TEAM SRIJAN

FORMULA SAE TEAM

BIT MESRA

CHASSIS DESIGN REPORT

(2015 – 2016)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PROJECT OVERVIEW……………………………………………..1
1.1. Introduction………………………………………………….1
1.2. Analysis of last year’s chassis design……………………….1
1.3. Project scope………………………………………………....2
1.4. Design requirement………………………………………….2
1.4.1. Constraints……………………………………………..2
1.4.2. Criteria…………………………………………………3
1.4.3. Final design…………………………………………….3
1.4.4. Formula SAE rules…………………………………….4
1.5. Design decision……………………………………………….4
1.5.1. Chassis construction method………………………….4
1.5.2. Chassis material consideration………………………..5
1.5.3. Selection of type of tube………………………………..6
1.5.4. Rear bulkhead………………………………………….7
1.5.5. Weight of frame………………………………………...7

2. DESIGN METHODOLOGY………………………………………...8
2.1. Introduction………………………………………………….8
2.2. Design process………………………………………………..8
2.2.1. Mock chassis……………………………………………8
2.2.2. Solidworks modelling…………………………………10

i
3. SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS…………………………………..14
3.1. Introduction…………………………………………………14
3.2. Frame analysis and validation……………………………..15
3.2.1. Torsional stiffness test ……………………………….15
3.2.2. Impact test…………………………………………….22

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION………………………………………23

4.1. Introduction…………………………………………………23
4.2. Results ………………………………………………………23
4.3. Discussion……………………………………………………24

5. OTHER COMPONENTS………………………………………….25
5.1. Impact attenuator………………………………………….25
5.2. Anti-intrusion plate………………………………………..26
5.3. Floor and firewall……………………………………….....27
5.4. Jacking cum push bar……………………………………..27

6. MANUFACTURING………………………………………………29
6.1. Manufacturing of frame…………………………………..29
6.1.1. Cock pit………………………………………………30
6.1.2. Front………………………………………………….31
6.1.3. Rear…………………………………………………..32

7. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………….33

ii
 CHAPTER -1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW

1.1 Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide a final summary of the Chassis Design for formula student
project. This document will present an overview of the project, the project scope, and the design
requirements, while outlining the selected final design. This year the chassis has been designed for
maximum adjustability, with focus on reliability, weight reduction and manufacturing. The
objective of the chassis design group was to design a chassis in accordance with the FSAE rulebook
along with providing a lighter, stiffer frame keeping in mind the aesthetics and ergonomics of the
driver. The design started with a thorough study of the rulebook. The areas which needed a
change were identified keeping in mind last year’s design. A mock chassis was constructed and the
dimensions of the cockpit and foot well area were noted. It was ensured that enough room is
given to the driver for egress and that he had improved visibility. The 95th percentile male rule was
kept in mind while deciding the heights of the roll hoops.

1.2 ANALYSIS OF LAST YEAR’S CHASSIS DESIGN

From last year’s chassis design it was inferred that the height of main hoop could be reduced
significantly keeping in mind the two-inch rule. This will not only reduce the mass of the chassis
but also lower the centre of gravity of the entire vehicle. Dimensions of cockpit also had to be
increased to incorporate shifter handle while satisfying cockpit template, as last year’s design was
not compliant with cockpit template rule. The part of the chassis behind the main hoop is
unnecessarily long and it could be made more compact. The additional tubes used for the
triangulation along with front hoop bracing and front bulkhead support could be reduced to save
weight. A large number of brackets were used to mount the floor and body panels which
increased the weight of the frame. Impact attenuator was mounted with bolts which led to its
damage. So, a new method of mounting was incorporated. Mounting the headrest was a problem
as it couldn’t sustain the force of 890 N.

1|Page
1.3 PROJECT SCOPE
The chassis is an integral part of a formula-style race car; encompassing the frame, suspension,
steering, and hub and upright assemblies. For this project, the chassis is defined as including all
frame members, with the forward vehicle limit being the front bulkhead, and the rear vehicle limit
being the differential mounts. The project scope will include design selection, use of modelling
tools and simulation, iterative design refinement, and construction of the final design.

