will
measure the axial strain, which should correspond to a maximum stress of
30Mpa under 1.1G braking.
The member running from the base of the main roll hoop to the lower rear
suspension pickup at the rear of the vehicle. This should experience up to
33MPa of axial stress in a steady state corner.
The SHS member forming the top of the diffbox supporting the rear sprocket.
This will be to measure the bending forces in the member under full acceleration.
Depending on the accessibility to the location for fixing the gauges, the expected
stress should be around 100MPa in bending.
Figure 62. Strain Gauge Locations for 2004 Chassis
Figure 63. Axial Stresses Under Braking
80
Figure 64. Axial Stresses in 2004 Chassis Under Lateral Forces
Figure 65. Bending Stresses under Acceleration
81
8.3 Dynamic Testing of 2004 Vehicle
The feedback from the test drivers of the 2004 vehicle after the initial dynamic
testing suggests that the vehicle is more responsive, with more feel from what the
car is doing. The drivers feel that they have more feel of what the suspension is
doing. Whether this will make the tuning of the vehicle easier is yet to be seen,
as the initial driving suggests that the spring rates are too high, causing
excessive oversteer and unpredictable front weight transfer. In dynamic testing,
the vehicle is responding more to suspension tuning than the 2003 design, which
suggests that the chassis is stable and sufficiently rigid.
Figure 66. 2004 Vehicle under Initial Dynamic Testing
82
8.4 Driveline Testing of 2004 Vehicle
A concurrent project running at the same time as this thesis was an analysis of
the 2003 and 2004 driveline. Part of the testing of this project was strain gauge
testing of the 2004 driveline under dynamic conditions.
8.4.1 Method
Strain gauges to measure the torque in the 2004 driveline were attached to the
spool differential and the half-shafts. The voltage change measured by the strain
gauges was transmitted via a radio transmitter fixed to the driveline. This data
was then amplified through signal amplifier, and collected in the University of
Queenslands custom data acquisition hardware. (ref. Myers, 2004)
8.4.2 Results
The primary load case for analysis was the stress under acceleration, with the
maximum driveline torque found to be 450Nm at the spool differential. This is
significantly less than the expected driveline torque calculated in the FEA load
cases of 835Nm. The experiments were completed without traction control, and
with worn drive tyres that would have affected the maximum acceleration
possible. From this initial result it appears that the assumptions made in the load
cases on the chassis under acceleration are conservative, but this can only be
confirmed by further testing.
83
Chapter 9
9.0 Conclusions from Experimental Testing
From the torsional testing of the chassis, without taking into considerations the
nodal deflections of the chassis, the actual torsional stiffness of the chassis was
80% of the FEA for the 2003 design, and 63% of the FEA of the 2004 design.
This difference between the two designs could be due to differences in the
suspension systems, uprights, wheel hubs, and the rockers of the two vehicles.
The vehicles were modeled the same way in the finite element program, so there
shouldnt be too many differences from the FEA techniques.
Assuming that the torsional test rig has an effective torsional stiffness of
8510Nm/deg, this will correspond to 9% of a 1 deg twist of the rig with the 2003
chassis. This is not taking the dial gauge results into account. This gives stress
from the gauges that correspond to approximately half of the expected stress
from the FEA results.
Table 12. Analysis of 2003 Data, with Initial Rig Calibration
Experimental Experimental FEA Stress %

Stress Stress* (MPa/deg difference
(MPa/deg rig (MPa/deg chassis from FEA
twist)) chassis twist) twist) Stress*
Gauge 1, Axial 27.1 29.9 58 52%

Gauge 2, Axial 15.3 16.9 36 47%
Gauge 2 Bending 87.1 94.6 145 66%
*Assuming rig accounts for 9% deflection
If the dial gauge experiments suggesting that the torsional test rig accounts for
40% of the deflection for 1rotation of the test rig, the stresses in the chassis
correspond fairly well with the stresses expected in the FEA.
Table 13. Analysis of Testing Data, Including Dial Gauge Results
Experimental Experimental FEA Stress % of expected

Stress Stress** (MPa/deg stress**
(MPa/deg rig (MPa/deg chassis MPa/deg values
twist)) chassis twist) twist) from FEA
Gauge 1,
27.1 49.8 58 78%
Axial
Gauge 2,
15.3 25.5 36 71%
Axial
Gauge 2,
87.1 145.1 145 100%
Bending
**Assuming 60% difference between rig and chassis rotation
However, comparing the recorded strain gauge data to the expected stresses
associated with the applied moment finds substantially less stress in the chassis
than expected.
Table 14. Analysis of Testing Data for 2003, Applied Moment and Recorded Stress
FEA Experimental % of expected

Stress/applied stress/applied MPa/Nm values
moment moment from FEA
MPa/Nm MPa/Nm
Gauge
0.0634 0.0408 64%
Location 1
Gauge
0.0393 0.024 61%
Location 2
Gauge
0.1583 0.129 81%
Location 3
85
This data suggests that the stiffness of the chassis is greater than the FEA
model. This is not an unusual situation, as in a welded structure such as this; the
effective lengths of all of the beam members are shorter than in the FEA model.
In the FEA model, the beam member runs to the node, whereas in the actual
chassis the beam doesnt reach the node, and welded joint is effectively stiffer in
reality. The FEA model can be modified to represent this, using rigid links at the
nodes, the lengths of which are dictated by the joint geometry. This shortening of
the members will account for some increase in chassis stiffness.
The stresses in the chassis correspond to the actual rotation of the chassis, along
with the nodal displacements; however the stresses in the chassis are less than
expected for the loads applied.
When using this information for future designs, the stresses calculated in FEA
should be assumed to be the actual stresses in the members. For the calculation
of torsional stiffness, the actual stiffness should be assumed to be 60-70% of the
FEA stiffness, to allow for flex in the suspension components, rod ends, engine
mounts, hubs and uprights. Until further testing using a modified torsional test
rig, this is the best method of approximating the actual torsional stiffness of the
chassis.
From the testing of the mass moments of inertia, the modeled value in yaw can
be confirmed by the swing test along with the approximate magnitude of the
values in roll and pitch. However, the swing setup needs to be improved for
experiments in pitch and roll, as the experimental values found were very
sensitive to small changes in measurement.
86
Chapter 10
10.0 Recommendations for 2005 Chassis Design and

