Paper Number

Design, Development and Analysis of the NCSHFH.09 Chassis

Michael Broad and Terry Gilbert
North Carolina State University
College of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Copyright 2009 SAE International

ABSTRACT
This paper provides a thorough overview of the design
and development considerations for a SAE Formula
Hybrid chassis using the 2009 entry from North Carolina
State University, codenamed NCSUFH.09, as a case
study.
The proper design methodology for the
development of a series-hybrid vehicle chassis is
explored.
Next, several loading scenarios are
investigated in order to understand the substantially
increased forces that must be communicated through
the chassis and suspension components due to the
added mass of hybrid apparatus such as electric motors
and battery arrays. Material selection will also be
considered. Utilizing SolidWorks 3-D modeling software,
several design iterations are run in order to determine
the best compromise between vehicle mass, component
packaging, and weight distribution while still ensuring
driver safety.
Finally, Finite Element Analysis is
implemented using the ANSYS design software. A
loading model is examined in order to determine the
efficiency of the structure in resisting torsional loads, as
these are most critical in determining overall vehicle
performance.

INTRODUCTION
Formula Hybrid SAE is a competition amongst university
level undergraduate and graduate students in which
participants design, analyze, construct, and compete
with an open wheel, formula style race car with either a
parallel or series hybrid drive train. Sponsored by the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), the event
provides engineering students with the opportunity to
demonstrate their engineering creativity, research

abilities, team management, and practical application

skills and prove themselves against teams from other
major universities from across the world. The design
objectives of the Formula Hybrid competition are to
design, fabricate, and demonstrate a prototype design
that a manufacturing firm may consider implementing as
a production item targeted at the amateur, weekend
autocross racer.
This paper first covers the numerous loading conditions
imparted upon the chassis during high speed, dynamic
events. Moreover, the proper design methodology that
should be considered when developing any high
performance chassis will be explored. Next, the proper
means of transferring these loads through the chassis
structure will be discussed. Finally, a loading model will
be developed in order to determine the best compromise
between vehicle weight, torsional rigidity, and dynamic
vehicle performance.

THE CHASSIS
The idea of a chassis carries several different
connotations, depending upon the referenced source.
For the purpose of this paper, the chassis will be thought
of in its racing context as a structure which carries and
connects all of the major components including the
engine, driver, drive train, and other vehicle systems.
The chassis structure must safely support the weight of
the vehicle components and transmit loads that result
from longitudinal, lateral, and vertical accelerations that
are experienced in a racing environment without failure.
There are many aspects to consider when designing a
chassis, including component packaging (including the
driver), material selection, strength, stiffness and weight.

DO NOT TYPE IN THIS FOOTER SECTION ON PAGE 1. TEXT WILL BE INSERTED INTO THIS AREA BY SAE STAFF UPON RECEIPT OF THE FINAL
APPROVED MANUSCRIPT AT SAE INTERNATIONAL.

The primary objective of the chassis is to provide a

structure that connects the front and rear suspension
without excessive deflection. When considering a race
car chassis, a frame that is easily twisted will result in
significant handling problems. Suspension setup is
based upon the assumption that all four corners of the
vehicle are connected by an infinitely rigid body. If the
chassis is not sufficiently stiff, the structure is merely
another variable in the system as it acts as a torsional
spring. This variability within the chassis structure
makes it very difficult to dial in a suspension setup that
will generate the necessary levels of lateral grip to be
competitive. Generally speaking, a frame that is able to
resist torsional loads resulting from inertial accelerations
of components experienced during cornering or from
applied loads acting on one or opposite corners of the
vehicle will almost always be sufficiently strong.