1.4 DESIGN REQUIREMENT

In order to select the final design of our project, the group has created several design
requirements which have been divided into constraints and criteria. These design requirements
are a combination of rules and self-set goals to improve upon the chassis of last year’s vehicle and
the success of the design group will be based on being able to effectively meet these
requirements.

1.4.1 CONSTRAINTS
The following requirements must be followed in the design of the chassis. If any of these
requirements are not met, the design will be considered unsuccessful.

General

 Must meet all Formula SAE requirements, as outlined in the 2015 Formula SAE Rules.
 Must ensure the safety of the driver at all times.

Frame

 Weight of frame must be within 30-35 kg.

 Torsional stiffness of chassis above 1800 N-m/deg.
 All four design group members must be able to exit from the vehicle in 4.5 seconds.
 Lowering of centre of gravity and polar moment of inertia by reducing the dimension of
chassis laterally and longitudinally.

2|Page
1.4.2 CRITERIA

The following requirements should be followed in the design of the chassis. These criteria are not
critical to the success of the chassis, however they will enhance performance.

Frame

 Strengthen the frame by minimizing the number of bends.

 Including rear bulkhead in the design.
 Using ANSYS software for torsional stiffness and modal analysis.

1.4.3 FINAL DESIGN

The Formula SAE rules were used as strict guidelines throughout the design process to ensure the
safety and eligibility of the chosen final design. To select the final design, four chassis designs were
compared. After subjecting each chassis to the design process outlined in the Design Selection
Report, a final design was chosen based on the design requirements.

TABLE 1.1

FRAME FINAL DESIGN

o CONSTRUCTION STEEL SPACEFRAME.

o MATERIALS AISI 1018.
o MANUFACTURING LASER CUT NOTCHED TUBES, MIG WELDING.

1.4.4 FORMULA SAE RULES.

The Formula SAE rules provide strict guidelines which must be adhered to for the frame to be able
to compete in the events. There are several templates which must be able to pass through all
points of the frame to ensure adequate spacing for the driver. The cockpit internal cross section
template and the cockpit opening template should be able to pass through the frame. The 95th
percentile male template was also used while deciding cockpit dimensions and angle of seat.
These templates ensure that the frame is able to fit drivers of all sizes, and ensures that the driver
is comfortable, can easily access controls, and can easily enter and exit the vehicle.
3|Page
1.5 DESIGN DECISION
Following design decisions were made by chassis design group during the project. These decisions
were based on availability, procurement and manufacturability of materials.

1.5.1 CHASSIS CONSTRUCTION METHOD

 Tubular spaceframe

The most common frame type, the tubular spaceframe, is a structure composed of many small,
usually round tubes bent to shape and welded together. The Formula SAE rules dictate many of
the tubing sizes for a steel tubular spaceframe, and construction of any other type of chassis
requires proof that the alternate structure is as strong as or stronger than a similar tubular
spaceframe structure.

 Metal Monocoque

A monocoque chassis is a structure that constitutes both the frame and the body. By combining
these two critical components into one piece, it is possible to build a torsionally stiff Car. In a
metal monocoque design, the chassis and body are fabricated from aluminium or steel sheet,
welded or riveted together.

 Composite Monocoque

Composite monocoque frames are usually among the lightest. The strength to weight and stiffness
to weight ratios of carbon fibre and similar composite materials are generally much higher than
those of steel or aluminium, and the non-uniform nature of a moulded frame allows for a great
deal of optimization. However, composite monocoques usually require a unique mould for
production, and a design change generally requires a new mould to be made. Composite
monocoques are rarely easily repairable, and the materials required for their construction are
expensive and often difficult to work with.

Factors Cost Availability Manufacturability Weight Stiffness total

weightage 5 4 4 3 3
STEEL SPACEFRAME 4 5 5 2 2 72
CARBON FIBRE MONOCOQUE 2 2 2 4 4 50
SHEAR PANELS 3 4 3 3 3 61
TABLE 1.2: Decision matrix for selecting the type of frame
4|Page
CONCLUSION:
This makes it clear that spaceframe is the best option, despite the lack of stiffness. Therefore,
tubular spaceframe chassis was chosen as the type of chassis as it was difficult to procure and
fabricate carbon fiber monocoque chassis and team’s budget didn’t allow the use of CRPF.

