Formula SAE Chassis System Design, Optimization & Fabrication of FSAE Spaceframe Chassis

Volume 5, Issue 5, May – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Formula SAE Chassis System

Design, Optimization & Fabrication of FSAE Spaceframe Chassis
Rishi Desai.
Student - Mechanical Engineering
C.S.P.I.T – Charusat University
Anand, Gujarat – India.
Abstract:- Chassis is a major part of any automotive obtained from William & Douglas Vehicle dynamics.
design. It is responsible for supporting all functional And finally, the results were verified using
systems of a vehicle and also accommodates the driver destructive testing performed on the torsional rig.
in the cockpit. Designing a chassis for driver’s safety is
always been a concern, especially for a race car. In this Keywords:- FSAE Chassis, Chassis Torsional Rigidity,
report, few techniques are mentioned on how to analyze Bending Stiffness, Simulations, Suspension, Vehicle
a formula student race car chassis to ensure its Dynamics.
structural stability for the driver’s safety.
I. INTRODUCTION
This report aims to produce a clear idea about the
types of analysis to be run on a student formula chassis A. Formula Student: The Challenge
with the amount of load or G forces to be applied to it Team Ojaswat is a formula student racing team
using Solid works software, to make sure that the driver consisting of students, from the Charotar University of
is safe inside the cockpit. Science & Technology. Each year the team designs, builds,
tests, and eventually races their car against other university
The overall scope of this project can be broken teams from all over the world in the Formula Student
down into two objectives. The first objective of this competition.
report was to design, manufacture, and test a Formula
SAE racecar chassis for use in the 2020 Formula Bharat The students are to assume that a manufacturing firm
& SAE SUPRA. Several factors will be taken into has engaged them to produce a prototype car for evaluation.
account, including vehicle dynamics, chassis rigidity, The intended sales market is the nonprofessional weekend
component packaging, and overall manufacturing and auto crosser sprint race and the firm is planning to produce
performance. The major objectives of Team Ojaswat 1,000 cars per year at a cost below 10 lakhs.
while designing this chassis are listed below –
 Design and optimize the chassis system considering The car must be low in cost, easy to maintain, and
aesthetics ergonomics and giving utmost priority to reliable, with high performance in terms of its acceleration,
the driver’s safety. For the design procedure, we braking, and handling qualities. Watched closely by
have taken references for various SAE research industry specialists who volunteer their time each team will
papers. go through the following rigorous testing process of their
 The CAD file is entirely developed on Solid works car:
2018-19. Also, we have tried to use Ansys 18.2 2D
structural analysis. For performing dynamic Static events: Design, Cost, and Presentation Judging
suspension simulations, we have used Lotus shark − Technical and Safety Scrutineering − Tilt Test to prevent
and Raven. The mathematical truss model was cars from rolling over − Brake and Noise Test.
developed in MathWorks – R2020.
 The fabrication is done in house using Jigs & Fixture Dynamic Events: Skid Pad − Acceleration −
table. We have used the TIG and Arc welding Sprint/qualification − Endurance and Fuel Economy –
machine for welding purposes. The material used in Autocross.
overall frame design is AISI 4130 chromium-
molybdenum steel alloy for maximum strength to B. Problem Definition
weight ratio. And in addition to that, it has great A typical open-wheeled single-seater chassis in the
weldability. Formula Student competition consists of several parts: − a
 Fabrication of the 2019-2020 model is brought out in lightweight structural and protective driver compartment or
a very unique way. We have used the weldments cockpit − a lightweight structural engine compartment −
feature of solid works in a very unique way to profile esthetic and aerodynamic exterior − crash impact
and notch the tubes to obtain great accuracy. attenuators. So far Team Ojaswat has been building a
 The base sketch was also developed uniquely by tubular space frame model.
printing the top view of the chassis and developing
laser-cut jigs and fixtures for maximum accuracy. However, to use them correctly in a race car is very
 For final validation, the COG of the cad file and the difficult because they offer very little design freedom.
prototypes were compared from a moment formula Problems are met when trying to attach the advanced
IJISRT20MAY644 www.ijisrt.com 803

ISSN No:-2456-2165
suspension system to the structural cockpit. Additional
material is required to meet stiffness and strength demands
which partly cancels the advantage of the lightweight
panels. The necessary additional material increases the
material cost and the increase in vehicle mass and center of
gravity height reduces performance in handling.
The main challenge for our team was to shift from 13-
inch rims to 10-inch alloy wheels with a heavy engine of
600 ccs. And maintain the total weight of the vehicle to 250
kg for best performance. For that purpose, we had to come Fig. – I.C.3 (Cockpit Templets)
up with a new design without any references. We
performed several iterations to reach a final design for
D. Concept Generation
fabrication.
 General procedure –
To construct the chassis, the design team took a
Even after performing several simulations on ―bottom-up‖ approach. This approach allows for flexibility
advanced software like Solid works, Annsys, Lotus, and in the final design. the initial plan is to design a space frame
many more, we had no assurance the chassis would last in
car with the standard FSAE tubing rules, minimum
real space and time scenario. Therefore, this encouraged us
wheelbase (1600mm), wide impact attenuator (standard –
to proceed forward with Destructive testing and obtain
300x200x200 mm), and constructed from Chromoly steel
experimental value on the torsional Rig apparatus. (AISI 4130). The team created possible concepts in
SolidWorks and used finite model analysis (FEA) to
C. Design constraints
accurately assess the design's stiffness, weight, etc. This
Considering Formula Bharat 2020 rule book which is
allowed the team to easily compare different iterations for
affiliated with FSG (Formula student Germany) following
positive and negative metric gains.
were main constraints considering chassis design and the
rest are attached in the Appendix.
 Space-Frame vs. Monocoque –
Any FSAE team stands with 3 options, Spaceframe,
monocoque, and hybrid frame. Out of which Team Ojaswat
2020 decided to use a tubular spaceframe to reduce
complexities. Also, the tubular spaceframe has greater
strength, stiffness, weldability machinability and above all
easy to fabricate using jigs and fixtures.
 Standard vs. Alternate Frame Design –

The alternate design allows for much more flexibility
with the cost of more engineering analysis on the overall
design. The group would like to focus on the overall design
and ensuring all components of the car are compatible with
the chassis design instead of focusing on structural
equivalence analysis to comply with the FSAE rules. Thus
the group has selected to not use any alternate frame rules
to simplify the workload, and allow for a greater depth of
engineering to be spent on functionality.
Fig. – I.C.1 (General Chassis Constraints)
E. Design Development
The purpose of the frame is to rigidly connect the
front and rear suspension while providing attachment points
for the different systems of the car. Relative motion
between the front and rear suspension attachment points
can cause inconsistent handling. The frame must also
provide attachment points that will not yield within the
car‘s performance envelope.
There are many different styles of frames; space

frame, monocoque, and ladder are examples of race car
Fig. – I.C.2 (Percy Templet) frames. The most popular style for SUPRA
SAEINDIA/FSAE is the tubular space frame. Space frames
are a series of tubes that are joined together to form a
structure that connects all of the necessary components.

ISSN No:-2456-2165
However, most of the concepts and theories can be applied
to other chassis designs.
A Space frame chassis was chosen over a monocoque

despite being heavy, as its manufacturing is cost-effective,
requires simple tools, and damages to the chassis can be
easily rectified. The chassis design started with the fixing
of suspension mounting coordinates and engine hardpoints.
F. Material selection
There are different materials for car chassis which
include alloys of aluminum, steel, carbon fiber, etc. Carbon
fiber is very lightweight and strong but making chassis
from carbon fiber is not an economical decision. Now,
there are two materials which meet requirements.
Those materials are SAE AISI 1018 steel and

Chromoly AISI 4130 steel. Since AISI 4130 has a better
strength to weight ratio, it was finalized. All the tubes that Fig. – I.F.1 (Material Comparision)
were used to develop the spaceframe were tested. And the
hardness, tensile strength & chemical test reports are
attached in Appendix 1.
G. Design Matrix
Sr.no Metric W/C Units Target Accept-able
1 Torsional Rigidity Stiffness ft-lb/deg >1750 >1600

2 Bending Stiffness Stiffness kg/m >45 >42
3 Front Impact Force N <14000 <12000

4 Rear Impact Force N <10000 <8000
5 Side Impact Force N <10000 <8000

6 Freq-uency Hertz Hz 0.089 0.067
7 Fatigue Cycles Cycles 10 x e6 10 x e6

8 Longitu-dinal Young‘s Modulus N/m^2 1.6x10^8 9.2x10^7
bending
9 Lateral bend Young‘s Modulus N/m^2 - -
10 Weight Light Weight kg <39 <45
11 Weight Distribu-tion Control/Handling % 40F 60R 45F 55R
12 Vertical Location of Control/Handling m <0.27 <0.35

CG
13 Total Cost Manufactur-ability ₹ <50000 <65000
14 Ease of Egress Cockpit Constraint sec <3.0 <5.0
Table 1