Construction
Provided that UQ racing continues to use a Honda CBR600 motor and is content
with the style and performance of the 2004 design, the 2005 chassis design
should be based on the current vehicle. Aesthetics should be included early in
the design process, along with accommodations for radiators, oil and fuel tanks.
The current cockpit layout is suitable for driver comfort; however the egress of the
vehicle is difficult with the low sides and non-structural floor under the drivers
thighs. The construction process should be a similar to the 2004 process, with
each section of the chassis constructed separately on rigid rigs before final
assembly. Accuracy in the chassis construction is paramount, and the
construction should match the CAD design within 1mm for square sections, and
within 1-2mm for round sections.
From a structural viewpoint, a similar design to the 2004 should be used, with
accommodation for carbon-fibre skin between the driver section and front
suspension section. All of the floor panels should be rigidly bonded to the
chassis where applicable, especially in the section under the front wishbone
pickups and the front bulkhead. By comparing the weight loss between
iterations of the spaceframe at the University of Queensland, it is feasible to
remove at least 2kg in chassis weight for the 2005 competition. After the
Formula Student competition in July 2004, it is recommended that the 2004
vehicle have some preliminary skin construction. This will allow for a comparison
in torsional stiffness between the stressed skin and straight spaceframe design.
This experiment into stressed skins will develop the team for a future semi-
monocoque composite chassis in preparation for the 2006 Australian competition.
Chapter 11
11.0 Recommendations for Future Testing Procedures
For future testing of the chassis design at the University of Queensland, an

improved car swing for pitch and roll is required. A lighter rig with roller bearing
supports at the pivots, or at least low friction pivot points is required. This will be
able to accurately determine the mass moment of inertia of the University of
Queensland FSAE vehicles.
For the torsional test equipment, it is recommended that a new swingarm

arrangement be constructed. As there appears to be inconsistencies in the
torsional testing using the current equipment, there are some inaccuracies in the
calculations of the torsional stiffness of the chassis. The current equipment is
useful for finding comparisons between different chassis designs that have been
tested on the same equipment. The other use of the current test rig is that flexible
areas of the chassis can be seen to flex, which can be used for finding areas
requiring addition bracing. A dummy chassis of known stiffness should also be
constructed to further calibrate the test rig.
For calculations of the centre of gravity of the vehicle, the current test method is
satisfactory. However, a less laborious method should be devised to allow the
centre of gravity of the vehicle to be found by one operator. A similar rig to the tilt
test rig used at the FSAE-A competition could be constructed, utilizing a portable
rigid A-frame truss with a tilting table operated by a block and tackle
arrangement.
Strain gauge testing of the chassis under dynamic conditions is required for
further comparisons between the computer models and the actual stresses in the
chassis under driving conditions.
Bibliography
Campbell, J 2001, Chassis design and manufacture for the formula SAE
competition, Undergraduate thesis, Bachelor of Engineering, University of
Queensland, St Lucia, Australia.
Chang, E, Dover W.D 1999, Prediction of stress distributions along the

intersection of tubular X and DT joints International Journal of Fatigue pp. 619-
635
Davisson, G 1995, Welding, Its not Black Magic, Sport Aviation, EAA Aviation
Centre,
http://www.eaa.org
Gadola, M, Granzotto, S, Structural analysis of a lightweight aluminum-

cladded(sic) racing car frame: Experimental and numerical results, viewed
August 2003,
<http://bsing.ing.unibs.it/%7Egadola/papers/romania95/romania.htm>
Kellar, M 2003, Mass Reduction of Space Frame, Semester Project Thesis,

University of Queensland, St Lucia, with Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
Zurich
The Lincoln Electric Company, Welding Services, Weld 4130!

http://www.lincolnelectric.com/knowledge/articles/content/chrome-moly.asp
Milliken, F, Milliken, L 2002, Chassis design principles and analysis, based on

previously unpublished technical notes by Maurice Olley, Professional
Engineering Publishing Limited, Northgate Avenue, Suffolk UK
Myers, N 2004, Drivetrain design, Testing and Development for the 2003/2004
Formula SAE Vehicle, Undergraduate thesis, Bachelor of Engineering, University
of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia.
Patman, N 2002, Design System for the University of Queenslands 2003

Formula SAE Chassis, Undergraduate thesis, Bachelor of Engineering, University
of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia.
Prater, Jr, Shahhosseini, A. M, State M. B, Furman, V.T, Azzouz, M 2002, Use of

FEA concept models to develop light truck cab architectures and reduced weight
and enhanced NVH characteristics, Presented to the 2002 SAE World Congress,
from the compilation Designing and achieving lightweight vehicles, SAE 1684.
Rouelle, C 2003, OptimumG Race Car Engineering with Motec Data

Acquisition, Proceedings from 2003 Formula SAE OptimumG seminar.
Smedley, P, Fisher, P, Stress Concentration Factors for Simple Tubular Joints,

Loyds Register of Shipping, Proceedings of the first (1991) International Offshore
and Polar Engineering Conference, pp. 619-635
Suh, M.-W., Lee, J.-H., Cho, K.-Y. and Kim S.-I. 2002, Section property method
and section shape method for the optimum design of vehicle body structures,
International Journal of Vehicle Design, Vol. 30, Nos 1/2 pp. 115-134.
90
Appendix A
Extract from 2004 Formula SAE Rules pertaining to Chassis

Design and Construction
(Numbering system is not continuous with previous sections)