1.5.2 CHASSIS MATERIAL CONSIDERATION

The team decided to use a tubular spaceframe due to cost, ease of construction, and facilities
available. Because the chassis is a tubular spaceframe design, the materials used in its
construction were limited to readily available and easily weldable materials. In the interest of
simplicity, it was decided that all tube members would be made from the same type of material.
The following materials were considered:

 Steel

The most common material for tubular spaceframes, steel retains its strength and ductility after
welding. It is inexpensive, easy to procure and fabricate. The Formula SAE rules dictate tubing
sizes for steel, and the use of any other material requires the completion of a structural
equivalency form.

 Aluminium

Aluminium, while not as strong as steel, is lighter. Its stiffness is roughly one third that of steel;
however, so is its weight. It can be welded with common TIG and MIG processes; however, it loses
significant strength unless heat treated. When used on a tubular spaceframe chassis, it must be
accompanied by a structural equivalency form.

Conclusion:
Additionally, the main and front hoops must be made from steel. For ease of construction, the
chassis is made from steel.

5|Page
1.5.3 SELECTION OF TYPE OF TUBE
The design group had to select the tube to be used between SAE 4130 or AISI 1018. Comparisons
are as follows:

TABLE 1.3: COMPARISON

From the above tables we can see that SAE 4130 grade is more versatile than 1018 steel tubes.
Comparing them on above parameters we find that 4130 tubes has more tensile strength, yield
strength, hardness due to addition of molybdenum and chromium. But 4130 tube requires heat
treatment for its welding and we don’t have heat treatment facility in our college. Moreover 4130
is more expensive than 1018. Therefore we have decided to go with 1018 tubes as it provides
sufficient strength which is required to make a rigid frame.

6|Page
1.5.4 REAR BULKHEAD
The last year’s car had large rear frame which increased the weight of the frame due to large
number of tubes. The frame can be made more compact by reducing the length of the frame and
thus the wheelbase. To overcome these problems rear bulkhead was incorporated which not only
reduced the weight and number of tubes but also helped in mounting of the differential. The
transmission shafts were kept outside the main structure thus making the frame design more
compact with significant weight reduction. The upper member of the rear bulkhead is chosen to
be a curved beam, as the bending stiffness of the curved beam is more than that of a straight
beam.

Figure 1.1 Rear Bulkhead

7|Page
 Figure 1.2 FEA of Rear bulkhead with max deflection of 0.03mm

Figure 1.3 FOS of Rear Bulkead - 5.1

1.5.5 WEIGHT OF FRAME

One of the main criteria for the frame was weight. Having a light frame is very important as a
lighter car allows for faster acceleration, better handling and more efficient fuel consumption. Last
year frame weight was 40kg and the team this year aimed for a frame weight within 30-35 kg. This
was accomplished through careful consideration of member placement. The goal was to maximize
the torsional stiffness within this target weight.

8|Page
 CHAPTER- 2:
DESIGN METHODOLOGY

2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter explains the steps that were taken in designing a spaceframe chassis and how the
simulation of the chassis was performed and also the factors that were considered while
designing.

2.2 DESIGN PROCESS

The design of the chassis was done in two stages. The first or preliminary design used mock
chassis to determine the location of all components and boundaries designated by the Formula
SAE Competition Rules. The second or detailed design used solidworks to detail all information
from the preliminary design packaging all components in their specific location. The use of
solidworks to finalize the design of the frame will make the manufacturing process of the chassis
simplified. The program gives all dimensions to all parts, including bend angles, notch angles and
joint fitting parameters.

2.2.1 MOCK CHASSIS

The first step in design process is to construct a mock model to validate the dimensions of cockpit
and foot-well.

Dimension that were to be identified from mock chassis were:

 Main Hoop and Front hoop height, Cockpit dimensions (lateral distance between side
impact structures), Foot-well dimensions, Shoulder harness location.

 The dimensions were obtained keeping in mind the Percy rule (2- inch rule).
Inputs required for proper mock model usage:

9|Page
  Seat location, driver’s visibility, pedal assembly dimensions, approximate Steering location.
A simple wireframe model of frame from bulkhead to main hoop was made in Solidworks, keeping
members to a minimum. Plywood and MDF boards were used for construction of Mock chassis. It
provided a very rigid structure and relatively it was easier to work on. Besides we also had the
flexibility of adjusting the dimensions as per the need of the driver. This provided us with accurate
dimensions.

