Proposal for The 2003 Formula SAE Chassis and Analysis Team

SUBMITTED TO

Senior Design Project Committee Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics Drexel University ENTITLED: Land Dragon 2003 Design, Analysis of a Formula SAE Chassis System and Fabrication of a Chassis Test Rig.

PROJECT NUMBER: TEAM MEMBERS

>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Senior Project Design

MAJOR

November 26th, 2002

Abstract Each year at Drexel University students design and build a car to race in the Formula SAE design competition, which is held in Pontiac, Michigan. This car must meet a multitude of design constraints as dictated by the FSAE rules1. Our car, the Land Dragon, has participated in the competition for the last eleven years. Unfortunately, the Land Dragon has suffered from many limitations namely excessive weight and structural design imperfections of the chassis, which have infringed on its performance in the past. The design and analysis of the chassis for the Drexel Land Dragon is an integral part of the overall team project. Each year a brand new car is built, from ground up, to compete against cars from over one hundred other schools in the Formula SAE competition. Along with the importance of the design comes the analysis; this years team will be one of the first to complete an in-depth finite element analysis of the chassis. Unlike in previous years, techniques to improve the weight, torsional rigidity, and the overall drivability of the car will be implemented. By taking advantage of threedimensional modeling we will be able to fully analyze the problem areas of the chassis and construct an optimal design for future competitions. With the knowledge gained from the Finite Element Analysis (FEA), a chassis design for the 2004 car will be completed utilizing the engine as a load-bearing member of the frame. Also by using state of the art materials and monocoque processes to strengthen and lighten the chassis. The design will still comply with each of the explicit specifications of the other teams (engine team, suspension team, etc.) as well as the rules of the competition. To further enhance future teams success, our team plans to investigate, design and construct a test rig in order to optimize the structural capabilities of a chassis. The test rig will deliver numerous forces over a wide range of angles, directions and magnitudes to a chassis. Along with applying these forces it will have the capability to measure and output the stress and strain on key structural members in order to calculate the overall torsional rigidity. To accommodate any future chassis designs, the test rig will be extremely versatile. After the construction and static testing of the chassis, our computer analysis will be compared with the test rig in order to give real data comparison. This will be a huge advantage in future chassis design and analysis.

Rules can be accessed at http://www.sae.org/students/fsaerules.pdf 1] Due to their length (93 pages) they will not be submitted with this proposal.

Table of Contents i. Abstract I. Introduction A. Problem Background B. Problem Statement C. Constraints of the Project II. Statement of Work A. Method of Solution B. Alternative Solutions III. Project Management Timeline (Gantt Chart) IV. Economic Analysis V. Environmental Impact VI. References Appendices 1. Material Constraints 2. Project Timeline a. Gantt Chart Fall Term b. Gantt Chart Winter/Spring Term 3. Three-dimensional Representation of Chassis and Test Rig 4. Team Background Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 8 Page 3 - 4 Page 5 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 7 Page 1 Page 2 Page 2 Page i

Page 12-16

I. INTRODUCTION Problem Background In order to build a successful car, we must first look at its most fundamental component, the chassis. It is the goal of Drexel Universitys Formula SAE team to achieve a higher level of accomplishment at the design competition, to accomplish this the car will require a chassis design that has been computer generated and analyzed; also it must be fabricated and structurally tested before the competition this spring. Using the experiences and research of previous teams as a guide, while also taking into account their shortcomings and advances, we are prepared to confront the task at hand. To ensure a successful Formula SAE car this year, we intend to do extensive computer aided modeling, including FEA, as well as a number of physical tests using the newly constructed test rig to test this years chassis. A chassis test rig has never been implemented before by any previous team, fabrication of this test rig will give us an advantage over previous years by being able to dynamically measure the forces acting on the physical chassis. With this knowledge we will be able to focus our attention to the critical areas of the chassis, and insure future success through design evolution.

Problem Statement The goal of our project is to design and fabricate a three-quarter-scale formula style car that would appeal to the weekend autocross racer. The car is built to the requirements specified by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and conforms to the racing regulations set forth by the Sports Car Club of America (SCCA). Specifically, our intention is to design, analyze and fabricate the chassis, as well as designing and constructing a chassis test rig for the racecar. We also plan to generate a design for the 2004 Land Dragon chassis, using cutting edge materials and processes. The specifications dictated by Formula SAE are meant to challenge students knowledge, imagination, and creativity. Successful completion will require continuous communication and interaction with the other teams that are working simultaneously on the car. In the end, we will have designed, analyzed, fabricated, and tested a complete chassis system that meets our deliverable deadlines and fundamental design goals.