3.2 CHASSIS RULES
3.2.1 Ground Clearance

Ground Clearance must be sufficient to prevent any portion of the
car (other than tires) from touching the ground during track events.
3.2.6 Jacking Points
A jacking point, which is capable of supporting the cars weight and

of engaging the organizers quick jacks, must be provided at the
rear of the car. The jacking point is required to be:
(A) Oriented horizontally and perpendicular to the centerline of the

car
(B) Made from round, 25.4 mm (1.0 inch) O.D. aluminum or steel
tube
(C) A minimum of 300 mm (11.8 inches) long
(D) Exposed around the lower 180 degrees of its circumference

over a
Minimum length of 280 mm (11 in)
The height of the tube is required to be such that:

(A) There is a minimum of 75 mm (3 in) clearance from the bottom
of the tube to the ground measured at tech inspection,
(B) With the bottom of the tube 200 mm (7.9 in) above ground, the
wheels do not touch the ground when they are in full rebound.
3.3 CRASH PROTECTION
The driver must be protected from car rollover and collisions. This requires
two roll hoops that are braced, a front bulkhead with crush zone, and side
protection.
3.3.1 Definitions
These definitions apply throughout Section 3.3.

A. Main Hoop--The main rollover protection (roll bar) alongside or
just behind the driver.
B. Front Hoop--Rollover protection (roll bar) in front of the driver

above his/her legs near the steering wheel.
C. Frame Member--A minimum representative piece of tubing as

defined by Section 3.3.3, Minimum Material Requirements.
D. Major Structure of Chassis--That portion of the chassis that is

within the envelope of frame members or structure that meet the
requirements of 3.3.3. The upper portion of the main hoop and its
bracing are not included in defining this envelope.
E. Crush Zone--A deformable area forward of the major structure/

Bulkhead of the chassis designed to absorb energy.
3.3.2 Safety Structure Equivalency
92
Designs that use alternative materials or tubing sizes to those
specified in Section 3.3.3.1 - Baseline Steel Material, and which
protect the driver to an equal or greater extent than required by
Section 3.3.3.1, will be allowed, provided they have been judged as
such by a technical review. Approval will be based upon the
engineering judgment and experience of the technical judge.
The technical review is initiated by completing the Safety Structure

Equivalency Form using the format given in Appendix A-1. The form
must be submitted no later than the date given in the Action
Deadlines located in the Appendix.
3.3.3 Minimum Material Requirements
3.3.3.1 Baseline Steel Material
The safety structure of the car, which comprises of the main

roll hoop, the front roll hoop, the side impact structure, the
roll hoop bracing and the front bulkhead, shall be constructed
of:
Either:
Round, mild or alloy, steel tubing (minimum 0.1% carbon) of

the minimum dimensions specified in the following table,
Or:
Approved alternatives per Section 3.3.3.2
93
Note: The use of alloy steel does not allow the wall thickness
to be thinner than that used for mild steel.
3.3.3.2 Alternative Tubing and Material
3.3.3.2.1 General
Alternative tubing geometry and/or materials may be
used. However, if a team chooses to use alternative
tubing and/or materials:
(A) The material must have equivalent (or greater)
Buckling Modulus EI (where, E = modulus of
Elasticity,
and I = area moment of inertia about the weakest
axis)
(B) Tubing cannot be of thinner wall thickness than

listed in 3.3.3.2.2 or 3.3.3.2.3.
Note: To maintain EI with a thinner wall thickness

than
specified in 3.3.3.1, the outside diameter MUST be
increased.
(C) A Safety Structure Equivalency Form must be

submitted per Section 3.3.2. The teams must submit
calculations for the material they have chosen,
demonstrating equivalence to the minimum
requirements found in Section 3.3.3.1 for yield and
ultimate strengths in bending, buckling and tension,
94
for buckling modulus and for energy dissipation. The
main roll hoop and main roll hoop bracing must be
made from steel, i.e. the use of aluminum or titanium
tubing or composites are prohibited for these
components.
3.3.3.2.2 Steel Tubing Requirements
Minimum Wall Thickness Allowed:
Note: All steel is treated equally - there is no

allowance
for alloy steel tubing, e.g. SAE 4130, to have a thinner
wall thickness than that used with mild steel.
3.3.3.2.3 Aluminum Tubing Requirements
Minimum Wall Thickness:
The equivalent yield strength shall be considered in

the
as-welded condition, (Reference: WELDING
ALUMINUM (latest Edition) by the Aluminum
Association, or THE WELDING HANDBOOK, Vol . 4,
7th Ed., by The American Welding Society), unless
the team demonstrates and shows proof that the
95
frame has been properly solution heat treated and
artificially aged.
Should aluminum tubing be solution heat-treated and
age hardened to increase its strength after welding,
the team must supply sufficient documentation as to
how the process was performed. This includes, but is
not limited to, the heat-treating facility used, the
process applied, and the fixturing used.
3.3.3.2.4 Composite Materials

If any composite or other material is used, the team
must present documentation of material type, e.g.
purchase receipt, shipping document or letter of
donation, and of the material properties. Details of the
composite lay-up technique as well as the structural
material used (cloth type, weight, resin type, number
of layers, core material, and skin material if metal)
shall also be submitted. The team must submit
calculations demonstrating equivalence of their
composite structure to one of similar geometry made
to the minimum requirements found in Section 3.3.3.1.
Equivalency calculations shall be submitted for energy
dissipation, yield and ultimate strengths in bending,
buckling, and tension. Submit the completed Safety
Structure Equivalency Form per Section 3.3.2. No
composite materials are allowed for the main hoop or
the front hoop.
3.3.4 Roll Hoops
The drivers head and hands must be protected from contact with
the ground in any rollover attitude. This requires a main hoop (roll
bar) near the driver and a front hoop. Refer
96
to Figure 1 on the next page.
3.3.4.1 Main and Front Hoops General Requirements
(A) When seated normally and restrained by the seat

belt/shoulder harness, a straight line drawn from the top of
the main hoop to the top of the front hoop must clear by 50.8
mm (2 inches) both the tallest drivers helmet and the helmet
of a 95th percentile male (anthropometrical data). A two
dimensional template will be used to represent the 95th
percentile male and ensure compliance.
-A circle of diameter 200 mm (7.87 inch) shall represent the

hips and buttocks.