Figure 2.1: Mock chassis construction

10 | P a g e
2.2.2 SOLIDWORKS MODELLING

After the minimum required dimensions of the foot-well was decided, the same was given to the
Vehicle Dynamics team for calculation of suspension A-arm end points or hard points. After
receiving the suspension geometry, design of frame was started from the front end of the frame.

 It was kept in mind to keep the frame well triangulated so that only tensile and
compressive forces act on tubes.
 Sketches were added for suspension brackets.
 The end points of bracket sketches were the primary frame nodes where suspension
components would be linked. Same was done for the rear.
 The requirements of the rules were kept in mind as the design proceeded (Front bulkhead,
Front bulkhead support structure etc.)
 The cockpit and foot well dimensions from mock were used to generate the final
wireframe model of the front end.
 For the rear, we made used of Engine CAD model to design the engine box. The differential
was added after the engine box.

After the sketch was ready, weldments were added to the sketch. Tubing sizes were added
according to the rules for roll hoops, bracings etc. Trim and extend feature was used for profiling
of tubes with the aim to attain a simpler profile.

11 | P a g e
Figure 2.1: WIREFRAME MODEL OF CHASSIS 1.

Figure 2.2: WIREFRAME MODEL OF CHASSIS 2.

12 | P a g e
Figure 2.3: WIREFRAME MODEL OF CHASSIS 3.

13 | P a g e
 Figure 2.4: wireframe model of chassis 4

With the given suspension geometry, 4 different designs of frame were constructed and analysis
was done for the same using solidworks keeping in mind the FSAE rules.

14 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 3
SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS

3.1 INTRODUCTION
After the initial design for chassis is developed it must be analysed. Conventionally in FEA, the
frame is subdivided into elements. Nodes are placed where tubes of frame joints. There are many
types of elements possible for a structure and every choice the analyst makes can affect the
results. The number, orientation and size of elements as well as loads and boundary conditions
are all critical to obtain meaningful values of chassis stiffness.

Beam elements are normally used to represent tubes. The assumption made in using beam
elements is that the welded tubes have stiffness in bending and torsion. If a truss or link elements
were used, the assumption being made would be that the connections do not offer substantial
resistance to bending or torsion. Another aspect of beam elements is the possibility of including
transverse shearing effects.

While modelling the stiffness contribution from each part of the frame, method to apply the loads
and constrain the frame plays significant role for an accurate analysis. Accurate analysis means to
predict the stiffness of frame close to actual stiffness as the frame operates in real conditions. The
problem here has normally been how to constrain and load a frame, so to receive multiple load
inputs from a suspension, while it has been separated from that suspension and many other such
problems. For practical reasons, it is recommended that the load on the chassis frame, including
its own weight should be applied at the joints (nodes) of structural members. These point loads
were statistically equivalent to the actual distributed load carried by the vehicle.

15 | P a g e
3.2 Frame Analysis and Validation:
To determine the stiffness of a proposed frame design before construction, finite element analysis
could serve the purpose. The analysis of chassis was done for two loading cases, in first torsional
load was applied on the chassis, second, impact test was done to check the safety of the different
frame models.

3.2.1 Torsional stiffness test:

An ideal chassis is one that has high stiffness; with low weight and cost. If there is considerable
twisting, the chassis will vibrate, complicating the system of the vehicle and sacrificing the
handling performance. Thinking of the chassis as a large spring connecting the front and rear
suspensions: if the chassis torsional stiffness is weak, attempts to control the lateral load transfer
distribution will be confusing at best and impossible at worst 1 . Therefore, predictable handling is
best achieved when the chassis is stiff enough to be approximated as a rigid structure. There are
numerous reasons for high chassis stiffness. A chassis that flexes is more susceptible to fatigue
and subsequent failure, and “suspension compliance may be increased or decreased by bending
or twisting of the chassis.

To check the structural integrity of the frame, a torsional load was applied on the front control
arms while the rear control arms was fixed. This load is created by a positive static load on one
side of the chassis and negative on the opposite side through the centre of the wheel.
This analysis is the most critical since it defines the reaction of every member throughout the
chassis while cornering.