ISSN No:-2456-2165
II. TERMONOLOGIES / LOADS
A. Definitions
 Chassis – The fabricated structural assembly that
supports all functional vehicle systems. This assembly
may be a single welded structure, multiple welded
structures, or a combination of composite and welded
structures.
 Chassis member - A minimum representative single
piece of uncut, continuous tubing, or equivalent Fig. – II.A.1 (Triangulation Rules)
structure.
 Tube frame - A chassis made of metal tubes. B. Load transfers in chassis
 Monocoque - A chassis made of composite material.  Bending –
 Main hoop - A roll bar located alongside or just behind Dynamic loading – Inertia of the structure contributes
the driver‘s torso. to total loading and it is always higher than static loading.
 Front hoop - A roll bar located above the driver‘s legs, The road vehicles are 2.5 to 3 times static loads and off-
in proximity to the steering wheel. road vehicles are 4 times static loads
 Roll hoops - Both the front hoop and the main hoop are
classified as ―roll hoops‖ Example:
 Roll hoop bracing - The structure from a roll hoop to Static loads - Vehicle at rest, moving at a constant
the roll hoop bracing support. velocity on an even road, Can be solved using static
 Roll hoop bracing supports - The structure from the equilibrium balance. Results in the set of algebraic
lower end of the roll hoop bracing back to the roll equations.
hoop(s).
 Front bulkhead - A planar structure that defines the Dynamic loads -Vehicle moving on a bumpy road
forward plane of the chassis and provides protection for even at a constant velocity, Can be solved using dynamic
the driver‘s feet. equilibrium balance. Generally results in differential
 Impact Attenuator (IA) - A deformable, energy- equations.
absorbing device located forward of the front bulkhead.
 Side impact structure - The area of the side of the
chassis between the front hoop and the main hoop and
from the chassis floor to the height as required in T2.16
above the lowest inside chassis point between the front
hoop and main hoop.
 Primary structure - The primary structure is comprised
of the following components:
 Main hoop • Front hoop • Roll hoop braces and supports
• Side impact structure • Front bulkhead • Front
bulkhead support system • All chassis members, guides
and supports that transfer load from the driver‘s
restraint system into the above-mentioned components
of the primary structure.
 Rollover protection envelope - Envelope of the primary
structure and any additional structures fixed to the Fig. – II.B.1 (Bending)
primary structure which meet the minimum  Torsion –
specification defined in T2.3 or equivalent. When vehicles traverse on an uneven road. Front and
 Node-to-node triangulation - An arrangement of chassis rear axles experience a moment. That is Pure simple torsion
members projected onto a plane, where a co-planar load (Front axle Rear axle).
applied in any direction, at any node, results in only
tensile or compressive forces in the chassis members as Torque is applied to one axle and reacted by another
below. axle. –Front axle: anti clockwise torque (front view) –Rear
axle: balances with clockwise torque –
Resultsinatorsionmoment Results in a torsion moment
about the x‐axis.
In reality, torsion is always accompanied by bending

due to gravity.

ISSN No:-2456-2165
Width of car and reinforcements provides sufficient
bending stiffness to withstand lateral forces. Lateral shock
loads assumed to be twice the static vertical loads on
wheels.
Fig. – II.B.2 (Torsion)
 Combined bending and torsion -

Bending and torsional loads are superimposed and are
assumed to be linear. One wheel of the lightly loaded axle Fig. – II.B.4 (Lateral Loading)
is raised on a bump result in the other wheel go off the
ground.  Longitudinal loading –
When the vehicle accelerates and decelerates inertia
All loads of lighter axle is applied to one wheel. Due forces are generated.
to the nature of the resulting loads, the loading symmetry
with‐z plane is lost. can be determined from moment Acceleration – Weight transferred from front and
balance g balance. RR stabilizes the structure by increasing back. Reaction forces on the rear wheel are given by taking
the reaction force on the side where the wheel is off the moment about Rr. Rr = [Mg(l-a) – Mh(dV/dt)] / L.
ground.
Declaration - Weight transferred from back to front.
The marked – Side is off the ground –Side takes all Reaction forces on front-wheel are given by taking moment
load of front axle –Side‘s reaction force increases –Side‘s about Rf. Rf = [Mg(l-a) – Mh(dV/dt)] / L.
reaction force decreases to balance the moment.
Limiting tractive and g braking forces are decided by
a coefficient of friction b/w tires and friction b/w tires and
road surfaces.
Tractive and braking forces add bending through

suspension. And inertia forces add additional bending.
Fig. – II.B.3 (Combined bending and Torsion)
 Lateral loading –
Due to corning generated attire to ground contact
patch, loads are balanced by centrifugal forces. When the
inside wheel reaction becomes zero the vehicle rollovers.
Subjected to bending in the X-Y plane, centrifugal

acceleration V^2/R =gt/2h. Taking moment at CG during
rollover can be given by (MV^2)/R = (Mgt)/2h in both
front and rear. Kerb bumping causes high loads and results Fig. – II.B.5 (Longitudinal loading)
in the rollover.

ISSN No:-2456-2165
 Asymmetric loading – and for steel, and aluminum is a fraction of their yield
Results when one wheel strikes a raised object or stress (strength):
drops into a pit. It can be resolved as vertical and horizontal fa=fy/fs
loads. Total loading is the superposition of all four loads.
In the above equation, fa is the allowable stress, fy is
The magnitude of the force depends on – (Speed of the yield stress, and fs is the factor of safety or safety
vehicle –Suspension stiffness-Wheel mass-Body mass). factor. This factor is generally defined by the building
codes based on particular conditions under consideration.
The applied load is a shock wave.- (Which has very
less time duration-Hence there is no change in vehicle
speed-Acts through the center of the wheel).
The resolved vertical force causes: – (Additional axel

load, vertical inertia load through CG, Torsion moment) to
maintain dynamic equilibrium.
The resolved horizontal force causes- (Bending in X-Z

plane, Horizontal inertia load through CG, Moment about
Z-axis) to maintain dynamic equilibrium.
Fig – II.B.7 (Allowable Stress)
 Bending stiffness –
Bending stress is the normal stress that is induced at a
point in a body subjected to loads that cause it to bend.
When a load is applied perpendicular to the length of a
beam (with two supports on each end), bending moments
are induced in the beam. Normal Stress.
It is important in structural stiffness. Sometimes

stiffness is more important than strength. Determined by
acceptable limits of deflection of the side frame door
mechanisms.
Local stiffness of floor is important –Stiffened by

swages pressed into panels. The second moment of the area
Fig – II.B.6 (Asymmetric loading) should be increased.
 Allowable stress –
The nominal allowable stress [σ] is taken to mean the
magnitude of stress used for determining the design
thickness of the tube wall based on the adopted initial data
and the steel grade.
The vehicle structure is not fully rigid. Internal

resistance or stress is induced to balance external forces.
Stress should be kept to acceptable limits. Stress due to
static load X dynamic factor ≤ yield stress.
It should not exceed 67% of yield stress. The safety

factor against the yield is 1.5. Fatigue analysis is needed Fig. – II.B.8 (Bending Stiffness)
(At places of stress concentration). Eg. Suspension
mounting points, seat mounting points).  Torsional stiffness –
Torsional stiffness is the characteristic property of a
The allowable stress or allowable strength is the material that signifies how rigid is that material i.e, how
maximum stress (tensile, compressive, or bending) that is much resistance it offers per degree change in its angle
allowed to be applied to a structural material. The when twisted. More torsional stiffness/ rigidity, more load(
allowable stresses are generally defined by building codes, torque) it can bear within allowable distortion.

ISSN No:-2456-2165
Allowable torsion for an FSAE car: 1700 to 2000 N/m F, and the displacement, d, we, know the spring constant,
/deg. Measured over the wheelbase. Handling becomes KL. Knowing either KL or F and d the other quantities can
very difficult when torsional stiffness is low. When torsion be calculated.
stiffness is low the structure move-up and down and/or
whip. When parked on uneven ground doors fail to close. If we express KT, the torsional spring stiffness, in
units of the in-lbs/radian then the equivalent liner spring
Torsion stiffness is influenced by the nose. TS reduces stiffness, expressed in lbs/in and approximated using the
by 40% when the nose is removed. Open top cars have poor small-angle approximation is :
torsional stiffness KL = L2 . K L
It is also possible to convert from torsional to linear

spring stiffness in a similar manner. Performing the
analysis we would find the general equation is
KL ≅ KT
L2
Now that we can model both torsion and linear springs

in the same system, it is possible to build a model of all the
complaint members in an automotive chassis. Depending
on the desired complexity, different elements can be
included or ignored in the model.
The simplest model we will consider is to calculate

Fig. – II.B.9 (Torsional Stiffness) the chassis stiffness for a rigid frame and complaint
springs. In this model, we assume the frame and
C. Development of the mathematical model suspension members are all infinitely stiff, and only the
The deflection that occurs at the end of the assembly actual suspension springs themselves allow for any
has a component from each of the tubes. The stiffness, deflection.
then, is also a function of the stiffness of each tube. If we
use d to represent the flexibility of each tube then the
flexibility of the system is just d(total). The stiffness is the
inverse of the flexibility, which for the entire two-tubes
system can be found from –
1 = 1 + 1 ; d total = d1 + d2
K total K1 K2
Which is the generic equation of stiffness for springs

in series? If we had additional springs they would simply
be taken into account by another term at the end of the
equation. Another useful expression to model suspension
effects will be to find the equivalent torsional stiffness for a
liner spring at the end of a bar. Fig. – II.C.2 (Vehicle Stick Model - Compliant Springs)
The load is applied at the front left wheel (positive x

and y-direction). The other wheels are all constrained from
motion in the vertical direction. We are neglecting forces
and movement other than in the vertical direction, through
the actual constraints are shown above.
If we draw a free-body diagram of the model and

solve using the sum of forces and moments we can
determine that the changes in forces at all four wheels are
Fig. – II.C.1 (Liner to Torsion Spring) equal. The back right wheel force is of the same direction
as the applied load, while the other two wheels have their
The diagram depicts a bar, pinned at one end, and forces acting in the opposite direction, or trying to hold the
connected to a linear spring at the other. The spring is car down.
fixed to the ground at one end. From this information, we
wish to find the equivalent torsional spring constant for the If we apply a force greater than the weight on those
system. For this calculation, we need to find the torque the two wheels we would lift our car frame off the ground. For
liner force is producing about the joint, and the angel the this example, and in real-world testing, we can assume that
bar is moved through. While the diagram shows the force, we have added weight to those corners to limit wheel lift.