shoulder/cervical region.

head (with helmet).
-A straight line measuring 600 mm (23.62 inch) shall connect

the centers of the two 200 mm circles.
-A straight line measuring 150 mm (5.9 inch) shall connect

centers of the upper 200 mm circle and the 300 mm head
circle. With the seat adjusted to the rearmost position, the
bottom 200mm circle will be placed in the seat, and the
middle 200mm circle, representing the shoulders, will be
positioned on the seat back. The upper 300 mm circle will be
positioned up to 25.4 mm (1 inch) away from the head
restraint (i.e. where the drivers helmet would normally be
located while driving).
97
(B) Both the main hoop and front hoop must each be formed
from closed section metal tubing. No composite materials are
allowed for the main hoop or the front hoop.
(C) Both the main hoop and front hoop must extend to the
bottom of the chassis. Each hoop shall extend from the
lowest frame member on one side of the car, up and over
and down to the lowest frame member on the other side.
(D) The minimum radius of any bend, measured at the tube

centerline, must not be less than three times the tube
diameter. The bends shall be smooth and continuous with no
evidence of crimping or wall failure.
(E) Proper gussets and tube triangulation must be used to

ensure that the main and front hoops are securely attached
to the primary structure.
(F) A 4.5 mm (0.18 inch) inspection hole must be drilled in a

non-critical location of both the main hoop and the front hoop
to allow verification of wall thickness.
3.3.4.2 Main Hoop
(A) The main hoop must be constructed of steel per Section

3.3.3.1 or 3.3.3.2.
(B) The use of aluminum alloys, titanium alloys or composite

materials is prohibited for the main hoop.
(C) The main hoop must be formed from a single piece of

uncut, continuous, closed section metal tubing that extends
98
from the lowest frame member on one side of the car, up and
over and down to the lowest frame member on the other
side.
(D) In the side view of the vehicle, the portion of the Main
Roll Hoop that lies above its attachment point to the Major
Structure of the Chassis shall be within 10 degrees of the
vertical.
(E) In the front view, the vertical members of the main hoop
must not be less than 380 mm (15 inches) apart (inside
dimension) at their attachment to the chassis.
(F) On all monocoque chassis, the main hoop must be

continuous and extend down to the bottom of the chassis.
Mechanical fasteners must be used to ensure positive
attachment of the Roll Hoop to the monocoque. All bolts (or
solid rivets) used must be 8mm (5/16 inch) minimum
diameter. The number of bolts used and their placement is
for the team to determine, but proof must be submitted to
show equivalency to a welded tubular chassis that meets
Section 3.3.3. Mounting plates welded to the roll hoop shall
not be less than 2.0 mm (0.080 inch) thick steel (or the
equivalent in aluminum). Backup plates of equal thickness
must be used on the opposing side of the composite
structure to prevent crushing the core. All teams are required
to submit a Safety Structure Equivalency report per Section
3.3.2, showing the integrity of their proposed design.
3.3.4.3 Front Hoop
-The front hoop must be constructed of material per Section

3.3.3.1 or 3.3.3.2.
99
-The front hoop must be formed from closed section metal
tubing. No composite materials are allowed for the front
hoop.
-The front hoop must be no lower than the top of the steering
wheel in any angular position.
-The front hoop must extend to the bottom of the chassis. It

must extend from the lowest frame member on one side of
the car, up and over and down to the lowest frame member
on the other side. With proper gusseting, it is permissible to
make it from more than one piece of tubing.
3.3.5 Roll Hoop Bracing
3.3.5.1 Main Hoop Bracing
-The main hoop bracing must be constructed of steel, with

dimensions per Section 3.3.3.1 or 3.3.3.2.
-The main hoop must be braced in the fore or aft direction on

the left and right sides.
-In side view, the main hoop and the main hoop bracing
cannot be on the same side of the vertical line through the
top of the hoop, i.e. if the main hoop leans forward, the
bracing must be forward of the main hoop, and if the main
hoop leans rearward, the bracing must be rearward of the
main hoop.
-Braces must be attached as near as possible to the top of

the hoop but must not be more than 160 mm (6.3 inches)
100
below the top and at an included angle of at least 30
degrees.
-The braces must be straight, i.e. without any bends.
3.3.5.2 Front Hoop Bracing
-The front hoop bracing must be constructed of material per

Section 3.3.3.1 or 3.3.3.2.
-The front hoop must have two braces extending forward to

protect the drivers legs.
-These braces shall be attached as near as possible to the

top of the hoop, but must not be more than 50.8 mm (2 in.)
below the top of the hoop.
-The front hoop bracing should extend to the structure in

front of the drivers feet; but in any case it must be integrated
into the chassis to provide substantial support for the front
hoop. When monocoque construction is used as bracing for
the front hoop, it must be approved on an individual basis.
Submit the Safety Structure Equivalency Form.
3.3.5.3 Other Bracing Requirements
-Braces attached to monocoque chassis must be welded to

plates not less than 2.0 mm (0.080 inch) thick and backed up
on the inner side by plates of equal thickness using solid
rivets or bolts 8mm (5/16 inch) minimum bolt diameter
through the nonferrous material.
101
-Roll hoop bracing may be removable. Any non-permanent
joint shall be of the double-lug design as shown in figures 2
and 3. Each lug shall be at least 4.5 mm (0.177 in) thick
steel, measure25 mm (1.0 in) minimum perpendicular to the
axis of the bracing, and be as short as practical along the
axis of the bracing. All joints must include a capping
arrangement (figure 2) and/or a doubler (figure 3), fabricated
of at least 1.65 mm (.065 inch) steel. If a doubler is used, it
must extend at least 120 degrees around the frame member.
The pin or bolt shall be 10 mm Grade 9.8 or 3/8in Grade 8
minimum. The attachment holes in the lugs and in the
attached bracing shall be a close fit with the pin or bolt. NO
SPHERICAL ROD ENDS are allowed.
REMOVABLE ROLL BAR BRACES ATTACHMENT DETAILS (FIGURES 2 &