The torsional stiffness analysis was done in solidworks 2014 using FEA beam model. The load and
constraints applied are as below:

The front wheel centers were connected to the suspension hard points of the frame using truss
members. This was to simulate wishbones and pushrods which transfer loads to frame axially.

This setup is equivalent to the frame being twisted by an applied torque at the front while it is
fixed at the rear.

16 | P a g e
F: Force applied
Τ: Applied Torque
d: Distance between wheel centres
δ: Deflection of wheel centre
φ: Angular deflection of wheel centre

 CHASSIS 1:

Figure 3.1: torsional load on chassis 1.

F=500 N

d=1.105m

For left wheel:

δL = 3.278 mm
𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒
φL= 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑣𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒

17 | P a g e
 δL
= 𝑑/2

= 3.278𝑚𝑚⁄552.5 𝑚𝑚 = .00593rad

For right wheel:

δR = 3.209mm
δR
φR = 𝑑/2 = 3.209𝑚𝑚⁄552.5𝑚𝑚 = .005808 rad

φav = (φL + φR)/2 = .00587 = 0.3363 °

Torque applied, Τ = F x d = 500 x 1.105 = 552.5 N-m

Torsional Stiffness = Τ / φav = 552.5 N-m/ 0.3363 ° = 1643 N-m/deg

 CHASSIS 2:

Figure 3.2: torsional load on chassis 2.

18 | P a g e
Torsional Stiffness calculation:

F=500 N

L=1.068m

For left wheel:

δL = 3.923mm

𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒

φL=
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑣𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒

δL
= = 3.923/534.4=7.341X10-3 rad
𝑑/2

For right wheel:

δR = 3.912mm

δR
φR = =3.912/534.4=7.320X10-3 rad
𝑑/2

φav = (φL + φR)/2 =0.4200deg

Torque applied (T)= F X L=500 N X 1.068m=534 Nm

Torsional Stiffness= torque/average deflection= 1271.428Nm/deg

19 | P a g e
  CHASSIS 3:

Figure 3.3: torsional load on chassis 3

For left wheel:

δL = 2.719 mm
𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒
φL= 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑣𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒

δL
= 𝑑/2

= 2.179𝑚𝑚⁄533.5 𝑚𝑚 = 5.09 x 10-3 rad = 0.29 degree

For right wheel:

δR = 2.704 mm
δR
φR = 𝑑/2 = 2.704⁄533.5𝑚𝑚 = 5.06 x 10 -3

φav = (φL + φR)/2 = 0.275 °

20 | P a g e
Torque applied, Τ = F x d = 500 x 1.067 = 533.5 N-m

Torsional Stiffness = Τ / φav = 533.5 N-m / 0.275 ° = 1940 N-m/deg.

 CHASSIS 4

Figure 3.4: torsional load on chassis 4

For left wheel:

δL = 3.586 mm
𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒
φL= 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑣𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒

δL
= 𝑑/2

= 3.586𝑚𝑚⁄533.5 𝑚𝑚 = 6.74 x 10-3 rad = 0.385 degree

21 | P a g e
For right wheel:

δR = 3.592 mm
δR
φR = 𝑑/2 = 3.592⁄533.5𝑚𝑚 = 6.73x 10 -3 rad = 0.385 degree

φav = (φL + φR)/2 = 0.385 °

Torque applied, Τ = F x d = 500 x 1.067 = 533.5 N-m

Torsional Stiffness = Τ / φav = 533.5 N-m / 0.385 ° = 1385 N-m/deg.

3.2.2 IMPACT TEST:

Figure 3.5: impact test on chassis 1.

22 | P a g e
Maximum von mises stress = 3.41x10⁷ N/m2

Yield strength of the material=350x106 N/m2

𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
Factor of safety= 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑣𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠

350 X10^6
= 3.41 𝑋10^7 = 10

Figure 3.6: impact test on chassis 2.

Maximum von mises stress = 4.12x10⁷ N/m2

Yield strength of the material=350x106 N/m2

𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
Factor of safety= 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑣𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠

350 X10^6
= 4.12 𝑋10^7 = 8.5

23 | P a g e
 CHAPTER-4:
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 INTRODUCTION
The results of the analysis done in the previous chapter for torsional loading is discussed in this
chapter and the results are tabulated and compared, so as to select the best chassis.