ISSN No:-2456-2165
(The forces and deflections we are considering are all
differences from the pre-existing forces/deflections that
result from the car supporting its weight).
Since the force applied at each wheel is equal, call if

F, the deflection of the spring at the wheel can be
calculated if we know the spring constant, by the simple
expression F=Kx. If we assume that each spring has the
same rate, then the defections of each spring will be equal.
(If the springs have different rates, front /rear, or even side-
to-side, the method will still yield accurate results, but the
relative motion of the nodes will change.
Fig. - II.C.4 (Vehide Stick Model — Compliant Springs
We constrained vertically three nodes, 1, 3, and 4. and Frame)
The four springs representing the suspension at the four
corners of the car are all acting in series to resist the motion Note that Ks is simply the spring constant of the
of the left wheel, reacting against some applied load can be torsion springs. To use this equation we must use
found by the following expression: consistent values of spring constants – either all
1/K(total) = 1/K1 + 1/K2 + 1/K3 + 1/K4 translational spring value or all torsion spring values. We
can convert back and forth by knowing the track and using
the expression developed earlier in this section.
The suspension members, such as wishbones and

rockers, also contribute compliance to the overall chassis
system. This could be shown graphically as another torsion
spring in series with the frame and can be included in our
whole-car stiffness equation.
Also, note that we need to use the installed spring rate

for each suspension spring rate divided by the motion ratio
squared. The squared term arises because the motion ration
affects both the force transmitted and the displacement the
spring moves through. (Conservation of energy is one way
Fig – II.C.3 (Vehicle Stick Model – Complaint Frame) to show the motion ratio must be squared.) A mathematical
description of variable names is given below:
In the above model a force applied at node 2, the
contact patch, causes a torsional deflection in the frame.
Since the other suspension element is fixed, no other
deflections occur. All other nodes remain at their initial
position. Node 6 moves through a vertical deflection
corresponding to the equivalent liner rate of the frame
torsion spring.
Fig. – II.C.5 (Equivalent linear + torsional torsional
If the frame stiffness measure in ft-lbs/degree is stiffness)
equivalent to 100 lbs/in, then from a 100lb load node 2
deflects 1‖. It should be noted that the angle of the bar The variable r in the above expression is the motion
connecting nodes 5 and 6 will change during this ratio of the corresponding spring. Again, the units of
considering only vertical deflections at this time. spring stiffness must be consistently measured in equivalent
stiffness for a linear spring or rotary spring.
Now we can use the principle of superposition to
show that considering deflections from both the III. CAD DESIGN
translational suspension spring and the frame torsion spring
produces deflection that is the sum of deflections occurring A. Starting with 2D tire model
in each element.  Selecting sufficient tire data from Hoosier tire data book
1/K.total = 1/K1 + 1/K2 + 1/K3 + 1/K4 + 1/K5 led us to select 18 inches Hoosier soft compound tires.
Consequently led in selecting 10-inch aluminum-alloy
wheels from Kizer (3 pieces). Therefore wheels and
tires were datum features to the 2D Tire model.
 Approximate wheelbase – 1600mm, track front – 1200
& track rear – 1100mm are decided in the first iteration

ISSN No:-2456-2165
considering paddle assembly & cockpit packaging in
the front & engine packaging in the rear section.
 The next step is to define the important parameters of
the model like Scrub radii – 60mm, KPI length –
173mm, KPI angle – 2 degrees, Static camber –
negative 1 degree, FVSA – approx. 1600mm, Roll
center - 30mm, etc considering Front model.
 A new sketch is started at the distance of the wheelbase
on a new plane parallel to the previous one. This is the
Rear tire model sketch. To eliminate complexities at the
beginning similar parameters were used in the rear 2D
tire model except for FVSA reduced to 1500mm, Static
camber of 0 degrees to achieve maximum traction.
 Now, considering side view geometry, firstly we Fig. – III.B.1 (3D sketch for ergonomics)
consider a caster angle of 2 degrees in the front to
enhance steering effort and 0 degrees in the rear section C. Weldments feature
since we have differential to control rear steering.  Once the detailed sketch is complete we can use
 The next step for side view geometry is specifying weldments to allot respective members considering the
SVSA length for both the front and rear models to baseline tube rules. Every tube used in chassis is chosen
achieve desirable anti-dive and anti-squat percentages. carefully keeping in mind the baseline rules, market
10 – 20 % anti-dive and 0 – 10% anti-squat is fine for availability, and the strength it will impart considering
FSAE cars. the worst crash scenario.
 After every group that had been allocated weldments,
the trim feature was used to avoid unnecessary
interference among the intersections
 Some complex geometries cannot be made using
weldments, hence we had to use other additive features
as boss extrude, sweep extrude & revolve.
 After being completed with piping, several other
mountings are added using additive features such as
suspension pickup, harness mounts, and other
miscellaneous mountings.
Fig. - III.A.1 (2D tire model)
B. 3D Driver sketch and ergonomics

 The next stage was to design a cockpit considering
driver ergonomics, safety in the racing environment
along with concepts of vehicle dynamics.
 It began with drawing a driver sketch considering the
average of the tallest and shortest driver to assume the
cockpit packaging space.
 After understanding each chassis rule precisely and
considering all the constraints 3D sketches were made Fig. – III.C.1 (Weldments)
to develop a basic wireframe model leaving adequate
tolerances. D. Assemble-Disassemble-Simulate-Optimize
 And lastly, once the model was developed the  Once the frame was ready, we tried to assemble all the
suspension co-ordinated were exported to Lotus Shark components. Especially the Steering system in front and
software to perform dynamic simulations. drive train in the rear to make sufficient changes in front
 The refined data obtained from Lotus was used to alter and rear geometry and improve packaging space.
the 3D sketch in Solid works for the next iteration.  Lastly, after the detailed assembly, the Interference
feature is used to run diagnostics against the assembly
to check any kind of interference.
 Only after the CAD file was fully ready with zero
interference detection we proceeded with production.

ISSN No:-2456-2165
Fig. – III.D.1 (Final Assembly)
E. Chassis Layout (Figures of various sections)

ISSN No:-2456-2165
F. Basic design considerations
Fig. – III.F.1 (Basic design considerations 1)

ISSN No:-2456-2165
Fig. - III.F.2 (Basic design considerations 2

ISSN No:-2456-2165
IV. SIMULATIONS - CAE
A. Calculations
 Front Impact –
u = 75 km/hr. = 20.833 m/s, v = 0 m/s, t = 0.5 s
using a = (v-u)/t, s = ut+1/2at^2, v^2-u^2 = 2as, F = ma
Front Impact force = 14583.33 N ~ 14500 N
 Rear Impact –
u = 50 km/hr. = 13.44 m/s, v = 0 m/s, t = 0.5 s
using a = (v-u)/t, s = ut+1/2at^2, v^2-u^2 = 2as, F = ma Fig. – IV.A.2 (Bending Stiffness)
Rear Impact force = 9408 N ~ 9500 N
 Longitudinal bending –
 Side Impact –
Front section – Pedal + Steering assembly weight
u = 50 km/hr. = 13.44 m/s, v = 0 m/s, t = 0.5 s
Middle section – Drivers weight (70 kg)
using a = (v-u)/t, s = ut+1/2at^2, v^2-u^2 = 2as, F = ma
Rear section – Engine weight (65 kg)
 Rolling over –  Lateral Bending –
Normal reaction force = 3500 N vertical + Horizontal force Centrifugal force on CG at the fastest corner.
=1500 N F = (m x v^2)/r = 5401 N ~ 5500
 Torsional Rigidity –  Frequency Analysis –
It should be greater than in 1750 (lbs-ft/degree) for Total number of frequencies – 5 to 10
FSAE cars (by max. research papers). The result – To check that the natural frequency of the
K = [4(F ∗ d1/2) + 4(F ∗ d2/ 2)]/θ chassis shouldn‘t resonate with engine frequency.
= 2F (d1 + d2)/ θ
K = Torsional Rigidity (lb*ft/deg),  Fatigue Analysis –
F = Force (lb), S/N cycle - 1000000 cycles
d1, d2 = Chassis width (ft), Point of application – Suspension hardpoints mountings.
θ = Chassis rotation (deg).
 Harness bar simulation
Force – 3000N according to FB rulebook 2020
 Drop test-
Gravity – 9.8 m/s^2
Height of drop - 7m
Impact time - 0.5 seconds
 Fixtures – Note that in almost all the simulations 16

suspension pickup points are used as fixtures as the
hardpoints are the only nodes that are indirectly in
contact with Road (Loading conditions).
B. Development of mathematical Truss Spaceframe Model

Fig. – IV.A.1 (Torsional Rigidity) (Matlab R2020a)
 What is a Truss element?
 Bending stiffness – A truss is a structure that consists of members
If a chassis satisfies criteria of torsional rigidity, then organized into connected triangles so that the overall
it has adequate bending stiffness. assembly behaves as a single object. Trusses are most
Kb =ƩF/δ commonly used in bridges, roofs, towers, and chassis.
Kb = Torsional Rigidity (lb/in),
F = Force (lb), The different types of trusses are as follows - Warren
δ = Vertical displacement (in) Truss, Pratt Truss, K Truss, Fink Truss, Gambrel Truss,
In cockpit – F = drivers weight, Howe Truss. However, we have used simple truss to
In rear section F =engines weight. develop this model.
A simple truss is a planar truss which begins with a

triangular element and can be expanded by adding two
members and a joint. For these trusses, the number of
members (M) and the number of joints (J) are related by the
equation M = 2 J – 3.

ISSN No:-2456-2165
 Direct Stiffness Method.
The image below illustrated a simple 2D truss model
with 3 nodes, 3 truss elements, and 4 D.O.F. The 4x4
stiffness matrix represents 4 D.O.F of each element with
the values of Elasticity Modulus, Area of Cross-section &
Length of the truss. Note that the I.D matrix is 2 column
matrix where the number of lines represents the number of
trusses.
Fig. – IV.B.3 (Exporting Point Cloud data to Excel)
 Developing Code to measure chassis stiffness.