3)
3.3.6 Frontal Impact Protection Drivers

In order to provide protection from a frontal impact, the drivers feet
shall be contained within the major structure of the chassis. While
they are touching the pedals no part of the driver's feet shall extend
outside of the major structure of the chassis as defined in 3.3.1.d.
102
The major structure of the chassis shall extend forward to a
bulkhead. Forward of this bulkhead shall be a crush zone.
3.3.6.1 Bulkhead
The bulkhead is required to:
(A) Be constructed of material per Section 3.3.3.1 or 3.3.3.2.
(B) Be formed of closed section tubing attached securely to

the major structure of the chassis.
(C) Be in front of all non-crushable objects (e.g. batteries,

master cylinders)
(D) Be located such that the soles of the drivers feet, when
touching but not applying the pedals, shall not be forward of
the bulkhead plane. (This plane is defined as the forward
most surface of the tubing.) Adjustable pedals must be in the
forward most position.
(E) Be supported by the major structure of the chassis within

50.8 mm (2 ins.) of the top.
(F) All monocoque chassis (composite monocoque or metal

monocoque) must provide the same protection as tube
frames built per Section 3.3.3. The team must submit
calculations demonstrating equivalence for energy
dissipation, yield and ultimate strengths in bending, buckling,
and tension. Submit the completed Safety Structure
Equivalency Form per Section 3.3.2.
3.3.6.2 Crush Zone
103
The crush zone is defined by two separated planes forward
of the main chassis structure. The planes defined are normal
to the fore/aft axis of the car.
Front Plane--The forward vertical plane of the crush zone

shall, as a minimum, be able to contain a rectangle of 100
mm (3.9inch) height and 200 mm (7.8 inch) width.
Rear Plane--The rearward vertical plane of the crush zone

shall be the front plane of the Bulkhead.
Distance Between Planes--There shall be a minimum

distance of 150 mm (5.9 inch) between the front and rear
planes of the crush zone.
3.3.6.3 Crush Zone Construction
The material providing the crush zone:

(A) Must be capable of decelerating the car within an
acceptable limit.
(B) Shall be attached securely and directly to the bulkhead

(no adhesive tape or Dzus type fasteners are allowed). It
shall not be attached to the vehicle by being part of non-
structural bodywork.
3.3.6.4 Non-Crushable Objects
All non-crushable objects (e.g. batteries, master cylinders)

must be rearward of the bulkhead. No non-crushable objects
are allowed in the crush zone.
104
3.3.7 Frontal Impact Protection Others
People shall not be endangered by contact with sharp edges

on the forward facing bodywork or other protruding
components. All forward facing edges on the bodywork that
could impact people, e.g. the nose shall have forward facing
radii of at least 38 mm (1.5 inches). This minimum radius
shall extend to at least 45 degrees relative to the forward
direction, along the top, sides and bottom of all affected
edges.
3.3.8 Side Impact Protection
The driver must be protected from a side collision while

seated in the normal driving position. Side impact must meet
the requirements listed below. The material requirements are
given in 3.3.3.
3.3.8.1 Tube Frames
A minimum of three (3) tubular members must be

used for Side Impact Protection. These side impact
members must be located on each side of the driver
while seated in the normal driving position. See Figure
4. The three (3) frame members defined below must
meet the requirements given in 3.3.3.
Upper Member
A member must connect the main roll hoop and the

front roll hoop at a height between 200 and 350 mm
(7.87 and 13.78 inches) above the ground with a 77kg
(170 pound) driver seated in the normal driving
105
position. The upper frame rail can be used as the
upper side impact member if it meets the height,
diameter and thickness requirements of the latter.
Diagonal Member
At least one (1) diagonal member per side must
connect the upper and lower side impact members
forward of the main roll hoop and rearward of the front
roll hoop.
Lower Member
A member must connect the bottom of the main roll
hoop and the bottom of the front roll hoop. This lower
side impact member is normally the lower frame
rail/frame member. Alternative geometry to the
minimum requirements given above must be
approved prior to competition. Teams must submit a
Safety Structure Equivalency Form per Section 3.3.2.
3.3.8.2 Composite Monocoque

The section properties of the sides of the vehicle must
reflect impact considerations. Non-structural bodies or
skins alone are not adequate to meet the side impact
rule. Teams building composite monocoque bodies
must submit the Safety Structure Equivalency Form
per Section 3.3.2. Submitted information should
include: material type(s), cloth weights, resin type,
fiber orientation, number or layers, core material, and
lay-up technique.
3.3.8.3 Metal Monocoque

These structures must meet the same requirements
as tube frames and composite monocoque. Teams
106
building metal monocoque bodies must submit the
Safety Structure Equivalency Form per Section 3.3.2
Figure 4
3.4 SAFETY - DRIVER RULES
3.4.1 Drivers Restraint System
All drivers must use either a five or six-point restraint harness

meeting the following specifications. Arm restraints are also
required. The restraint system installation is subject to approval of
the SCCA Chief Technical and Safety Inspector. The restraint
system must be worn as tightly as possible at all times.
(A) 5 Point System

A five-point system consists of a 76 mm (3 inch) wide lap belt,
approximately 76 mm (3 inch) wide shoulder harness straps and a
single, approximately 51 mm (2 inch) wide anti-submarine strap.
The single anti-submarine strap of the five-point system must be
attached to the primary structure and have a metal-to-metal
connection with the single release common to the lap belt and
shoulder harness.
(B) 6 Point System
107
A six point system consists of a 76 mm (3 inch) wide lap belt,
approximately 76 mm (3 inch) wide shoulder harness straps and
two, approximately 51 mm (2 inch) wide leg or anti-submarine strap.
The double leg straps of the six-point system may be attached to
the primary structure or be attached to the lap belt so that the driver
sits on them, passing them up between his or her legs and
attaching to the single release common to the lap belt and shoulder
harness. The leg straps may also be secured at a point common
with the lap belt attachment to the structure, passing them under
the driver and up between his or her legs to the harness release.
(C) Material Requirements