VEHICLE LOADING
Before the chassis can be developed, it is first important
to fully understand the primary loads that the vehicle
structure must be capable of withstanding. These loads
must be efficiently transferred through the structure so
that the chassis will not be prone to mechanical failure.
Typically, four forms of vehicle deformation are
recognized as being fundamental in chassis design:
Lateral Bending, Horizontal Lozenging, Vertical Bending,
and Longitudinal Torsion.
LATERAL BENDING
Lateral bending loads are often the result of centrifugal
or inertial forces that are imparted on the vehicle as it
attempts to navigate a corner at high speeds. The
magnitude of this force is dependent upon vehicle
speed, corner radius, and banking. Lateral bending may
also result from strong winds acting on the side of the
vehicle. Lateral bending loads act along the length of
the vehicle and thus deformation will be greater with
increased vehicle length, all other things being equal.
Lateral bending loads are resisted by the tires, but
generally are not of primary concern as the following
deformation modes lead to structural deflections of
greater severity.
HORIZONTAL LOZENGING
In some instances, one side of a moving vehicle may
have greater traction than the other. For instance, under
heavy braking one tire may lock up and skid while the
other continues rolling. This will impart an unequal
horizontal force to the left and right sides of the vehicle,
causing the structure to distort from a rectangular to
diamond shape when viewed from above. In
comparison to vertical bending and longitudinal torsion,
however, lozenging is viewed as being of only minor
concern based upon modern construction practices.

VERTICAL BENDING
Perhaps the second most important group of loads that
must be distributed throughout the chassis structure are
the vertical loads presented by masses including the
driver, internal combustion engine, electric generator,
motors, battery arrays, motor controllers, and fuel tank.
In a static position, the sum weight of all these
components, about 600 lbs, must be supported by the
chassis. However, the dynamic loads of the vehicle
must also be considered. As a moving vehicle passes
over a vertical bump, the components of the vehicle will
be accelerated upwards. This vertical acceleration will
magnify the load experienced by the chassis structure.
For instance, at rest a battery array represents a load of
50 lbs that must be transmitted from the battery mounts
to the spring mounts through the tubular frame.
However, when the vehicle experiences a 1 g bump, an
inertial load of 100 lbs must be carried from the battery
pack mounts to the spring mounting points. Vertical
accelerations of vehicle components tend to stretch the
lower members of the chassis, loading them in pure
tension, while the upper rails are compressed. Due to
the fact that members loaded in tension are far less
likely to fail than members experiencing compressive
forces, which can lead to buckling, the lower rails of a
chassis are often constructed of smaller outer diameter
tubing or tubing with a thinner side wall.
LONGITUDINAL TORSION
The greatest loads that a chassis must resist are those
that are torsional in nature. Torsional loads attempt to
twist one end of the structure in relation to the other. As
was stated previously, the goal of the suspension is to
keep all four tires flat on the ground in order to maximize
tire contact surface area and subsequently vehicle
performance. In addition to poor vehicle handling, a
chassis that constantly experiences twisting may fatigue
over time and subsequently fail over repeated loading
cycles.
Torsional loads arise from a variety of situations. The
most simplistic form of torsional loading is the single
wheel bump model, where one wheel passes over a
bump and the other three remain at their original vertical
orientation. This applied load from the upward
movement of one wheel applies a torque to the chassis
structure. The torsional stiffness of the structure can be
defined by how much a frame will flex or distort when
loaded in pure torsion, measured in foot-pounds per
degree of rotation. This is not to be confused with the
strength of the structure, which is a measure of how
much load the structure can handle before experiencing
failure. Generally speaking, a chassis that is stiff
enough to provide a stable platform for competition will
not yield to applied stresses, given that all components
are properly attached at triangulated junctions.