Constraints on the Project The number of solutions to our project seems almost limitless. However, a number of restrictions exist that will limit the number of possible designs for the chassis. The paramount set of constraints comes from the 2003 Formula SAE rules. The Formula SAE rules regulate the size and wall thickness of the steel tubing for most of the chassis, leaving little room for originality (Appendix 1). However, upon approval of safety equivalency calculations, other materials and geometry may be utilized. One of the more important demands that the power train team has imposed on us is that the engine must be easily accessible for maintenance, but in our design the engine is acting as a structural component. The test rig that we are building has a number of constraints as well, it has to be versatile and still output useful data such as the torsional rigidity of the chassis.

II. STATEMENT OF WORK Method of Solution The current working chassis design is more evolutionary than revolutionary; however when the design for the 2004 chassis is set we will have much more freedom from the current design, and will be able to implement many new ideas. We will still be using the experience that has been gained from the past years cars as this will give us a good basis for a new design and will allow us to build past knowledge. We have four major tasks that need to be completed this year:

1. Model the Current 2003 Chassis Design: In order to successfully accomplish our overall team goals the team will work concurrently with the Suspension and the Powertrain teams to support the design criteria. A Pro-E model has been produced to act as a basis for the design, however the final design for the 2003 chassis design will be modeled in SDRC I-DEAS Master Series 9 allowing for a seamless integration into the programs FEA package.

2. Conduct a Finite Element Analysis on the Chassis Design: Since construction on this years chassis has already begun, we hope to validate the structural design through a detailed FEA analysis to ensure that our geometry and welds will be adequate. The FSAE team will be performing the majority of the work required for the chassis fabrication with the exception of the bending of some key geometry; this should save a considerable amount of money.

3. Design and Construct a Chassis Test Rig: Once the chassis is assembled static and dynamic testing will commence and our results will then be compared to the theoretical results given in the FEA analysis. Upon completion of FEA analysis it will be important to test the actual chassis under real driving conditions. These conditions will be applied via the test rig. The test rig will have the ability to apply forces to the chassis members to simulate turns, stops, and accelerations. Using accurate strain gauges placed in critical points throughout the chassis structure, we will compare between FEA analysis and actual reactions of the materials. It is critical that the manner in which the forces are applied as well as the 6

magnitude at which they are applied represent actual driving conditions. These force characteristics must be researched extensively in order to create the most accurate possible rig for an FSAE car of varying sizes. The basic design will be a modular four point rig, with three posts to hold the chassis to the fixture, and the fourth post will be the actuator which will apply the forces directly to the chassis. (See Appendix 3 for illustration.)

4. Design a New Chassis for the 2004 Competition: For the basis of the 2004 chassis the engine will be utilized as a load-bearing member of the chassis. This will involve mating the front section of the chassis to the front of the engine block and the rear section of the vehicle to the rear of the engine block. The engine of the car is from a Honda motorcycle; Honda has based their chassis design for motorcycle using the engine block as a stressed member. This adds torsional rigidity while reducing the overall weight of the motorcycle by eliminating cross bracing and other structural tubes in the frame. This same reasoning will be utilized on the 2004 design of the chassis. Using these same techniques we will able to effectively reduce weight and increase the strength of the chassis, both of which are at a high priority. The suspension team has provided the suspension mounting points that we will incorporate into this years design; for the 2004 design we will use this years geometry as a basis and future teams can modify it as they see fit based on their needs. The mounting points on the engine block are the determining factor for the design of the rear box, while information from the Powertrain team will implement further design constraints.

Alternative Solutions Material selection is one of the more important factors in our overall design. An essential goal is to make a lightweight, rigid chassis; thus making material selection imperative. Possible alternatives would be the selection of titanium or aluminum for use in either the front of the car which would help to evenly distribute the weight ratio between the front and rear of the car. Other FSAE teams have, despite the obvious high cost, attempted to produce an Aluminum or Titanium chassis test rig. Instead of constraining three sides with no movement, all four points could have actuators placed on them but this will incur a much larger cost as well as creating design issues. An alternative to using actuators, a more simplistic method could be used but this will not produce the accuracy that is required. The dimensions of the chassis are variable as well as the structural geometry. The length of the wheelbase can be a variable as well, which could make a significant impact on the overall performance of the car at its completion. Alternative materials will be incorporated into the design of the 2004 chassis, such as materials with equivalent ultimate strength and bending modulus as the specified steel from the FSAE rules. The selection of these alternative materials will be determined by evaluations of their material properties. Reducing the overall weight of the vehicle will bring the front to rear weight ratio closer to an ideal value of 50/50.