4.2 RESULTS
The finite element analysis of the three proposed design for torsional loading was done in
solidworks’14. Maximum stresses, maximum displacement and torsional stiffness were recorded
for each design in the table below.

Chassis Torsional stiffness WEIGHT Maximum Factor of Maximum

(Kg) stress safety displacement
(N/m2) (mm)
Chassis 1 1643 N-m/deg. 32.336 1.018x108 3.5 0.341
Chassis 2 1271 Nm/deg. 29.85 6.086 x107 5.9 3.923
Chassis 3 1940 N-m/deg. 35.74 1.05x108 3.3 2.719
Chassis 4 1385 N-m/deg. 31.31 1.007x108 2.6 3.592
Table 4.1: torsional analysis

4.3 DISCUSSION
4.3.1 CHASSIS 1
Uniform stress of 5.092x107 N/m2 was observed with maximum stress of 1.018x108 N/m2 at
few points. Maximum translational displacement of 3.278 mm was noted. Almost all other
areas were found to be safe with approximately no stress and displacement.
24 | P a g e
 4.3.2 CHASSIS 2
Uniform stress of 5.092x107 N/m2 was observed with maximum stress of 1.018x108 N/m2 at
few points. Maximum translational displacement of 3.278 mm was noted. Almost all other
areas were found to be safe with approximately no stress and displacement.

4.3.3 CHASSIS 3
Uniform stress of 4.71x107 N/m2 was observed with maximum stress of 1.06x108 N/m2 at
few points. Maximum translational displacement of 2.519mm was noted. Almost all other
areas were found to be safe with approximately no stress and displacement.

The chassis 3 as shown in table 4.1 not only gave the highest torsional stiffness (1940N-m/deg),
but also met our torsional stiffness requirement of 1800 N-m/deg.

Factors Torsional stiffness Weight total

Weightage 5 4 -
Chassis 1 4 3 32
Chassis 2 2 4 26
Chassis 3 5 3 37
Chassis 4 3 3 27
Table 4.2: decision matrix table

The above decision matrix makes it clear that chassis 3 is the best option, despite being a bit
heavier than the rest of the proposed designs. Thus chassis 3 is the design which the best
amongst the proposed designed and it will be manufactured in the workshop.

25 | P a g e
 CHAPTER- 5:
OTHER COMPONENTS

5.1 IMPACT ATTENUATOR.

The rule requirement for an impact attenuator makes it a component that needs a lot of time and
resource to be devoted to its design and testing. The monetary resources required for its testing
ruled out its in-house development. The alternative was to go for a Standard Impact attenuator.
This would save us man hours, allowing us to concentrate on more critical components. The cost
of a standard impact attenuator was comparable to what it would cost to test a self-made IA. The
fabrication costs would have been extra and were not calculated.

Figure 5.1: IMPACT ATTENUATOR

26 | P a g e
 Figure 5.2: IMPACT ATTENUATOR SIDE VIEW.

5.2 ANTI-INTRUSION PLATE

Steel was chosen as the thickness was specified in the rule book and aluminium of required
thickness hardly gave any weight advantage, and had the added problem of welding it to the
bulkhead. The thickness of steel installed is 2mm.

27 | P a g e
5.3 FLOOR AND FIREWALL
Aluminium Plate was chosen as it provided significant weight reductions and stiffness. The added
components were brackets welded to the frame to which firewall was bolted using M6 bolts. The
floor was pasted using BOSS PU25 adhesive which eliminated the need of additional bracket
needed to mount the floor. Last year floor was mounted using brackets which increased the
weight of the frame along with causing lot of noise due to vibration.

5.4 JACKING BAR CUM PUSH-BAR

Figure 5.3: FEA analysis of jacking bar

28 | P a g e
Jacking bar is used to lift the car (heavy object). In designing of jacking square tube is used as it is
lighter in weight and can take more bending stresses. First, a cad model of jacking bar was made in
solidworks’14. The dimensions were taken from last year’s jacking bar and was verified form FSAE
2015 rulebook .To check whether the design can take the weight of the car finite element analysis
was done. The weight of the car was assumed to be 300kg, so a static load of 3000N was applied
at the joints as shown in the above figure.