Solving the Truss framework model is the most basic
form of simulation. It helps us understand the right
approach behind applying fixtures, loading conditions, and
meshes considering advance simulations in Ansys &
Fig. – IV.B.2.1 (Direct Stiffness Method 1) Solidworks.
To create a system matrix firstly we need to apply a A simple approach using a Direct stiffness method can
rotational matrix o the truss that is at an angle. This means be applied to determine chassis stiffness. The basic
transferring local coordinates to global coordinates. The procedure of coding involves specifying the number of
local element stiffness matrix is substituted to the Global node matrix (n), establishing assembly matrix relations
stiffness matrix via the ID matrix. The image below clearly between 2 nodes (m), and specifying Forces matrix (F).
illustrates the procedure. And ultimately solving the Global Stiffness matrix.
The syntax of the Matlab script is available in Matlab

racing Lounge (file exchange) named Larry‘s toolbox
which can be modified as per our requirmen.
% class design project example

%
% all of the members are quenched steel
% k = 2000 k-lb, Pmax = 1500 k-lb (A = 100 sq-inch)
%
% Referring to the notepad doc USM16(3)
clear
clc
Fig. – IV.B.2.2 (Direct Stiffness Method 2) close all
clear all
 Exporting Point Cloud data from CAD. n = 54; m = 106;
To develop stiffness code/script in the command LOADZ = 20000; LOADY = 1000/2; A = 1000;
window, we need exact node coordinates from the CAD joint = [
file. This can be done by simply exporting the points to MS 164.82,-1440.06,68.23; -164.82,-1440.06,68.23;
excel. 0.00,-982.50,541.50; 225.00,567.50,6.19;
-225.00,567.50,6.19; 225.00,567.50,96.19;
The latest 3D sketch from the CAD file is pasted into -225.00,567.50,96.19; 225.00,567.50,244.19;
a new part and saved in.IGES file format which is later -225.00,567.50,244.19; 250.39,307.50,215.00;
converted to.TXT formatted and edited in MS excel. -250.39,307.50,215.00; 240.00,307.50,96.19;
-240.00 307.50 96.19; 0.00,0.00,1200.00;
93.70,0.00,1110.58; -93.70,0.00,1110.58;
250.98,0.00,580.00; -250.98,0.00,580.00;
300.00,0.00,0.00; -300.00,0.00,0.00;
345.85,0.00,260.00; -345.85,0.00,260.00;
275.00,-400.00,42.50; -275.00,-400.00,42.50;
250.00,-800.00,300.00; -250.00,-800.00,300.00;
250.00,-800.00,85.00; -250.00,-800.00,85.00;

ISSN No:-2456-2165
227.08,-800.00,582.00; -227.08,-800.00,582.00;
208.44,-982.50,541.50; -208.44,-982.50,541.50;
202.50,-1165.00,78.10; 232.51,-1165.00,219.31;
-202.50,-1165.00,78.10; -232.51,-1165.00,219.31;
152.50,-1530.00,65.00; 152.50,-1530.00,420.00;
-152.50,-1530.00,65.00; -152.50,-1530.00,420.00;
-218.09,687.30,96.19; 218.09,687.30,96.19;
-221.60,626.49,96.19; -219.34,625.41,250.69;
219.34,625.41,250.69; 225.00,567.50,354.19;
-225.00,567.50,354.19; 221.60,626.49,96.19;
-160.00,-800.00,612.00; 160.00,-800.00,612.00;
];
assembly = [ Fig. – IV.B.4 (Running codes + Results)
16,18; 16,11; 17,13; 17,19; 18,15;
19,15; 20,22; 22,28; 28,24; 21,23;23,29; 25,29; C. 2D – Static Simulation (Ansys 18.2)
20,21; 28,29; 1,5; 2,5; 2,4; 3,6; 6,4; 3,1; 5,6; After the development of the mathematical model, it is
7,8;9,10; 10,8; 1,7; 3,9; 2,8; 4,10; 2,7; 4,9; essential to simulate it with the most accurate solver
11,12; 13,14; 14,12; 7,11; 9,13; 8,53; 53,12; available (Ansys 18.2) for greater accuracy. The steps to
11,53; 7,53; 9,54; 13,54; 10,54; 54,14; 7,18; simulate the chassis model are listed below.
9,19; 1,18; 3,19; 12,20; 16,22; 14,21; 23,17;  Import the CAD file geometry of chassis from Solid
30,31; 32,33; 36,37; 33,50; 50,37; 32,52; 52,36; works to Ansys using a file format of Para-solid(*x_t)
34,36; 24,30; 25,32; 20,30; 22,30; 21,32; 23,32; to ensure that all the solid members of the chassis are
20,31; 21,33; 20,40; 21,41; 40,42; 42,41; 40,43; imported and not just surfaces.
41,44; 43,38; 44,39; 39,38; 45,31; 46,37; 46,33;  The imported geometry is then edited in the space claim
45,47; 45,31; 46,37; 46,47; 45,47; 30,48; 34,48; window. The editing involves extracting beams from
36,48; 32,48; 33,52; 36,50; 31,51; 34,49 24,26; solid members to develop a wireframe model for
25,26; 22,18; 23,19; 22,12; 23,14; 42,47;35,34; analysis. The wire model is used for analysis as it
35,37; 35,31; 34,30; 35,45; 22,38; 23,39 consumes less computation time and generates accurate
]; results.
forceJ = [  Then using text(.txt) format suspension co-ordinates (z,
3,1,1,1; 3,1,1,1; 3,1,1,1; 3,1,1,1; -1,0,0,0; x, y) are imported in space claim. Beams are generated
-1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; using ‗create‘ command from beams to complete the
-1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; wireframe model.
-1,0,0,0; -1,0,LOADZ,LOADZ; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0;  After inserting various components into ‗New part‘ the
-1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; chassis body, A-arms, and the upright wireframe model
-1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; are ‗Shared‘ separately in workbench.
-1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; 3,1,1,1;
3,1,1,1; 3,1,1,1; 3,1,1,1; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0;
-1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0;
-1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0;
-1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0; -1,0,0,0 -1,0,0,0
];
for i = 1:m; stretch(i) = 2000*1000; end; stretch(1);
%
index = 1;
[Jforce,Mforce,Jdispl,Mdispl] =
truss3(n,m,joint,assembly,forceJ,stretch,index);
% Fig. – IV.C.1 (Editing geometry in Space claim)
peak_klb = 18*A
maxMforce_klb = max(abs(Mforce/1000))  The imported model is now ready to establish
maxJdispl = max(abs(Jdispl*12)); connections. Use the ‗Name selection‘ feature to
maxDX_in = maxJdispl(2),maxDY_in = replicate similar kinds of joints. Joints between
maxJdispl(3),maxDZ_in = maxJdispl(4) wishbones and chassis are spherical and between
After running the code we can witness the results in the uprights and wishbone are revolute.
form of a graph depicting deflection. The image below  Next, the springs are connected between the upright
illustrates the result. center and frame members with a stiffness (k = 32 N/m)
to the model.
 And then after ‗Body sizing‖ the model is ready to have
meshed. Since it is a wireframe model the mesh size,
quality, and element are kept default to avoid
complexities and larger computation time.

ISSN No:-2456-2165
Fig. – IV.C.4 (Cornering + Aero Test Results)

Fig. – IV.C.2 (Body sizing & Meshing)
 Cornering + Aerodynamic test – Total Deformation
 Boundary conditions for Torsional test – Scope (y (min – 0.00mm, max – 0.89mm & avg. – 0.73mm),
coordinate = 0, which indicates the wheels are in Direct Stress (min - -5.40 Mpa, max - 96.84 Mpa, avg –
contact with the ground) & Definition (Remote force of 1.8 Mpa).
1500N in +y direction on lower points of front  Front Impact test - Total Deformation (min – 0.00mm,
uprights). Also Simply supported fixture on 4 nodes of max – 10.52mm & avg. – 4.70mm), Direct Stress (min -
the rear bulkhead. -33.80 Mpa, max – 315.34 Mpa, avg – 4.16Mpa).
 Boundary conditions for Cornering + Aerodynamic
force test – Point mass of driver(70kg) and engine are
added to the model in the respective position.
Acceleration of 3g -x-direction, and gravity in –y-
direction. And Fixed support as a fixture at every
upright‘s center.
 Boundary conditions for Front Impact - Point mass of
driver(70kg) and engine are added to the model in the
respective position. And 15000N force on 4 nodes of
the front bulkhead. Also Simply supported fixture on 4
nodes of the rear bulkhead.
 Both studies are solved and results are obtained results
in terms of Total deformation, Direct stress, and
maximum & minimum Combined stress. Fig. – IV.C.5 (Front Impact Test Results)
 Ansys 18.2 has one of the most accurate solvers but

involves a lot of memory and processing time.
Therefore, the most important simulations such as the
torsional stiffness test. The torsional test is the most
important static structural test because the chassis will
always remain under torsional loads. Whereas chances
of impact are very less in student formula competition.
 And so, the other simulations are carried out in Solid
works which has lesser accurate solver but saves an
adequate amount of time.
D. Solid works simulation e – report (detailed)

The report involves, details of simulations, ie:
Fig. – IV.C.3 (Torsional Test Results) iterations, contact sets, matrices, mesh parameters, sensors,
etc.
 Torsional test – Total Deformation (min – 0.00mm, max
– 0.89mm & avg. – 0.73mm), Direct Stress (min - -5.40  Description –
Mpa, max - 96.84 Mpa, avg – 1.8 Mpa). This report is entirely based on the design &
optimization of the FSAE (Formula racing vehicle) chassis
system. The report includes the following simulations
 Front Impact
 Rear impact simulations
 Side impact simulations
 Rollover simulations

ISSN No:-2456-2165
 Torsional stiffness (front) simulations  Mesh information –
 Torsional stiffness (rear) simulations  Mesh type - Mixed Mesh
 Bending stiffness.  Mesher Used - Curvature-based mesh
 Longitudinal bending  Jacobian points - 16 Points
 Lateral bending  Jacobian check for shell - On
 Miscellaneous simulations  Maximum element size - 11.8191 mm.
 Drop test  Minimum element size - 0.590954 mm
 Fatigue Test  Mesh Quality Plot - High
 Frequency analysis  Mesh information - Details
 Total Nodes - 69076
 Assumptions –  Total Elements – 30268
Following are the assumptions considered during  Time to complete mesh(hh;mm;ss):
designing –  00:00:01
 The geometry is symmetrical
 The global friction coefficient is 0.05  Fixture Type Used –
 Ambient conditions are considered during simulations  Fixed geometry
 Several parameters are assumed or directly adopted  Application –
from research papers.
 Load Type Used –
 Study Properties -  Force
 Analysis type - Static  Torque
 Mesh type - Mixed Mesh
 Thermal Effect: - On E. 3D – Static Simulation (Solid works 2018)
 Thermal option -Include temperature loads
 Zero strain temperature-298 Kelvin
 Include fluid pressure effects from SOLIDWORKS
Flow Simulation - Off
 Solver type - Automatic
 In-plane Effect - Off
 Soft Spring - On
 Inertial Relief - Off
 Incompatible bonding options - More accurate (slower)
 Large displacement - Off
 Compute free body forces -On
 Friction - On
 Friction Coefficient - 5.000000e-02
 Use Adaptive Method: - Off
Fig. – IV.E.1a (Front Impact – stress)
 Unit system - SI (MKS)
 Length/Displacement - mm
 Temperature - Kelvin
 Angular velocity - Rad/sec
 Pressure/Stress - N/m^2
Fig. – IV.E.1b (Front-impact –displacement)
Fig. - IV.D.1 (3D mesh)