DESIGN METHODOLOGY
During the initial design stages of a SAE Formula Hybrid
chassis, it is first important to consider what components
must be included in the final vehicle system. The
general layout of the vehicle systems should first be
established, and then structural members of the chassis
should be designed to connect the components at their
mounting points. Therefore, the chassis conforms to the
shape and location of the components, including the
engine mounts, drive train, seat, suspension links, and
so on. If the chassis is designed the other way around,
that is the components are placed according to the
chassis design, then the structure will have many
inherent engineering flaws. It is essential that the
components are connected in the most efficient manner
possible, which means developing a structure that is
capable of withstanding the loads imparted upon it while
using the least amount of material possible and thus
reducing vehicle mass.
For any team designing a chassis for the first time, as
was the case for the NCSUFH.09, an excellent starting
point is to reference the work of successful entrants from
the past. Our team was able to benefit from the 2008
chassis, which was purchased from Clemson University.
After examining the 2008 NCSU chassis, much
knowledge was gained in reference to many basic
design considerations. Proper structural engineering
practices were better appreciated from this study,
including the importance of tubular triangulation and
component packaging. However, it was our general
feeling that the 2008 entry was far too cumbersome and
included an excess of material. This excess material led
to a very high overall vehicle weight of about 75 lbs for
the chassis frame itself and close to 700 lbs for the
entire vehicle. It was our firm belief that through proper
research, design, analysis, and fabrication, a sufficient
frame could be built weighing no more than 60 lbs, a
reduction in weight of 20 percent. Furthermore, by
applying weight optimization throughout the entire
vehicle through the use of lightweight components and
composite materials, we established a goal for the total
vehicle build weight of 450 lbs. This extreme reduction
in mass would hopefully lead to improved acceleration,
braking, and handling characteristics.
COMPONENT PACKAGING
As a basis for chassis design, the track width and
wheelbase must first be determined. Track width is
defined as the lateral distance between the right and left
wheel centerlines for the vehicle. Increasing track width
helps resist the rolling moment of the vehicle caused by
the inertial forces of vehicle components at the vehicles
center of gravity. However, too wide a track will make it
difficult to navigate the narrow courses that will be
encountered during the competition. For 2009, a front
track of 124.4 cm and a rear track of 117.5 cm were
chosen. The rear track was made slightly narrower in

order to reduce the risk of incurring time penalties due to

cones being knocked over. One final determining factor
of our track width was the specifications of a laser
alignment tool that we had access to. We viewed the
use of this tool to be critical as it would help us
accurately dial in our suspension specifications during
testing.
Similar to the track width, the wheelbase of the vehicle is
also important to vehicle dynamics. Wheelbase is
defined as the longitudinal distance between the contact
patches of the front and rear tires. The wheelbase
determines the weight transfer in the longitudinal
direction during periods of hard braking and
acceleration. The wheelbase is also critical in terms of
the packaging of vehicle components. For the
NCSFH.09, a wheelbase of 1597 mm was selected,
meeting the design requirement of 1525 mm specified
by the SAE. This wheelbase was mainly selected based
on packaging constraints of the specified vehicle
components.
Once the wheelbase and track widths were determined,
dimensions of major components including the internal
combustion engine, generator, electric motors,
suspension apparatus, battery arrays, drivetrain, and
most importantly the driver were considered. Several
sketches and model mockups were developed in order
to estimate overall vehicle weight distribution and center
of gravity placement, as these factors are key in vehicle
handling and performance.
VEHICLE PLATFORM
Perhaps one of the most critical decisions to be made by
any team is what type of structure to develop. Due to
cost considerations imposed by the Formula Hybrid
Rules and ease of fabrication, it was decided that a
tubular space frame chassis would be built instead of a
composite monocoque employing composite sandwich
construction. A space frame is a 3-dimensional
structure that is assembled such that its members are
only subjected to loads that act along the lengthwise
axis of the tube, meaning the tubular members are
theoretically free from bending loads. This design is
highly efficient as thin-walled, tubular pipe exhibits high
strength in compression and tension, but performs very
poorly when subjected to bending loads. Although it is
often difficult to ensure that all members will be free from
bending loads, a chassis that approximates the ideal as
closely as possible will yield the most desirable results.
TRIANGULATION
With the application of space frame construction, it is
desirable that all loads enter the structure at points of
intersection of at least three tubular members. These
loads may arise from components being accelerated in a
given direction or from forces transmitted through the
front and rear independent suspension components. In