The minimum factor of safety for the above load condition was coming out to be 9.8, thus the
jacking bar designed can take the weight of the car.

This year we have integrated push-bar with jacking bar by fabricating it with square tubes.

Figure 5.4: jacking bar jacking TSI-16

29 | P a g e
 CHAPTER-6:
MANUFACTURING
6.1 Manufacturing of Frame

Out in the workshop at last. We will now have a look at what’s involved
in the manufacture of a tubular spaceframe. We have already
considered that we are using AISI 1018 mild steel round tubes.
Our first requirement was a flat surface. For this we labelled the
ground and used a base steel plate dimensioning 2500mm X 1250mm X
5mm. Fixture positions were printed on a paper and pasted on the
base plate.

Figure 6.1: Base Plate

Fixtures were welded in position with the help of gussets that can hold the different members of
the spaceframe in the right place. This is to ensure maximum accuracy and alignment of the final
chassis. When the fixture was ready, we were ready to start the assembly of the chassis on the
fixture.

Figure 6.2: Fixtures welded on base plate

30 | P a g e
The tubes for frame member were laser cut by our laser cut partner MAGOD LASER. The tubes for
rear bulkhead tubes were profiled in house which involved fish mouth preparation.

Figure 6.3: Tubes laser cut Figure 6.4: Fish mouth

6.1.1 Cockpit:
Fabrication of frame started with cockpit as accurate construction of this part will reduce error in
front and rear structure of frame. This included main roll hoop, front roll hoop and side impact
members. Main hoop and front hoop were placed at their position in the laser cut fixture plate
grooves and then joined by side impact members. The lower side impact member (LSM) was
placed in between main hoop and front hoop, bolts were passed through the holes made in the
fixture plates to keep it aligned in position and tack welded at point of contact of LSM and front
hoop and LSM and main hoop at the bottom. This was cross checked with 2D drawing of top view
of frame pasted on base plate to attain a greater accuracy.

Figure 6.5: Cockpit

31 | P a g e
Tack welding means applying a small bead of weld at several positions on the joints to ensure that
it has no freedom of movement (normally at three locations in round tubing).

6.1.2 Front Section:

With the completion cockpit area front structure was fabricated in a similar way. This portion
consisted of Front hoop, Front Bulkhead, Front hoop bracings and front bulkhead support
members.

Figure 6.6: Front bulkhead Figure 6.7: Front bulkhead supports

Figure 6.8: Front hard points

6.1.3 Rear Section:

Similarly rear structure of frame was fabricated which involved fabrication of rear bulkhead, main
hoop bracing and hard point triangulation tubes.

32 | P a g e
Figure 6.9: Rear bulkhead design Figure 6.10: Rear bulkhead Figure 6.11: Rear

Jacking bar tube was welded with bottom member of rear bulkhead with the help of two
supports. Main hoop bracings were welded after mounting engine.
Figure 6.12: Final frame

33 | P a g e
 CHAPTER-7:
Conclusion:

This design report has considered a variety of chassis designs with an emphasis on Formula SAE
cars. The construction of the chassis frame was completed in time and thus the car will be
competing this year’s competition in FSI-2016. With stiffness targets in mind a finite element
model approach was applied for design and fabrication of the chassis frame.

Last year the design weight of frame was 40 kg weight and a torsional stiffness of 2250 N-m/deg.
These values were significantly reduced in this year’s design to attain a lighter frame ( 35 kg)
having sufficient torsional stiffness of 1940 N-m/deg. The completion of the chassis is a major
annual milestone for every team. A completed chassis provides motivation to complete other
parts of the car because the team members can now visualise what has been in the design phase
for months. Every team sets a goal to complete their frame early, giving them a chance to test the
car for two to three months before each completion.

To finish the chassis by deadline that is put in place by the team, the designer needs to have
his/her design fully completed by the time construction starts. Our design was ready before
construction started.

Steel tube space frame construction gives team members an opportunity to learn basic fabrication
skills through sheet metal work, tube fitment and welding. This also induces a sense of pride in
members that make tubes that are used in an integral part of the car.

The chassis design and construction process is a cornerstone of the FSAE project. The many details
that must be considered during this procedure provides great practice to aspiring engineers and
gives them a leg up on their completion.

34 | P a g e