III. Project Management Timeline Appendix 2 are Gantt charts illustrating the time frame in which we plan on finishing the modeling analyzing and fabrication of the chassis for the Land Dragon 2003. Appendix 2a is the Gantt chart for the Fall Term. The completion date for the chassis is January 12th 2003. Soon after the chassis is complete we plan to have the test rig designed and fabricated, in order to perform the necessary testing. Our timeline will coincide with the other groups working on the FSAE project, which should enable the team to have a rolling chassis for testing in January.

IV. Economic Analysis The concept of the cost and manufacturing analysis in the FSAE competition is to have each team obtain an accurate estimate of the manufacturing cost of the car in limited production, utilizing lean manufacturing concepts where applicable. A detailed cost report with an itemized list of all expenses will be performed at the end of the competition. As stated in the rules, the entire prototype is not to exceed $25,0002. Using money raised through various sources including outside sponsorship, Student Activities Fund (SAFAC) and the College of Engineering. The chassis and body system of the car has been relatively inexpensive in the past. Many of the services that we use, such as welding and tube bending, have been donated or provided to us at a minimal cost. Utilizing the composites may drive the price of the systems higher, but it could lead Drexel to have greater success. We will have to continue to rely on generous donations of materials and services to keep the cost of the chassis low. The test rig was not originally in this years budget, but we feel that it is a worth while investment for this year and for the future teams. Depending on the material type used in the design, the test rig could turn out to be relatively expensive; however we are hoping for some helpful companies to come to our aid. (Tentative budget not including the test rig, we are waiting on certain catalogs to arrive.)

Budget Chassis Tube Dimensions 1 X .049 1 X .035 1 X .035 (Square) 5/8 X .058 5/8 X .049 1 X .065 1 X .095(Chromoly) Steering Rack Tube Miscellaneous Parts Total Overall Project Cost Cost $45.12 $79.20 $74.88 $59.57 $29.04 $56.24 $46.80 $24.02 $40.00 $454.87 Test Rig Tube Dimensions 3 X 6(Bosch Tube) 2 X 4(Bosch Tube) Steel Tube Miscellaneous Parts Actuator Sensors DAQ Software Cost $1,240.00 $415.00 $200.00 $100.00 $560.00 $345.00 $200.00

$3,060.00 $3,514.87

Rules can be accessed at http://www.sae.org/students/fsaerules.pdf [1] Due to their length (93 pages) they will not be submitted with this proposal.

V. Environmental Impact The major environmental issue is the disposal of scrap metal tubing. When cutting tubes for the chassis we produce small lengths of tubing. Tubing that is too small to be used in future construction is collected and recycled. There is no other substantial environmental impact foreseen as a result of our project.

VI. References [1] Formula SAE, 2001 FSAE Competition Rules, http://www.sae.org/students/fsaerules.pdf

10

Appendix 1: Material Constraints

Front and Main Roll Hoops Material Round Mild Steel Tube (SAE 1010, 1015, 1020, 1025)

Outside Diameter x Wall Thickness 25.4 mm (1 inch) x 2.4 mm (0.095 inch)

Side Impact, Roll Hoops Bracing, Front Bulkhead Material Outside Diameter x Wall Thickness Round Steel Tube 25.4 mm (1 inch) x 1.65 mm (0.065 inch) Alternative Tubing - Requirements Material Minimum Wall Thickness 2.1 mm (0.083 inch) Round Steel Tubing (Front and Main Roll Hoops) Steel Tubing (Roll Hoop 1.65 mm (0.065 inch) Bracing, Bulkhead) Steel Tubing (Side Impact) 1.25 mm (0.049 inch) Aluminum Tubing 3.175 mm (0.125 inch)

11

Appendix 2a: Project Timeline (Fall Term)

12

Appendix 2b: Project Timeline (Winter/Spring Term)

13

Appendix 3: Three-dimensional Representation of Chassis and Test Rig

14