order to ensure that members are loaded purely in

compression or tension, proper triangulation is essential.
Triangulation serves as the simplest method to isolate
loads experienced by chassis members to compression
and tension. When a load is applied to a triangular
structure, two of the members stretch the third, loading it
in pure tension. Thin-walled tubing functions best when
loaded in tension the material is not susceptible to the
risk of buckling, as is the case when the tube is loaded
in compression.
Proper engineering practices dictate that all major
components be attached to the structure at triangulated
nodes. This is especially important at suspension
pickup points and engine mounting tabs where some of
the greatest loads are transferred throughout the
structure.
LOAD PATH
Once a general component layout is established and
structural members are being added, it is important to
consider that loads within a chassis are not merely
absorbed by the structure, as is commonly thought.
Although loads may be more concentrated in certain
areas than others, such as spring mounting points, the
main purpose of the chassis structure is to transmit a
load from one point to another while all members are
loaded in pure tension or compression. This notion of
the structure conveying loads from one point to another
is commonly referred to as the structures load path.
The load path is the route through which forces are fed
through the chassis structure. Load paths should be as
direct as possible while still providing adequate
structural stiffness, to be explained shortly. All reactions
from these loads are generally taking up at the tire
contact patch if the structure is designed with good
practice.
SOLID MODELING
After determining basic design requirements, including
preliminary suspension geometries, a 3-dimensional
computer model can be generated in order to better
visualize how the structure will come together. Once
again, the structure must conform to the placement of
the components, and not the other way around. For
2009, NC State Formula Hybrid chose to use the
SolidWorks 3-D Modeling Software. This software was
chosen as it very user friendly and allows material
parameters to be specified, which is helpful in predicting
vehicle mass, weight distribution, and center of gravity
location.
After having previously determined a general
requirement for track and wheelbase parameters,
suspension control arm mounting points can be entered
into the software as a basis of construction. From here,
lines were drawn based upon the location of vehicle
components and the specifications of the 2009 Formula

Hybrid rules. These rules specify outer tubing diameters

and sidewall thicknesses of safety critical components
such as the roll hoops (main and front), side impact
structures, and roll hoops supports.
During the modeling process, it is important to keep in
mind essential engineering practices such as
triangulating tubular members at all nodes and
optimizing load paths. Solid models of main
components such as the engine, electric motors, battery
arrays, and rear CVTs must be incorporated when
designing the structure to ensure proper clearance and
mechanical function. It is also important that an
adequate level of clearance is provided between the top
of the drivers head and the main roll hoop for safety
concerns. The rules specify that at least two inches of
clearance must be maintained between the top of the
head of the 95th percentile male (measured by template)
and a line drawn between the top of the front and main
roll hoops.

Figure 1: Driver Clearance Requirements

It is essential that driver ergonomics be considered
when designing the frame. If the driver is not situated
properly and does not have easy access to vehicle
system controls, then he/she will not be able to operate
the vehicle to the limit of its capability. After all lines are
drawn for the frame connecting the different systems of
the vehicle, the Structural Members feature of the
SolidWorks software can be utilized to input individual
member parameters, including material properties,
tubing outer diameter and sidewall thickness. The initial
design iteration for the 2009 NCSU Formula Hybrid entry
can be seen below in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Initial Frame Design

Analyzing the initial frame design, the extensive use of
triangulation at all suspension pickup points is clearly
visible. This is especially evident at the front of the
chassis, where the use of tetrahedral structures was
used in order to transfer lateral loads from the upper
control arms to the chassis more efficiently. The
suspension bell cranks were mounted at extensively
triangulated nodes about which they will rotate. A
central node was incorporated in the frame above where
the drivers legs are positioned. This node will serve as
a strong central loading point where the spring/damper
coilover units of the suspension will mount.
This first design was modified after a mockup chassis
was constructed with 1 outer diameter PVC tubing
showed an inherent design flaw in the cockpit section of
the chassis. This central section of the chassis was too
small to allow for a driver to exit quickly in case of an
emergency, and was thus extended by 100 mm. Also,
the height of the main roll hoop was increased to 970
mm above the lower most plane of the vehicle to provide
more adequate clearance between the top of the drivers
helmet and the main roll hoop.
Finally, the main roll hoop supports came under scrutiny.
We felt that the two extended, continuous members that
compromised the main roll hoop support were prone to
buckling and lacked proper triangulation. This would
severely hamper vehicle performance by limiting
torsional stiffness. A design solution was created in
which the main roll hoop support was divided up into
several members, allowing for more extensive use of
tetrahedral structures, the stiffest 3-D element. These
structures would greatly increase the torsional stiffness
of the rear of the chassis and subsequently improve
vehicle performance. Moreover, the new design allowed
for a central loading point for the rear suspension
coilovers. The final design iteration for the NCSUFH.09
can be viewed below in Figure 3.