ISSN No:-2456-2165
Fig. – IV.E.1c (Front-impact – FOS) Fig - IV.E.3a – (Side impact 1 –stress)
Fig. - IV.E.2a (Rear impact –stress) Fig - IV.D.3b (Side impact 1 – displacement)
Fig - IV.E.2b (Rear impact – Displacement) Fig - IV.E.3c (Side impact 1 – FOS)
Fig. - IV.E.2c (Rear Impact – FOS)

Fig - IV.E.4a (Rolling – stress)

ISSN No:-2456-2165
Fig - IV.E.4b (Rolling – displacement) Fig - IV.E.5c (Front torsional – FOS)
Fig - IV.E.4c (Rolling – FOS) Fig - IV.D.6a (Rear torsional-stress)
Fig - IV.E.5a (Front torsional – Stress) Fig - IV.E.6b (Rear torsional-displacement)
Fig - IV.E.5b (Front torsional – Displacement) Fig - IV.E.6c (Rear torsional-FOS)

ISSN No:-2456-2165
Fig - IV.E.7a (Bending stiffness –Stress) Fig - IV.E.8b– (Longitudinal bending – Displacement)
Fig - IV.E.7b (Bending stiffness –Displacement) Fig - IV.D.8c - (Longitudinal bending – FOS)
Fig - IV.E.7c (Bending stiffness –FOS) Fig – IV.E.9a – (Lateral bending – Stress)
Fig – IV.E.9b – (Lateral bending - Displacement)

Fig - IV.E.8a – (Longitudinal bending - Stress)

ISSN No:-2456-2165
Fig – IV.E.9c – (Lateral bending - FOS)

Fig - IV.E.11a (Harness simulation – Stress)
Fig - IV.E.10a (Frequency analysis – Fq vs Amplitude)

Fig – IV.D.11b (Harness simulation – Displacement)
Fig - IV.E.10b (Frequency analysis – Resonant frequency)

Fig – IV.E.11c (Harness simulation – FOS)
Fig – IV.E.10c (Fatigue analysis)

Fig – IV.E.12a (Drop Test) – Dynamic Simulation

ISSN No:-2456-2165
F. Tabulated Results of Static Simulations
Simulation type Subcategory Resultant value

Front Impact Stress (N/mm^2) Max- +3.82e+08
Y.S – 4.60e+08 Min- -5.08e+08
Displacement (mm) Max- 1.88e+00
Min– 1.00e-30
F.O.S -Working/Yield Max- 3.00e+00
Min– 8.57e-01
Rear Impact Stress (N/mm^2) Max- +4.07e+08
Y.S - 4.60e+08 Min- -3.55e+08
Min– 1.00e-30
Min– 1.12e+00
Side Impact Stress (N/mm^2) Max- +1.18+08
Y.S - 4.60e+08 Min- -1.18e+08
Min- 1.00e-30
Min- 3.15e-01
Rolling Stress (N/mm^2) Max- +1.68e+08
Y.S - 4.60e+08 Min- -1.82e+08
Min- 1.00e-30
Min- 2.25e+00
Front Torsion Stress (N/mm^2) Max- +3.63e+08
Y.S - 4.60e+08 Min- -3.63e+08
Displacement (mm) Max- 1.00e-30
Min- 3.24e+00
Min- 4.76e-01
Rear Torsion Stress (N/mm^2) Max- +2.38e+08
Y.S - 4.60e+08 Min- -2.37e+08
Min – 1.00e-30
Min– 3.34e-01
Bending stiffness Stress (N/mm^2) Max- +1.68e+08
Y.S - 4.60e+08 Min- -9.21e+07
Min - 1.00e+00
Min– 2.71e+00
Longitudinal Bending Stress (N/mm^2) Max- +1.68e+08
Y.S - 4.60e+08 Min - -9.21e+07
Min- 1.00e+00
Min– 2.71e+00
Lateral Bending Stress (N/mm^2) Max- +1.04e+08
Y.S - 4.60e+08 Min - -9.69e+07
Min– 1.00e-30
Min– 3.99e-01
Harness Stress (N/mm^2) Max- +3.65e+07
Y.S - 4.60e+08 Min- -3.64e+07

ISSN No:-2456-2165
Min- 1.00e-30
Min- 2.00e+00
Frequency analysis Rad/sec – 529.52 Seconds-0.011866
Rad/sec – 740.63 Seconds-0.008483
Rad/sec – 796.42 Seconds-0.007889
Rad/sec – 852.66 Seconds-0.007368
Model Hertz - 84.276 Seconds-0.011866
analysis Hertz - 117.87 Seconds-0.008483
Hertz –126.75 Seconds-0.007889
Hertz - 135.71 Seconds-0.007368
Drop Test Stress (N/mm^2) Max- +3.82e+08
Y.S - 4.60e+08 Min- -5.08e+08
Min– 1.00e-30
Min– 8.57e-01
Fatigue Analysis Cycles – 200000 Safe design – (under Soderberg curve)
Testing fatigue in suspension pickup.
Table 2
G. Dynamic simulations in Matlab – R2020a To import the CAD chassis & suspension assembly to
Static simulations are not enough considering the Matlab firstly Simscape multibody feature from Add-ins is
actual racing environment. Just for example Front Impact used to convert ‗.sldasm‘ file to ‗.XML‘ file format so it
Static simulation in a real crash scenario is Rear Impact can be imported in Matlab.
Dynamic simulation.
Elaborating the above statement as in front impact

simulation we keep the chassis fix at the rear and apply
force on the front bulkhead but under the dynamic crash
condition, the front bulkhead comes to rest (fixture), and
the momentum transfers from rear to front (force).
Therefore, we had to perform dynamic simulations to

make sure that the chassis would sustain all the loads in real
space and time. One of which was performed in Solidworks
(Drop test). And another dynamic simulation was
performed in Lotus and Matlab.
Initially, suspension dynamic simulations were

performed in Lotus Shark & Raven software. Once the
various suspension related graphs were satisfactory we And to run the ‗.XML‘ file ‗smlink_linksw‘ function
proceeded with Stiffness dynamic simulations. is used in a command window followed by file name. On
running the file we get the entire Mathematical model in
Simulink. We then performed simulations on the model.
Fig. – IV.G.1 (Lotus suspension analysis)

Fig. – IV.G.2 (Mathematical model – Simulink)

ISSN No:-2456-2165
V. FABRICATION C. Roll hoops production
The next task was the production of Front, Rear roll
A. Material Constraints hoops, and Front, Rear bulkheads. It is because these 4
Formula Bharat and SAE supra have imposed certain components were designed to be perpendicular to the
restrictions on material strengths. Also, minimum wall fixture table whereas the other tubing was scattered in 3D
thickness, tube diameter, cross-section area, and area space.
moment of inertia are predefined in the rule book.
To achieve maximum accuracy, the roll hoops were
Therefore considering the baseline we used 25.45mm, sent for CNC bending and later analyzed in a fixture to
19.05mm & 14.00mm AISI 4130 Chromoly steel tubing in remove residual stresses by giving heat treatment.
the entire structure. Datasheets attached in Appendix 1. Examples of the roll hoop sketches are attached in
Appendix 3.
25.40mm x 2.50mm – Front & Main roll hoops
25.40mm x 2.00mm – Main hoop bracing support system
25.40mm x 1.65mm – Bulkheads, Side Impact Structures
25.40mm x 1.65mm – Roll hoop bracings, Harness bars
25.40mm x 1.20mm – Front bulkhead support system
19.05mm x 2.00mm – Torsion bars & Supports
14.00mm x 2.00mm – Nonstructural members.
Fig. – V.C.1 (Main Roll hoop Fixture)
D. Base fixture – laser cut Jigs

The base fixtures and Jigs had to be as accurate as
possible to maintain weight balance and suspension
geometry according to the CAD design. Therefore we
decided to go to metallic Jigs instead of wooden. The
example of the drawings is attached in Appendix 3.
Fig. – V.A.1 (Material Constraints) The top view of the chassis was printed on the A0 size
sheet and stick on the fixture table to attain maximum
B. e - Drawings (1:1 Scale printouts) accuracy. And the jigs of the base of the chassis were sent
To attain maximum accuracy during production we for laser cutting to achieve maximum accuracy in Z-axis
printed 2D drawings of respective parts. This involved and later welded to the fixture table, following the sketch
exporting the part file to Solidworks drawing templet and outlines.
printing on a scale of 1:1.
The fabrication procedure began with production on

A-arms. This is because the chassis should always be
manufactured according to 16 suspension hardpoints and
not the other way round to maintain suspension geometry.
Fig. – V.D.1 (Laser-cut Jigs on Metallic fixture table)

Fig. – V.B.1 (Drawing Prints – A-arms fixture)

ISSN No:-2456-2165
E. Profile cutting and grinding G. Defining Hardpoints Locations
To achieve maximum accuracy during profiling To determine the exact location of the 16 hardpoints,
individual tubes were imported from the solid works part 4 prototype uprights were created using exact dimensions
file by breaking the reference into the new part by using from metallic sheets. The A-arms were used to project the
Insert into the new part feature. Then they exported to sheet points on node points. On these points, the suspension
metal and flattened using insert bent feature. mountings were welded with great precision.
The drawing of the ends of the pipe was printed and Later all the other mountings were also welded
stuck tubes to obtain the most ideal length and profile. The according to CAD with great precision.
example is illustrated below and an example of a profile cut
is given in Appendix 3.
Fig. – V.E.1 (Profile cutting drawings) Fig. – V.G.1 (Prototype uprights as jigs)
F. Welding procedures H. Final set up

Firstly, the base was welded with the jigs exactly One all the tubes and mountings were welded the final
perpendicular to the base using arc welding to save time. set up would look like something illustrated in the figure
Later, the base of the chassis was placed in the jigs and below.
tacked to avoid them from lifting due to residual stresses
generated during full welding. Later, all the paper was scraped off the tubes and the
frame was lifted off from the fixture table by grinding off
Tig welding was used to weld the frame to abolish the tacks that were made to prevent deflection due to
flux and maintain aesthetics. The entire chassis was welded residual stresses.
in house. The welding filler data sheets are attached in
Appendix 2. Further, the frame was taken for validation testing like
Comparing C.O.G with CAD file, destructive testing on the
torsional rig.
And lastly for power coating to bring of aesthetical

looks from the rusty frame.
Fig. – V.F.1 (In house Tig & Arc Welding)
Fig. – V.H.1 (Final Set up on fixture table)