The material of all straps must be Nylon or Dacron polyester and in
new or perfect condition. There must be a single release common
to the lap belt and shoulder harness using a metal-to-metal quick-
release type latch. All driver restraint systems must meet either SFI
Specification 16.1, or FIA specification 8853/98. The belts must
bear the appropriate dated labels, and be no more than five years
old. It is recommended that driver restraint systems be replaced
every three years.
(D) Belt and Strap Mounting

The lap belt, shoulder harness and anti-submarine strap(s) must be
securely mounted to the primary structure of the car (i.e. frame
tubes, roll structure). Such structure and any guide or support for
the belts shall meet the minimum requirements of 3.3.3. Bolting
through aluminum floor closeout panels, etc. is not acceptable. An
SSE form must be completed for all monocoque structures (see
3.3.2).
(E) Belt Position Requirements

The lap belt must pass around the pelvic area below the Anterior
Superior Iliac Spines (the hip bones) (Figure 5a). Under no
108
condition may the lap belt be worn over the area of the intestines or
abdomen. The lap belts should come through the seat at the bottom
of the sides of the seat to maximize the wrap of the pelvic surface
and continue in a straight line to the anchorage point. The
centerline of the lap belt at the seat bottom should be approximately
76 mm (3 inch) forward of the seat back to seat bottom junction
(see Recommended Location in Figure 5). The lap belts should not
be routed over the sides of the seat. The seat must be rolled or
grommeted to prevent chafing of the belts.
(F) Shoulder Harness

The shoulder harness must be the over-the shoulder type. The
shoulder harness must be mounted behind the driver and above a
line drawn downward from the shoulder point at an angle of 40
degrees with the horizontal to minimize spine compression injuries
under high g deceleration. Only separate shoulder straps are
permitted (i.e. Y-type shoulder straps are not allowed). H-type
configuration is allowed. It is mandatory that the shoulder harness,
where it passes over the shoulders, be 76 mm (3 inch) wide. The
shoulder harness straps must be threaded through the three bar
adjusters in accordance with manufacturers instructions.
Figure 5
109
Appendix B
University of Queensland Safety Structure Equivalency
110
111
112
Appendix C
Tube Selection for Minimum Requirements
Non-Dim In Bending
Suit Side Suit
Suit Roll Impact Hoop OD
Hoops Protection Bracing (mm) NWT (mm) kg/m Ixx stress/kg stiff/kg
= = 25.40 1.65 0.966 8.72 3.55 9.03
= = 25.40 2.11 1.212 10.55 3.43 8.71
= = = 25.40 2.41 1.366 11.63 3.35 8.51
= 28.58 1.25 0.842 10.04 4.17 11.92
= 28.58 1.47 0.983 11.54 4.11 11.74
= = 28.58 1.65 1.096 12.70 4.06 11.59
= = = 28.58 2.11 1.377 15.47 3.93 11.23
= = = 28.58 2.41 1.555 17.11 3.85 11.00
= = 30.16 2.11 1.460 18.39 4.18 12.60
= = 30.16 2.41 1.649 20.38 4.10 12.35
= 31.75 1.25 0.940 13.95 4.67 14.84
= 31.75 1.47 1.098 16.06 4.61 14.63
= 31.75 1.65 1.225 17.72 4.56 14.47
= = 31.75 2.11 1.542 21.69 4.43 14.06
= = 31.75 2.41 1.744 24.06 4.35 13.80
= 34.93 1.25 1.038 18.78 5.18 18.09
= 34.93 1.47 1.213 21.67 5.11 17.86
Baseline Material
2004 Material
Selection
113
Appendix D
Calculations for Mass Moment of Inertia
Car Alone With 82kg Driver

Gravity (m/s^2) 9.81 Gravity (m/s^2) 9.81
Length from Pivot to CG of Stage Length from Pivot to CG of Stage
(m) 2.175 (m) 2.175
Height from platform to Cog of Height from platform to Cog of
platform 0.3 platform 0.3
Vertical height from stage to Vertical height from stage to
pivot(m) 2.475 pivot(m) 2.475
Height of center of gravity of car Height of center of gravity of car
(m) 0.243 (m) 0.28
Distance from pivot to CoG of car
(m) 2.232 Distance from pivot to CoG of car 2.195
Horizontal Distance from CG to Horizontal Distance from CG to
pivots - Yaw (m) 1.34 pivots - Yaw (m) 1.34
Mass of Car (kg) 240 Mass of Car (kg) 322
Mass of Stage (kg) 69 Mass of Stage (kg) 69
Measuring Moments of Inertia Measuring Moments of Inertia
Roll Roll
Frequency of Oscillations - Empty Frequency of Oscillations - Empty
(Hz) 0.3194 (Hz) 0.3194
Frequency of Oscillations - Frequency of Oscillations -
Loaded (Hz) 0.3266 Loaded (Hz) 0.3294
Roll Moment of Inertia of stage Roll Moment of Inertia of stage
about pivot kgm2 365.6 about pivot 365.6
Roll Moment of Inertia of stage 39.1 Roll Moment of Inertia of stage 39.1
Roll Moment of Inertia of Car Roll Moment of Inertia of Car
about pivot kgm2 1241.1 about pivot 1600.0
Roll Moment of Inertia of Car
kgm2 45.5 Roll Moment of Inertia of Car 48.5
Pitch Pitch
(Hz) 0.3129 (Hz) 0.3129
Pitch Moment of Inertia of stage Pitch Moment of Inertia of stage
about pivot kgm2 380.9 about pivot kgm2 380.9
Pitch Moment of Inertia of stage 54.5 Pitch Moment of Inertia of stage 54.5
Pitch Moment of Inertia of Car Pitch Moment of Inertia of Car
about pivot kgm2 1331.0 about pivot kgm2 1707.0
Pitch Moment of Inertia of Car Pitch Moment of Inertia of Car
kgm2 135.4 kgm2 155.6
Yaw Yaw
(Hz) 0.4296 (Hz) 0.4296
Yaw Moment of Inertia of Car Yaw Moment of Inertia of Car
kgm2 125.42 kgm2 150.45
114
Appendix E
Data plots for Dial Gauge Locations
Displacement of A1vert vs Test Rig Twist
0.3 y = 0.1561x - 0.0492