By inputting material parameters for the tubular

members, we were able to estimate the total build
weight of the 2009 chassis. For this years structure, we
chose to use SAE 4130 Chromoloy (chromium and
molybdenum) steel normalized at 870 degrees Celsius.
This material was chosen due to its slight increase in
specific strength when compared to traditional 1018
mild low carbon steel. This increase in strength comes
at the cost of a loss in ductility, which could prove
troublesome during construction with brittleness issues
at the welded joints. SAE 4130 steel has a .30% carbon
content which places it within the weldable range.
Moreover, 4130 steel has a higher yield strength than
1018 steel, 435 MPa compared to 365 MPa,
respectively. However, the ratio between the yield and
ultimate strengths is much smaller for 4130 steel,
meaning that there will be less indication if a failure were
about to occur.
By utilizing the increased strength properties of 4130
steel, we able to reduce the sidewall thicknesses of
many structural members in the rear of the chassis. In
order to ensure driver safety, however, main roll hoops
were built with 1 OD, 0.095 sidewall tubing as is
specified by the 2009 Formula Hybrid rules. The total
estimated build weight was calculated to be 26.5 kg, or
about 58 pounds. This represented a nearly 21%
reduction in mass in comparison to the 70 pound 2008
chassis. With this reduction in mass, vehicle handling
would be dramatically improved as less mass would
have to be accelerated in any given direction. We felt
that this design would provide an excellent platform on
which to develop a successful hybrid vehicle.

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

After completing the modeling of the 2009 chassis, it
was important to verify that the structure we had
developed would provide a sufficiently rigid structure
capable of connecting the four corners of the vehicle
with minimal torsional twisting behavior. If the vehicle
proved adequate in resisting torsional loads, then it was
our belief that it would also be strong enough to cope
with other loading scenarios. In general, torsional loads
subject the chassis to the greatest stresses.
GOALS FOR TORSIONAL STIFFNESS
The importance of maintaining a rigid connection
between the front and rear suspension mounting points
has already been explained. However, to what degree
should the chassis be stiffened, and how can these
goals be accomplished?

Figure 3: NCSUFH.09 Final Design

In an ideal situation, the vehicle will only respond to

changes in the spring/damper coilovers, including their
setup in relation to each other front and rear.
Referencing successful Formula SAE cars from past
competitions, a chassis having a torsional stiffness of at
least 1500 lb*ft/degree is usually considered more than

adequate. In general, a chassis having been designed

for sufficient torsional stiffness will also have satisfactory
bending stiffness.
For 2009, it is our goal to achieve a torsional stiffness of
at least 1600 lb*ft/degree of rotation. This of course
could be somewhat easy to achieve with the addition of
excess material. However, this would dramatically
increase the vehicle weight and hamper vehicle
performance. Therefore, it is important to not only look
at structural stiffness, but also structural efficiency.
Structural efficiency is a measure of a vehicle frames
torsional stiffness normalized to its weight.
LOADING MODEL
Referencing many SAE documents, we discovered that
the manner in which the vehicle structure is analyzed
can yield dramatically varying results on identical
structures. In order to get accurate and meaningful data
in terms of the torsional stiffness of the chassis, we
needed to consider how the chassis would react in a
racing environment.
As a vehicle enters the corner, an instantaneous weight
transfer will occur to the front, outside tire. If the chassis
is examined at this instant of corner entry, a torsional
load is being applied to the front of the vehicle at the
front suspension pickup points and the rear of the
vehicle can be approximated as remaining fixed. For
our application, we felt that a model where the rearmost
section of the chassis was constrained and equal and
opposite vertical loads were applied to the front
suspension pickup points would generate values for
torsional stiffness that were very representative of real
world operation. It is important to note, however, that
this model does not take into consideration compliance
within the suspension and is a measure of the torsional
stiffness of the frame structure itself.
IMPLEMENTING THE MODEL
Finite Element Analysis of structures can prove to be
very complicated and it is therefore important to develop
a simple model that will accurately predict the behavior
of the structure. Typically, the model is created by first
creating nodes or key points at each intersection of the
tubular members within the structure. For our
application, we chose to use the ANSYS 11 platform. In
total, the 2009 chassis was comprised of 45 nodes and
the coordinates of these nodes were generated from the
solid model design. Next, lines were used to connect
the proper nodes to develop the chassis structure. The
completed Finite Element Model can be viewed in Figure
4 in the adjacent column.