ISSN No:-2456-2165
VI. VALIDATION TESTING
A. Comparison with the 2016 model
Chassis 2016 Chassis 2019

The frame was designed for a 13inch steel wheel. This frame is designed for 10-inch aluminum-alloy wheels.
The overall weight of the chassis was 37 kg excluding all the The overall weight with mountings is just 39 kg including all
mountings and including all the mountings it was around 50 kg. the mountings.
The torsion bar was used in the rear section to add torsional The torsion bar is eliminated to reduce weight and it served
stiffness in the rear section. no requirement as the engine itself sustains torsional loads.
The front bulkhead involved a cross member sine they were using We eliminated the member s our car complied with the rule.
smaller Impact attenuators.
The suspension hardpoints were not node to node triangulated. The suspension hardpoints are perfectly triangulated
The chassis has a low weight to strength ratio. This model has much higher stiffness and weight to strength
ratio.
They had used wooden jigs and fixtures for the production of This model is developed with metal jigs and fixture with laser
chassis 2016 that resulted in lesser accuracy. cutting to obtain maximum accuracy.
The 2016 chassis model much deviated from baseline dimensions 2019 is very close to the baseline and optimized in the best
hence their car was too heavy. way possible to reduce weight and increase performance.
The overall weight of the 2016 car is 307 kg. The overall weight of the 2019 model will be 2650-260 kg.
The C.G of 2016 model was not balanced in the XYZ axis. The C.G of 2019 model is well balanced in the XYZ axis.
Table 3
B. Comparing the Centre of Gravity of CAD file and

Prototype
 Total vehicle Horizontal (x & y) location of C.G from
the figure VI.B.1.
(Note that the figure below denotes a method to

determine vehicle‘s C.G but it can also be used to
determine chassis C.G only by replacing 4 wheels to 4
extreme lowest hardpoints).
 W – total weight of chassis

 l = Wheelbase (1.60m)
 d = (Tf – Tr)/2
Fig. – VI.A.1 (2016 CAD model)  Tf = Track front (1.20m)
 Tr = Track rear (1.10m)
 X-X axis = Centre line of chassis (x direction)
 X1-X1 axis = Centerline of rear wheel.
 Taking the weight of chassis using 4 weighing machines

placed under 4 extreme points (suspension hard points
front & rear).
 W1 + W2 + W3 + W4 = W (total weight of chassis)
 12.20 + 11.80 + 10.30 + 10.70 = 45 kg.
 Taking moment about Rear axle. (C.G in X-axis is)
 b = (Wf x l)/W
 b = (24.00 x 1.60)/45
 b = 0.8533 m (Distance of C.G from rear track)
 a = l –b
Fig. – VI.A.2 (2019 CAD model)  a = 1.60 – 0.8533
 a = 0.7466 m (Distance of C.G from front track)

ISSN No:-2456-2165
 Now, taking moment about the X1-X1 axis (parallel to  Note that (h1) is the height of C. G above the line
the centerline of the car (chassis) through the center of connecting front & rear pickup centres, which is at a
left rear tires). height of (T.lf).
 d = (Tf – Tr)/2  (b1)/ (b + c) = cos ǿ
 d = (1.20 – 1.10)/2  (c/h1) = tan ǿ
 d = 0.05 m  h1 = {(Wf x l) – W x b}/ W x tan ǿ
 y‘ = {W2 x (Tf – d)}/W – {W1 x (d)}/W + {W4 x  h = Tl + h1
(Tr)}/W  Now if (t) is different for front & rear (ie; both hard
 y‘ = {12.30 x (1.20 – 0.05)}/45 – {11.70 x (0.05)}/45 + point centres have different heights from the ground)
{10.30 x (1.10)}/45 then C.G is found by the following formula –
 y‘ = 0.552  T.l.cg = T.l.f x (b/l) + T.l.r x (a/l)
 Now to find y‖ (shift in m from C.G) we have to use the  h = T.l.cg + h1
formula [ y‖ = y‘ –(Tr/2)] to give lateral shift of C.G  h1 = {25.50(1.6) – 45(0.8533)}/ 45 x (tan 11◦)
from X-axis (centerline).  h1 = (40.80 – 38.39)/ (45 x 0.194)
 y‖ = y‘ – (Tr/2) or  h1 = 0.276 m
 y‖ = {W2 x (Tf – d)}/W – {W1 x (d)}/W + {W4 x  T.l.cg = (0.276) x (0.8533/1.60) + (0.043) x
(Tr)}/W – Tr/2 (0.7466/1.60)
 y‖ = 0.552 – 1.10/2  h = 0.276 + 0.102
 y‖ = -0.002 m (shift in C.G y-axis)  h = 0.378 m (C.G in z-axis is)
 Note that the above method is purely used to calculate
the C.G of the vehicle with wheels so it won‘t give
accurate results while measuring the C.G of chassis. But
the study gives us the rough idea of the prototype
chassis.
Fig. – VI.B.1 (Horizontal CG of chassis)
(Positive & Negative values of y‖ describe the shift of

C.G in the left or right direction from centerline).
 Total vehicle Vertical Location of C.G from figure

VI.B.2.
(Note that the figure below denotes a method to Fig. – VI.B.2 (Vertical CG of chassis)
determine vehicle‘s C.G but it can also be used to
determine chassis C.G only by replacing 4 wheels to 4  In the figures below is the illustration of the comparison
extreme lowest hardpoints). between CAD file chassis and the prototype. MS Paint
has been used to illustrate the rough position of CG in
 ǿ = 11◦ (angle of the inclined plane) the prototype model.
 W = Total weight of chassis in kg.  The image below shows the centre of mass (purple) of
 Wf = weight of front axle the chassis. The position of the centre of mass (C.O.M)
 b = horizontal distance from rear axle and centre of gravity (C.O.G) are the same in software
 l = wheelbase (1.60m) but changes in real space and time.
 T.l.f = Loaded thickness of front axle (height from  The C.O.G is measured from (blue coordinate system
ground to suspension pickup centre in front). symbol) origin in software. This is X = -2.30mm, Y=
 T.l.r = Loaded thickness of rear axle (height from 292.81mm & Z=-343.26mm which is highlighted by
ground to suspension pickup centre in rear). purple colour Coordinate system symbol.
 Taking moment about point O & the trigonometric step
functions are as follows.
 L1 = l. x cos ǿ
 b1= (Wf/W) x (l x cos ǿ)
 c = {(Wf/W) x l}–b
 Wf x l = W x b1

ISSN No:-2456-2165
 If the chassis is not stiff enough it will bend along Z-
axis and the torsional stiffness will cause will affect the
suspension system and affect the vehicle dynamics of
the car.
B. Methodology
 A jig was used to fix the hardpoints and torque was
applied on front hardpoints. A dial gauge is used to
measure the deflection. The jigs are designed in a way
that does not leave any gap between the chassis tubes
and the jig plates.
 The height of the jig was decided considering the height
Fig. – VI.B.3 (CG measurement in Solid works software) of the dial gauge so that the dial gauge can be easily
kept below the chassis.
 The image below shows the particle center of gravity of  The number of bolts is kept more than required as the
the chassis calculated by the moment formula. rear of the chassis should not move in the jig when the
Practically the C.G is not measured from the origin. load is applied if there is any deflection in any axis in
 In X-axis it is measured from the front or rear bulkhead, the rear part because of the load the values in the dial
in Y-axis it is measured from the centerline (red), and in gauge will not be correct.
Z-axis from the ground.  The plates are strongly bolted on chassis and plates
welded to the base table.
 A T-shaped structure is made using a square tube and
the trunk of the T passes through the hardpoints. A
square tube is used, as a round tube will roll when the
load is applied and square tubes have higher bending
stiffness.
 A rectangular wooden block is kept between the square
tube and the vertical tube connecting 2 hardpoints so
that there is no space for the square tube to slide when
the load is applied.
Fig. – VI.B.4 (Location of calculated CG of the prototype)
VII. DESTRUCTIVE TESTING
A. Introduction
 According to several research papers, FSAE chassis
torsional stiffness should be under 1750 lbs-ft/degree,
ie: 2372.68 N-m/degree. The 2019 model was designed
to achieve 2000 N-m/degree of torsional stiffness under Fig. – VII.B.2 (Torsional Rig Apparatus)
simulation but the destructive is generally performed at
a lower scale to prevent the damage of the chassis. So, C. Calculation
1500 N-m/degree was selected as a threshold for  Angle of twist (φ) = sin-1(d/L)
experimental testing.  d = deflection, L = distance of load application point
 The results of FEA simulations are 100% accurate from th e center of the chassis.
because there are several changes in geometry and  Torque = m.g.L
structure to manufacturing errors and residual stresses  Torsional rigidity = T/ǿ
due to welding, therefore we perform destructive testing  Average torsional stiffness = 1/k = 1/k(front) +
on the Torsional Rig apparatus. 1/k(cockpit) + 1/k(rear)
 When the load is applied on one side of the chassis,  a = sin-1(d/D), D is distance from center line to point of
then the side of load application deflects downwards application of Load.
and the other side deflects upwards, the deflection is
measured by a dial gauge at varying loads that is D. Tabulated results
varying torque and many readings are taken at a single  The deflection measured at a point that is 300 mm from
point to eliminate errors in the experiment. the front bulkhead.