0.25 R2 = 0.968
0.2 A1vert(mm)
mm
0.15 Series2
0.1 Linear (Series2)
0.05
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
deg twist
Vertical Displacement at Location A1vert per degree twist of

chassis
0.350
0.300 y = 0.1434x + 0.0018
0.250 Loading
(mm)
0.200
Unloading
0.150
0.100 Linear (Loading)
0.050
0.000
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500
(deg)
Displacement of A2Hoz vs Test Rig Twist
1.4
y = 0.7874x - 0.4193
1.2 R2 = 0.9869
1
A2H(mm)
0.8
mm
Series2
0.6
Linear (Series2)
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3
deg tw ist
115
Displacement of A3Hoz vs Test Rig Twist
2.5
y = 0.9306x - 0.0944
2 R2 = 0.9829
1.5
B3H(mm)
mm
1
Linear (B3H(mm))
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-0.5
deg tw ist
Displacement of B1vert vs Test Rig Twist
0.6
y = 0.3319x - 0.0898
0.5 R2 = 0.9675
0.4 B1vert(mm)
mm
0.3 Series2
0.2 Linear (Series2)
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
deg tw ist
Displacement of C1vert vs Test Rig Twist
3.5
3 y = 1.4166x - 0.065
2.5
2
C1vert(mm)
mm
1.5
Linear (C1vert(mm))
1
0.5
0
-0.5 0 1 2 3
deg tw ist
116
Vertical Displacement at Location C1 vert per degree twist
of chassis
4.000
3.500 y = 2.9096x - 2.2968
3.000
2.500 Loading
(mm)
2.000 Unloading
1.000
0.500
0.000
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500
(deg)
Horizontal Displacement at Location C1Hoz per degree twist of

chassis
0.600
0.500 y = 0.2843x - 0.0097
0.400 Loading
0.300
(mm)
Unloading
0.100
0.000
-0.1000.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000
(deg)
Horizontal Displacement at Location C2Hoz per degree

twist of chassis
3.500
3.000 y = 1.7965x - 0.0317
2.500
2.000 Loading
(mm)
1.500 Unloading
0.500
0.000
-0.5000.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000
(deg)
117
Displacement of C3Hoz vs Test Rig Twist
7
6 y = 2.8834x - 0.1729
R2 = 0.9971
5
4
C3H(mm)
mm
3
Linear (C3H(mm))
2
1
0
-1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
deg tw ist
Displacement of D1vert vs Test Rig Twist
6
y = 2.5684x - 0.133
5 R2 = 0.9959
4
3 D1vert(mm)
mm
2 Linear (D1vert(mm))
1
0
-1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
deg twist
Vertical Displacement at Location E1 vert per degree twist

of chassis
0.150
y = 0.0746x + 0.0061
0.100 Loading
(mm)
Unloading
0.000
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000
(deg)
118
Vertical Displacem ent at Location D1v ert per degree tw ist of
chassis
6.000
5.000 y = 2.9997x - 1.4129 Loading
4.000
Unloading
(mm) 3.000
Unloading
2.000
0.000
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500
(deg)
Displacement of F1vert vs Test Rig Twist
1.4 y = 0.5919x + 0.0949

R2 = 0.939
1.2
1
0.8 F1vert(mm)
mm
0.6 Linear (F1vert(mm))
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
deg twist
Vertical Displacement at Location G1vert per degree twist

of chassis
3.000
2.500 y = 1.4668x - 0.0417
2.000
Loading
1.500
(mm)
Unloading
1.000
Linear (Loading)
0.500
0.000
-0.5000.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000
(deg)
119
Displacement of G1vert vs Test Rig Twist
2.5
y = 1.0642x - 0.1237
2 R2 = 0.9866
1.5 G1vert(mm)
mm 1
Linear
0.5 (G1vert(mm))
0
0 1 2 3
-0.5
deg tw ist
Displacement of G1Hoz vs Test Rig Twist
2 y = 0.8912x - 0.0749
R2 = 0.985
1.5
1 G1H(mm)
mm
0.5 Linear (G1H(mm))
0
0 1 2 3
-0.5
deg twist
Horizontal Displacement at Location G1Hoz per degree twist

of chassis
2.500
2.000 y = 1.157x - 0.0167
1.500 Loading
(mm)
1.000 Unloading
0.000
-0.5000.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000
(deg)
Vertical Displacem ent at Location H1v ert per degree

tw ist of chassis
15.000
10.000 y = 6.0375x - 0.1512

Loading
(mm)
5.000 Unloading

0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000
-5.000
(deg)
120
Displacement of H1vert vs Test Rig Twist
12
y = 5.324x - 0.5979
10 R2 = 0.9704
8
mm 6 H1vert(mm)
4 Linear (H1vert(mm))
2
0
-2 0 1 2 3
deg tw ist
Horizontal Displacement at Location Jhoz per degree

twist of chassis
0.080
0.070 y = 0.0349x - 0.0015
0.060
0.050 Loading
0.040
(mm)
Unloading
0.030
0.010
0.000
-0.0100.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500
(deg)
Vertical Displacement at Location K1vert per degree