Figure 4: Finite Element Model

After establishing the coordinates of the structure, it was
necessary to establish the element type for the lines
joining the structural nodes. After consulting Dr.
Gracious Ngaile, it was determined that the 3D elastic
straight pipe element would be implemented. Within the
ANSYS 11 domain, this element is the PIPE 16 element.
This element implements thin walled tubing from node to
node and are welded at the joints.
Next, the geometric properties of the elements had to be
specified. In order to simplify the model, all members
were modeled as having the same outer diameter and
side wall thickness, although in reality the wall thickness
varied from member to member depending upon its
application. Each element was specified as having an
outer diameter of 25.4 mm (1 inch) with a side wall
thickness of 1.25 mm (0.049 inches). This size tubing
was used most prevalently throughout the structure, and
we felt that accurate values for torsional rigidity could
still be generated with this practice. The material
properties of 4130 steel were also entered. We
specified values of 205 GPa for the modulus of elasticity
and 0.29 for Poissons ratio.
The mesh size for the Pipe elements was specified at 1
cm. This size was used in order to avoid going over the
maximum allotted number of elements in the student
version of ANSYS 11. After meshing the model, the
loading constraints were placed on the system. First,
the static analysis type was selected. The four rearmost
nodes of the chassis structure were constrained as
discussed previously with all DOFs set equal to zero.
Next, torsional loads were applied to the front of the
vehicle and the foremost suspension pickup points.
Equal and opposite 500 N loads were applied in the
vertical direction at these key points. A visual
representation of this loading model can be viewed
below in Figure 5.

Figure 7: Torsion Model

Figure 5: Chassis Loading Model

INTERPRETING THE RESULTS
After allowing ANSYS to solve the solution, the following
deformation shape was generated (outlined in blue). It
can be easily seen that the greatest distortion occurs at
the application points of the load near the front of the
vehicle structure. The importance of a rigid connection
between the front and rear suspension systems should
now be readily understood. It is important to note that
the magnitude of this distortion has been increased for
clarification.

Figure 6: Deformation due to Torsional Loading

In order to fully understand the results of the study, a
simple model can be created to represent the chassis in
which a hollow tube is fixed at one end and subjected to
a torsional load at the other. This model can be seen in
the adjacent column.

From this model, we can interpret the chassis to be in its

simplified form little more than a torsion spring. In order
to determine the stiffness or rigidity (k) of this spring (the
frame), the applied torque (T) is divided by the angle of
rotation of the structure.

In the case of our loading model, the magnitude of the

applied torque can be calculated my multiplying the
vertical load by the lateral distance from the suspension
pickup point to the central, longitudinal axis of the
structure. In our model, both sides of the structure were
loaded with equal and opposite vertical forces as shown
before. This was done in order to generate a value for
the deflection on both sides of the structure which could
then be averaged to determine a more accurate angular
deflection of the structure. The torsional rigidity of our
model was calculated as follows, where L represents the
distance from the central axis of the vehicle to the
loading key point and F is the magnitude of the applied
load. The resulting deflections at the loading points on
the left and right side forward suspension mounting
points are denoted by y1 and y2, respectively.

In Figure 8 below, it can be seen that maximum

displacement values occurred at the points of load
application at the front suspension mounting points, as
would be expected. By substituting these displacement
values into the above equation, we calculate the
NCSFH.09 chassis to have a theoretical torsional
stiffness of 2240 N*m/degree, or about 1650
ft*lbs/degree. This theoretical value for torsional rigidity
meets our pre-established goal of 1600 ft*lbs/degree.
Factoring in a predicted chassis mass of 57 lbs, a
theoretical structural efficiency in resisting torsional
loads would be 28.94 ft*lbs/deg/lb.

Tegris was used for shear panels due to its reduced cost
in comparison to carbon fiber. An improvement in
torsional rigidity of up to 20% can be expected with the
addition of properly mounted stressed skins. Orientation
of these skins can be viewed below in Figure 9.