ISSN No:-2456-2165
SR. NO. 1 2 3 4 5
Load on Chassis 12.5 15.5 18.5 21.5 24.5

(kg)
Deflection 0.34 0.36 0.51 0.62 0.69
(mm)
Angle Twist 0.0581 0.0615 0.0872 0.1060 0.1180
L = 335mm
Torque 43.531 53.979 64.427 74.874 85.322
(N-m)
Torsional Rigidity (N- 748.60 876.69 738.61 706.09 722.99
m/degree)
Avg. Torsional 758.60
Rigidity (Nm/deg.)
Simulation angle of 0.039 0.048 0.058 0.067 0.077
twist (degrees)
FEA Torsional Rigidity 1107.68 1107.72 1107.75 1107.78 1107.79
(Nm/deg.)
FEA Average 1107.74
Torsional Rigidity
Table 4
 Deflection measured at a point that is between lower Hardpoints.
SR. NO. 1 2 3 4 5
Load on Chassis 12.5 15.5 18.5 21.5 24.5

(kg)
Deflection 0.31 0.39 0.45 0.51 0.57
(mm)
Angle Twist 0.0530 0.0667 0.0769 0.0872 0.0974
L = 335mm
Torque 43.531 53.979 64.427 74.874 85.322
(N-m)
m/degree)
Avg. Torsional Rigidity 840.20
(Nm/deg.)
twist (degrees)
FEA Torsional Rigidity 1091.29 1091.37 1091.24 1091.31 1091.35
(Nm/deg.)
FEA Average Torsional 1091.31
Rigidity
Table 5

ISSN No:-2456-2165
 Deflection measured at a point between the chassis cockpit.
SR. NO. 1 2 3 4 5
Load on Chassis 12.50 15.50 18.50 21.50 24.50

(kg)
Deflection 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.17 0.21
(mm)
Angle Twist 0.015 0.018 0.022 0.029 0.035
L = 335mm
Torque 43.53 53.97 64.42 74.87 85.32
(N-m)
m/degree)
Rigidity (Nm/deg.)
twist (degrees)
FEA Torsional 3387.69 3388.54 3389.66 3388.18 3388.56
Rigidity (Nm/deg.)
FEA Average 3388.37
Torsional Rigidity
Table 6
 Deflection measured at a point below Main roll hoop.
SR. NO. 1 2 3 4 5
Load on Chassis 12.50 15.50 18.50 21.50 24.50

(kg)
Deflection 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.15
(mm)
Angle Twist 0.008 0.011 0.015 0.018 0.023
L = 335mm
Torque 43.53 53.97 64.42 74.87 85.32
(N-m)
m/degree)
Rigidity (Nm/deg.)
twist (degrees)
FEA Torsional 11179.22 11180.51 11179.45 11180.35 11181.03
Rigidity (Nm/deg.)
FEA Average 11180.11
Torsional Rigidity
Table 7

ISSN No:-2456-2165
VIII. CONCLUSION
Witness the data illustrated in the above chapters,

model 2019-20 is the lightest in the history of FSAE team
Ojaswat with a weight of 44.90kg with adequate torsional
stiffness and endurance against Front, Rear, Side & Roll
impacts. Miscellaneous simulations such as Frequency,
Fatigue, and Drop tests were carried out successfully and
have contributed to overall data. Also from the above
verification, we can conclude that the center of gravity of
chassis is nearly matching that of CAD file and well
balanced with high Strength to Weight Ratio. This project
has further helped us learn -
 Vehicle dynamics – Basis concepts of vehicle
dynamics, tire dynamics, suspension geometry, and
spaceframe design procedures. Fig. - VIII.A.1 (CAD file)
 Chassis and suspension system. – Conceptual
knowledge in the field of chassis and suspension
systems.
 Formula racing vehicle – Apart from chassis and
vehicle dynamics, the project has helped us boost our
knowledge in the areas of Wet & Dry Powertrain,
Steering systems, Electrical systems & Aerodynamics.
 CAD software like Solid works & Fusion – A good
practice with CAD features like industrial drawings,
weldments, sheet metals, surface modeling, and many
more.
 CAE software like Ansys, Lotus shark & Adams –
Apart from Solid works 3D simulation, we have used
Ansys 2D wireframe simulation to achieve great
accuracy. Also, Lotus Shark has been very useful to us
in generating various graphs related to suspension Fig. – VIII.B.1 (Prototype)
calculations.
 Developing software like MATLAB, Turbo C – Matlab
& turbo C+ has been very useful to develop codes.
These codes were used to perform several iterations in
calculating spring stiffness and other suspension
parameters.
 Manufacturing techniques like welding, profiling, etc. –
Within this course of 4 years, we acquired great
manufacturing skills such as TIG, MIG & Arc welding,
profiling, cutting, grinding, drilling, and many more.
 Since these FSAE competitions (SAE Supra, FMAE
FFS & FIA Formula Bharat) take place on National &
International levels, we had an exposure to interact with
great teams, expert judges like Pat Clarke & Claude
Rouelle and famous industrialists.
 Personally, as a team captain of Team Ojaswat, this Fig. – VIII.C.1 (Vehicle 2019-20)
project has helped me develop several important valves
such as teamwork, punctuality, responsibility, time IX. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
management, and many more.
 The figures below describe the transition of the 2019 I express my cavernous sense of obligation and
model of team Ojaswat from CAD file to prototype gratitude to my guide Mr. Anand Patel for his genuine
chassis and later the final assembly. guidance and constant encouragement throughout this
project work. I am highly obliged as my honorable guide
has devoted his valuable time and shared his expert
knowledge.

ISSN No:-2456-2165
I pay my profound gratefulness to the Mechanical  Web lectures –
engineering Department of C.S.P.I.T - Chanrusat [22]. NPTEL vehicle dynamics
University – Changa for allowing me to carry out the [23]. NPTEL tire modeling
project work. I am also thankful to all teammates of Team [24]. Sims scale Static structural
Ojaswat. who helped me directly or indirectly for the
completion of my work.  Websites –
[25]. https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers
I extend my sincere thanks to HOD – Dr. Vijay [26]. https://www.solidworks.com/
Chaudhary, Department of Mechanical Engineering, [27]. https://www.mscsoftware.com/product/adams
Principal – Dr. A. D. Patel of C.S.P.I.T and Dean, Faculty [28]. https://www.simscale.com/
of Technology & Engineering, CHARUSAT for providing [29]. https://in.mathworks.com/
me such an opportunity to do my project work. [30]. https://www.ansys.com/en-in
[31]. https://swayam.gov.in/nc_details/NPTEL
I also wish to express my heartfelt appreciation to my [32]. https://www.youtube.com/
friends, colleagues, and many who have rendered their [33]. https://www.google.co.in/
support for the successful completion of the project, both
explicitly and implicitly.  Forums –
[34]. SAE forums
REFERENCES [35]. Solid works forums
[36]. FSAE forums.
 Books – [37]. Ansys forums
[1]. William and Douglas Milliken. [38]. Math works forums
[2]. Richard Stone vehicle dynamics. [39]. Sims scale forums
[3]. Carrol Smith – Tune to win, Engineer to win, Design
to win.  Resources –
[4]. David A Corolla – Automobile engineering. [40]. Solid works 2019
[5]. Formula Bharat 2019 rulebook. [41]. Ansys 18.2
[6]. SAE Supra 2020 rulebook. [42]. Simsscale 2020
[7]. The Automotive Chassis - Genta-Morello. [43]. Lotus Shark & raven
[8]. The Automotive Chassis-Reimpell-Stol-Betzler. [44]. Matlab R2020a
[9]. Richard Stone, Jeffrey K. Ball-Automotive [45]. MSC Adams
Engineering Fundamentals-SAE International (2004). [46]. Hyperworks
[47]. MS office
 Research Papers –
[10]. University of Delaware – FSAE chassis and APPENDIX – 1 (SUSPENSION CALCULATION)
suspension design.
[11]. Ferrington report  Longitudinal Acceleration:
[12]. MEEG 402-010 Chassis Design Report. (Acceleration Track)
[13]. Design of a Formula SAE Racecar Chassis: For straights, considering 60m
Composite Analysis Utilizing Altair Engineering Straight traveling distance, d=60m
OptiStruct Software - Margaret Lafreniere. Time of traveling, t=4 sec
[14]. FSAE 2015 Chassis and Suspension Final Report – Velocity of car, v = d/t
University of Florida = 60/4 = 15 m/sec
[15]. Design of a Formula Student race car chassis - Jannis Longitudinal acceleration – a = v/t
D.G.van Kerkhoven, 516303. = 15/4 = 3.7 m/sec^2
[16]. Design of formula student race car chassis - Alperen Taking F.O.S. = 2.50
Kale. a = 1.2g
[17]. The dynamic design of automotive systems: Engine
mounts and structural joints - R SINGH.  Lateral Acceleration:
[18]. Design, Analysis, and Testing of a Formula SAE Car (Skid-pad Track)
Chassis - William B. Riley and Albert R. George Skid pad track diameter, Ø=15.25m
Cornell University. r = 9.125m
[19]. Design and Optimization of an FSAE Frame, Width of track = 3m
Suspension, and Business Portfolio - Worcester Now, Traveling distance d = 2.pi. r
Polytechnic Institute. = 2*3.14*9.125= 57.33 m
[20]. [20] A study of vibration isolation of engine mounts – For above d and t = 5.5 sec. (For complete lap)
Ruiping Wang. a= v^2/r
[21]. Miscellaneous SAE reports. = ((〖57.33/5.5) 〗^2)/9.125
= 11.90 m/s^2 = 1.213g
So for safety we have a = 1.5g