twist of chassis
0.700
0.600
0.500 y = 0.3117x - 0.0246
0.400 Loading
(mm)
0.300 Unloading
0.100
0.000
-0.1000.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000
(deg)
121
Appendix F
Strain Gauge Data Plots
Axial Stress in Gauge Location 1 vs Applied Moment
60.00
y = 0.0408x - 0.8891
50.00
40.00 test4
30.00 test 3
MPa
test 2
20.00
test 5
10.00 Linear (test 2)
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000
-10.00
Nm
Axial Stress In Gauge Location 2 vs applied Moment
40.00
35.00
y = 0.024x + 0.0912 test4
30.00
25.00 test 3
MPa
20.00 test 2
15.00 test 5
10.00
Linear (test 2)
5.00
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Nm
Bending Stress in Gauge Location 3 vs Applied Moment
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000
-50.00
-100.00 test 2
MPa
test 5
-150.00 Linear (test 5)
-200.00
y = -0.1219x - 37.442
-250.00
Nm
122
Axial Stress in Gauge location 1 vs rig twist
60.00
50.00 y = 27.136x - 1.3824
40.00 test4
30.00 test 3
MPa
test 2
20.00 test 5
10.00 Linear (test 3)
0.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-10.00
Deg twist
Axial Stress in Gauge Location 2 vs rig Twist
40.00
35.00
30.00 y = 15.368x - 0.3103
test4
25.00
test 3
20.00
MPa
test 2
15.00
test 5
10.00
Linear (test 3)
5.00
0.00
-5.00 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
deg twist
Bending Stress in Gauge Location 3 vs rig Twist
0.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-50.00
-100.00 test4
MPa
test 5
-150.00 Linear (test 5)
-200.00
y = -87.226x - 35.493
-250.00
deg twist
123
Appendix G
Calculations for 2003 Height of Centre of Gravity
Empty car Front Rear

Horizontal length from pivot to outside of tyre (mm) 500.000 520
Vertical length from ground to outside of tyre (mm) 1270.000 1230
Width of pivot (mm) 8.000 8
Track (mm) 1200.000 1100
Tyre width (mm) 152.000 152
Effective track (mm) 1360.000 1310.000
Angle of tilt (tan) 68.510 67.083

Angle of tilt (sin) 69.039 69.873
Angle of tilt (cos) 68.429 66.613
Average 68.660 67.856
1.198 1.184 Average
Centre of Gravity 237.544 247.425 242.484
With 78kg Driver Front Rear

Horizontal length from pivot to outside of tyre (mm) 570.000 570
Vertical length from ground to outside of tyre (mm) 1240.000 1200
Width of pivot (mm) 8.000 8
Track (mm) 1200.000 1100
Tyre width (mm) 152.000 152
Effective track (mm) 1360.000 1310.000
Angle of tilt (tan) 65.313 64.592

Angle of tilt (sin) 65.750 66.353
Angle of tilt (cos) 65.221 64.207
Average 65.428 65.051
1.142 1.135 Average
Height of Centre of Gravity 278.004 282.860 280.432
124
Appendix H
2003 Chassis Layout
2003 Isometric view
2003 Top View
2003 Side View
125
Appendix I
2004 Chassis Layout
2004 Isometric
2004 Top View
2004 Side View
126

Numerical and Experimental Analysis of Formula SAE Chassis

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Numerical and Experimental Analysis of Formula SAE Chassis

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND

Bachelor of Engineering Thesis

NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF

Student Name: JONATHAN PETER BLESSING

Course Code: MECH4501

Submission date: 11th June 2004

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the

I hereby submit my Thesis titled Numerical and Experimental Analysis of Formula

Jonathan Peter Blessing

The objective of this thesis is to analyze the design of the University of

Recommendations for the 2005 design include a stressed-skin of aluminum and

Executive Summary ______________________________________________________ i

Table of Contents ________________________________________________________ii

Table of Figures _______________________________________________________ viii

List of Tables ___________________________________________________________x

2.0 Test Equipment for Experiments __________________________________6

4.0 Numerical Analysis of 2003 Chassis _______________________________22

5.0 Experimental testing of 2003 chassis_______________________________34

6.0 Design Objective of 2004 Chassis _________________________________57

7.0 Numerical Analysis of 2004 Chassis _______________________________64

8.0 Experimental Testing of the 2004 chassis ___________________________77

9.0 Conclusions from Experimental Testing ___________________________84

10.0 Recommendations for 2005 Chassis Design and Construction _________87

11.0 Recommendations for Future Testing Procedures ___________________88

University of Queensland Safety Structure Equivalency ___________________110

Tube Selection for Minimum Requirements _____________________________113

Calculations for Mass Moment of Inertia________________________________114

Strain Gauge Data Plots ______________________________________________122

Calculations for 2003 Height of Centre of Gravity ________________________124

2003 Chassis Layout _________________________________________________125

2004 Chassis Layout _________________________________________________126

Figure 1. The 2003 University of Queensland FSAE Chassis ____________________________________ 3

Table 1. 2003 Braking Load Case Parameters _____________________________________________ 24

Extract from the 2004 Formula SAE Rules:

1.2 The University of Queensland FSAE team

1.3 The Chassis

1.4 Design Techniques

1.5 Design Validation

1.6.1 Tubular Steel Space Frame

Figure 1. The 2003 University of Queensland FSAE Chassis

Metal Monocoque or stressed-skin designs can also be easily visually assessed

Figure 2. University of Wollongong with Stressed Carbon-Fibre Panels

1.6.3 Composite Semi-Monocoques

Figure 3. University of Western Washington's Composite Tub Chassis

2.0 Test Equipment for Experiments

2.1 Torsional Test Rig

Figure 4. Torsional Test Rig with 2003 FSAE Vehicle

Figure 5. Front Left Stand of Torsional Test Rig

Figure 6. Front Right Stand of Torsional Test Rig

By applying weights to the cantilever on the end of the swingarm, a moment is

Rear of vehicle fixed to swingarm

Figure 8. Schematic of Test Procedure

M = FLa = Moment about centreline

Figure 9. Calibration of Torsional Test Rig

This gave an effective stiffness of the test rig as approximately 8509Nm/deg.

Torsional Test Rig Calibration

Figure 10. Plot of Calibration of Torsional Test Rig

This is based on Huygens theorem, where

J A = Inertia about axis A

Figure 11. Huygens Theorem

Figure 12. Calculation of Mass Moment of Inertia of Platform

Figure 13. Mass Moment of Inertia of Vehicle

where mi = mass of stage

Figure 14. Mass Moment of Inertia in Yaw with a Three-Point Swing