Figure 8: Vertical Displacement Under Loading

Changing the design of the rear of the chassis with the
additional triangulation increased the torsional rigidity of
the structure over 25 percent, up from an initial value of
only 1300 ft*lbs/degree. It is important to note that for
this model stiffness contributions of rigid bodies such as
the engine block were not considered in the analysis.
However, good engineering practice dictates that
structural members should be fed into major
components which can serve as a structural feature so
long as the component can withstand the associated
stresses. As long as distortion of the block does not
lead to clearance issues within the cylinders or rotating
bearings, then the engine block can be utilized as a
major load carrying structure. By utilizing the motor
block as a stressed component, structural members can
be eliminated and vehicle mass can thus be reduced.
STRESSED SKIN CONSTRUCTION
Although we had met out stiffness goals, we felt that
there was still an excessive amount of compliance in the
structure between the main and front roll hoops where
the driver is positioned. This is primarily due to the lack
of triangulation within this area as there must be room
for the driver to enter and exit the vehicle with relative
ease for safety concerns.
Instead of tubular triangulation, a flat sheet of stiff
material may also be added to increase chassis
stiffness. The forces that attempt to distort or lozenge
the openings in the frame will induce sheering forces
into the flat sheet of material. Not only do these sheets
improve torsional rigidity, but they can also serve as
body work. Generally, these panels are constructed of
aluminum or a lightweight composite with either an
aluminum or Nomex core. These stressed skins
traditionally are fastened to the structure through a
method of riveting and/or adhesive bonding. This form
of construction represents a blend between pure space
frame and composite monocoque structure. For the
NCSFH.09 chassis, a lightweight composite called

Figure 9: Orientation of Composite Skins

POST-BUILD IMPRESSIONS
Construction of the 2009 chassis, from early design to
completion of fabrication, took approximately 5 months.
The 4130 steel proved to be a very versatile material
and was easily weldable, with no indications of
brittleness. The final vehicle build weight was 56.5 lbs,
just as predicted.
Unfortunately, with the competition quickly approaching
at the beginning of May, and work still to be done on the
car, there is little time to verify our theoretical stiffness
calculations for the chassis. It is our firm belief,
however, that the chassis we have built will serve as an
excellent platform on which to develop a successful,
series-drive hybrid race vehicle. Through our research,
we have determined that through proper fabrication
techniques a structure with 90% of the theoretical
torsional stiffness can be created. That being said, we
believe that we have successfully developed a rigid
connection between the front and rear suspension
systems as was our primary goal. Moreover, it is our
hope that the chassis will communicate well to the driver
and will not experience excessive compliance.
Full experimental testing will be carried out after the
competition early next month in order to verify our
theoretical results. Further development of the structure
will be carried out over the summer so that
improvements can be made for the planned 2010 entry
from NCSU Formula Hybrid.

CONCLUSION
Using the 2009 NCSU entry into the Formula Hybrid
competition as a case study, this paper has presented
the considerations that must be made when developing
a vehicle chassis for racing applications. A suggested
design methodology for developing a Formula Hybrid
chassis has been presented. Moreover, the general
loading scenarios that a hybrid vehicle frame must
handle have been analyzed. In addition, a model has
been developed for determining and maximizing the
efficiency of a structure in resisting torsional loads. This
model has shown the importance of compromise
between increasing torsional rigidity while minimizing
overall vehicle mass. After establishing stiffness goals,
ANSYS was used to constrain and load the structure
and determine the efficiency of our design. Through
several design iterations, a highly capable and rigid
structure was developed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research would not have been possible without the
support of the NCSU Formula Hybrid Team advisor,
Terry Gilbert. Dr. Gracious Ngaile was also critical in
developing and executing the FEA model with ANSYS.

REFERENCES
1. Aird, Forbes. The Race Car Chassis. New York,
New York: The Penguin Group, 2008.
2. Gaffney, Edmund F., and Anthony R. Salinas.
"Introduction to Formula SAE Suspension and
Frame Design." SAE Technical Paper Series, 1997
3. Riley, William B., and Albert R. George. "Design,
Analysis, and Testing of a Formula SAE Chassis."
SAE Technical Paper Series 01.3300, 2002
4. Milliken, William F., and Douglas L. Milliken. Race
Car Vehicle Dynamics. Warrendale, PA:
Society
of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 1995