ISSN No:-2456-2165
 Roll Chamber: KRF = 〖2*KФ〗_FS/t^2 = (2*1241.12)/〖1.2 〗^2 =
Chassis Roll angle = 1.6 1723.77 kg/m
Roll chamber = (Wheel chamber angle)/ (Chassis roll KRR = 〖2*KФ〗_RS/t^2 = (2*1146.2)/〖1.1〗^2 =
angle) 1894.54 kg/m
= (-1)/1.6 = 0.625
 Wheel Rate:
 Track Width: Vertical force per unit displacement of the wheel.
= 1200 (front) KWF = (vertical tyre rate* K_RF)/ (vertical tyre Rate-
Front view swing arm length: K_(RF))
FVSA= (t/2)/ (1-Roll camber) = (18000*1865.75)/ ((18000-1865.75))
= 600/ (1-0.625) = 1600 mm = 15 N/mm
KWR = (vertical tyre rate* K_RR)/ (vertical tyre Rate-
 Weight of the whole car with driver K_(RR))
= 310kg = (18000*1722.23)/ (18000-1722.23)
Suspension arm‘s length was found from front and side = 21.36 N/mm
view geometry.
C.G. height = 280 mm  Installation ratio:
Mass of car= 310kg It relates the displacement of spring to the vertical
displacement of the wheel
 Roll Centre Height for front:
= RCH= 30 mm It will reduce both displacement and force at the
wheel relative to spring.
 Roll Centre Height for the rear: IRF =√ (K_WF/K_S) = √ (15/36.36) = 0.65
= RCH= 90 mm
 Motion ratio:
 Height: MR = a/b sin⁡Ө
H= h- (yrf + a/l (yrr - yrf)) =110/70 sin⁡35.5
= 280-(30+ 930/1600 (90 – 30)) = 0.85
= 215.125 mm
 Rocker arm design:
 Roll Stiffness: Considering the external weight on spring weight = 70 kg
kФ = (m*H)/Ө Now let W is the load through pushrod and P is transferred
= (310*0.215*180)/ (1.6*3.14) to spring
= 2387.93 (kg m)/rad W*x= P*y
1300*70= 110 * P
 Roll Stiffness Distribution: P= 827.27
(At rear, lateral weight distribution is larger. Hence, the roll RF = √ (w^2+P^2)
stiffness distribution is biased 52% in front and 48% in =√ (〖1300〗^2+〖827.27〗^2)
rear) = 1540 N
kФ(front)
= kФ* 0.52 = 0.52 * 2387.93  Design of fulcrum:
= 1241.72 (kg m)/rad d= diameter of fulcrum pin
kФ(rear) L= length of fulcrum pin = 1.25d
= kФ* 0.48 = 0.48 * 2387.93 l=1.25d
= 1146.2 (kg m)/rad RF = d*l*pb
1540=d*1.25d*10
 Weight Transfer due to lateral acceleration
(assume pb = 10N/〖mm〗^2)
Weight transfer at front,
d= 11.02 ≈ 12 mm
∆Wyf = Ay * m/t_F * [ (H*〖kФ〗_F)/kФ + (b* Y_rf)/l]
RF = 2*3.14/4 * d2 * Ԏ
= 1.5 * 330/1.2 * [ (0.215*1241.72)/2387.93 + (670* 1540 = 2*3.14/4 * 122 * Ԏ
0.030)/1600] Ԏ= 6.8 MPa
= 48.19 kg. Now external diameter of boss= D= 2d= 2*12 = 24 mm
∆Wyr = Ay * m/t_F * [ (H*〖kФ〗_r)/kФ + (b* Y_rr)/l] Bronze bush of 2 mm thick.
= 1.5 * 310/1.2 * [ (0.215*1146.2)/2387.93 + (930* Internal diameter of hole in lever,
0.090)/1550] dh = d+ 2*t
= 60.26 kg. = 12+ 2*2= 16 mm
Bending moment at boss hole= W* x
 Ride Rate: =1300*70 = 91000 N mm
Force needed per unit of vertical displacement of the tire Section modulus Z=
contact patch (1/12*b[D^3-〖d_h〗^3])/12

ISSN No:-2456-2165
= (1/12*22[〖24〗^3-〖16〗^3])/12  Spring Data:
= 1486.22 mm3 S.R. =32 N/mm
Induced bearing stress σb = M/Z D=60 – 8 = 52mm
= 91000/1486.22 = 61.22 MPa d=8mm
n=10 turns (Active turns)
 Design of forked end: L=150mm
Diameter of bolt = d1
Length of bolt =l1= 1.25 d1  Given below the graphs generated from MSC Adams
W= d1 * l1 * Pb software of suspension analysis. A similar kind of
1300= d1 * 1.25 d1*10 simulation was also performed in Lotus Shark & Raven
d1= 10 mm l1= 12.5mm but Adams turns out to be more accuruate.
Now
W= 2*3.14/4*〖d_1〗^2 *Ԏ_1
1300= 2*3.14/4*〖10〗^2 *Ԏ_1
Ԏ1= 8.27 MPa
Thickness of each eye
t1= l_1/2 = 6.25mm
 Maximum bending M
= 1300/2 (12.5/2+ 6.25/3) -(1300/2*6.25/4)
= 5416.66 – 1015.62
= 4401.03 N.mm
Z= 3.14/32 * d13 = 98.17 MPa
Bending stress induced = σb
= 4410.03/98.17 = 44.82 MPa
Over all diameter of eye D1 =2*d1 = 2*10 = 20mm Fig. – A.1.1 (Front Suspension Roll Analysis)
Outer diameter of roller is taken 2mm more.
Clearance of 1.5 mm
l2= l1+ 2*t_1/2+ 2 *1.5
= 12.5+ 2*6.25/2+ 2 *1.5
=21.75 mm
Thickness of lever arm = t
Depth or width = B
M=W (80 - 30/2)
=1300(80 - 30/2)
=84500 Nmm
Z= 1/6*t*B^2
= 1/6*t*〖30〗^2
=150*t
 Bending Stress σb=M/Z Fig. – A.1.23 (Front Suspension Roll Analysis)

70=84500/(150*t)
t=8mm
Now Wheel Rate = 15 N/mm
f=1/(2*3.14) √((W.R)/(S.W)
=2.83 Hz
Now S. R
= ((W.R))/ (〖 (M.R) 〗^2*0.66)
S. R= 32 N/mm (Front)
K = Spring Stiffness
D = mean dia of the spring
d = dia of the wire
G = Shear Modulus
n = no of active coil turns
n‘ = no of total coil turn
Considering d= 8mm and D=60mm Fig. – A.1.3 (Rear Suspension Roll Analysis)
k= (Gd^4)/ (8*D^3 n)
32= (84*〖10〗^3*〖 (8) 〗^4)/ (8*〖 (52) 〗^3*n)
n= 10 turns

ISSN No:-2456-2165
Fig. – A.1.4 (Rear Suspension Bump Analysis)
APPENDIX -2 (WELDING FILLER/MATERIAL DATASHEETS)
Fig. - A2.1 (TIG welding filler rod Datasheet) Fig. – A2.2 (AISI 4130 Microstructure test)

ISSN No:-2456-2165
Fig. – A2.3 (AISI 4130 – 25.40x2.00mm tube test report)

Fig. – A2.4 (AISI 4130 – 25.40x2.50mm tube test report) Fig. – A2.6 (AISI 4130 – 14.00x2.00mm tube test report)

ISSN No:-2456-2165
Fig. – A2.8 (AISI 4130 Hardening test)

ISSN No:-2456-2165
APPENDIX – 3 (E – DRAWINGS)
Fig – A3.1 (Main roll hoop drawing, 1:1 scale, Similar was Front hoop Fixture)
Fig –A3.2 (Front Bulkhead drawing, 1:1 scale, Similar was Rear bulkhead Fixture)

ISSN No:-2456-2165
Fig – A3.4 (Chassis jigs drawing, laser-cut, 1:1 Scale)
Fig – A3.3 (Chassis sketch Top view sketch for fixture table,
1:1 Scale) Fig – A3.5 (Tube profile flattened for tube notching, 1:1 scale)

Formula SAE Chassis System Design, Optimization & Fabrication of FSAE Spaceframe Chassis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formula SAE Chassis System Design, Optimization & Fabrication of FSAE Spaceframe Chassis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formula SAE Chassis System Design, Optimization & Fabrication of FSAE Spaceframe Chassis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 5, Issue 5, May – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

Formula SAE Chassis System

IJISRT20MAY644 www.ijisrt.com 803

 Standard vs. Alternate Frame Design –

There are many different styles of frames; space

IJISRT20MAY644 www.ijisrt.com 804

A Space frame chassis was chosen over a monocoque

Those materials are SAE AISI 1018 steel and

Sr.no Metric W/C Units Target Accept-able

1 Torsional Rigidity Stiﬀness ft-lb/deg >1750 >1600

3 Front Impact Force N <14000 <12000

5 Side Impact Force N <10000 <8000

7 Fatigue Cycles Cycles 10 x e6 10 x e6

10 Weight Light Weight kg <39 <45

11 Weight Distribu-tion Control/Handling % 40F 60R 45F 55R

12 Vertical Location of Control/Handling m <0.27 <0.35

14 Ease of Egress Cockpit Constraint sec <3.0 <5.0

IJISRT20MAY644 www.ijisrt.com 805

In reality, torsion is always accompanied by bending

IJISRT20MAY644 www.ijisrt.com 806

Fig. – II.B.2 (Torsion)

 Combined bending and torsion -

Tractive and braking forces add bending through

Fig. – II.B.3 (Combined bending and Torsion)

Subjected to bending in the X-Y plane, centrifugal

IJISRT20MAY644 www.ijisrt.com 807

The resolved vertical force causes: – (Additional axel

The resolved horizontal force causes- (Bending in X-Z

Fig – II.B.7 (Allowable Stress)

It is important in structural stiffness. Sometimes

Local stiffness of floor is important –Stiffened by

The vehicle structure is not fully rigid. Internal

It should not exceed 67% of yield stress. The safety

IJISRT20MAY644 www.ijisrt.com 808

It is also possible to convert from torsional to linear

Now that we can model both torsion and linear springs

The simplest model we will consider is to calculate

Which is the generic equation of stiffness for springs

The load is applied at the front left wheel (positive x

If we draw a free-body diagram of the model and

IJISRT20MAY644 www.ijisrt.com 809

Since the force applied at each wheel is equal, call if

The suspension members, such as wishbones and

Also, note that we need to use the installed spring rate

IJISRT20MAY644 www.ijisrt.com 810

Fig. - III.A.1 (2D tire model)

B. 3D Driver sketch and ergonomics

IJISRT20MAY644 www.ijisrt.com 811

Fig. – III.D.1 (Final Assembly)

E. Chassis Layout (Figures of various sections)

IJISRT20MAY644 www.ijisrt.com 812

Fig. – III.F.1 (Basic design considerations 1)

IJISRT20MAY644 www.ijisrt.com 813

Fig. - III.F.2 (Basic design considerations 2

IJISRT20MAY644 www.ijisrt.com 814

 Fixtures – Note that in almost all the simulations 16

B. Development of mathematical Truss Spaceframe Model

A simple truss is a planar truss which begins with a

IJISRT20MAY644 www.ijisrt.com 815

Fig. – IV.B.3 (Exporting Point Cloud data to Excel)