Design Presentation

Chalmers Formula Student

2012-01-18
TC
Frame
Engine
Suspension
(fika)
UM
Electronics
Body
Technical Communication
Jens Kjellerup
Andreas Flodstrm
Anita Schjll Brede

Confirmed

Hockenheim, Germany
July 31
st
Aug 5
th

Registration: Rules Quiz,
first come first serve.
01:19
First team to finish!
Competitions
Awaiting

Silverstone, UK
July 11
th
15
th

Business Logic Case

Baltic Open
Early September
Darmstadt, Germany

Mandatory for Silverstone Registration
Ties together Static events
Business Presentation
Design Report
Cost Report
encouraging teams to consider the
competing aspects of design, cost and
marketing early in the project
Business Logic Case
Adjustability
Measurability
Easy Repairs

Conditions are not always the
same we see no reason why
your car should be.
Exclusive Preview
(for attendees only)
Website
Competitions

Practical Organization
Preparing for Static Events
Design Report
Cost Report
Business Presentation
Moving Forward
Formula Student

Marketing Strategy
Events
Partnerships

To gain professional experience we will, through efficient engineering and
teamwork while learning from previous experience, deliver a well-tuned and
reliable solution in order to achieve 800 points at FSUK 2012.

Questions?
Frame
Stefan Venbrant
Sharan Prathaban
Erik Hartelius
Eva Andersson
Through cross-functional engineering, the frame subgroup will deliver a
well packaged, light and strong frame with high torsional stiffness in
order to reach the goals set by the team
Subgroup goal
Design Targets

o Weight (Kg) Lowest possible
o Torsional Stiffness (Nm/deg) 3500
o Stiffness/Weight Ratio Highest possible

Design Methodology

o Suspension
o Engine
o Packaging

o Analysis
o Iterations
The Design
Triangulated polygonal cross
sectioned frame
Main Hoop bent forwards
Engine and driver close to the
ground
Driver far back
No box
Nodes for suspension hard points
High Main Hoop bracing
Nodes finalized using FEA
Analysis Technique
Testing for torsional stiffness
Fix rear rocker mounting points
Load at front rocker points
Measure deflection at the loading points
Stiffness=
Vertical/Lateral Bending
Deflection of hard points at max force
Ensure whole frame moves
as one unit
Well distributed force
Axial forces - Compression
and Tension
Visualization of load paths
Optimization of thicknesses
Removal of unnecessary
tubes
Optimization
3150
3200
3250
3300
3350
3400
3450
3500
3550
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
T
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l

S
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s

(
N
m
/
d
e
g
)

% Movement of Point
Problems faced during design and analysis

Attain required stiffness
Engine removal
Lowest weight
Fuel tank placement
Steering system
Rear hard points nodes



CFRP
Complex to distribute loads
Manufacturability
Incorporated too late in
design phase



Results
Parameters Initial Goal Revised Goal Final Design
Weight (Kg) 27 Light as possible 30.8
Torsional Stiffness
(Nm/deg)
2500 3500 3512.6
Stiffness/Weight Ratio 92.6 Highest possible 114.2
Manufacturing methods and material choices
Laser cutting
Bending
Welding
Sections

Frame Tube Material SAE 4130
Impact Attenuator
Two IAs are being
investigated:
Aluminum honeycomb
Sheet metal IA

Design Methodology
Research
Calculations
Simulations
Testing
Aluminum Honeycomb
Easy made calculations
Reliable
Light

Sheet metal
Aluminum or Mild steel
Made in house
Cheap

To gain professional experience we will, through efficient engineering and
teamwork while learning from previous experience, deliver a well-tuned and
reliable solution in order to achieve 800 points at FSUK 2012.

Questions?
Engine
Sebastian Krause
Blago Minovski
Tony Persson
Andreas Widroth



To deliver a reliable and weight optimized engine system with sufficient
power and possibility for low fuel consumption to FSUK 2012
Subgroup goal
Intake system
Lightweight: ~1.6 kg
Runner total length - 320mm
Plenum volume 4L
Throttlebody - modified butterfly valve

Plenum and restrictor Carbonfiber
Runners and throttlebody - Aluminium
Exhaust system
Lightweight: ~4.6 kg
Low center of gravity ~150 mm lower than CFS11
Minimize turbulence ~no rapid changes in diameter
Manufacturability ~only one weld on headers

Stainless steel pipes, 1mm
External bending by company
Aluminum muffler cover
New collector design
Lightweight
Low center of gravity
Manufacturability

Aluminum for fuel tank
Manufactured inhouse

Dry weight ~ 2,8 kg
Total weigth ~7 kg
Fuel system
Fuel pump:
MSD ignition 2225
Compact and lightweight
Operating pressure ~ 4 bar

Fuel pressure regulator:
Bosch
Regulating pressure 3,8 bar
Compact and lightweight

Fuel system
Reliability
Manufacturability

Aluminum for the cover
Steel for the trigger wheel
Manufactured inhouse

Stock fuel rail
Coil on plug solution
(Volkswagen)
Ignition system
Cooling System
Parameters
Radiator size:
320 H x 370 W x 32 T
Aluminum McCord
matrix
Fan size:
11inch
One pass
reliability
Aids natural water
circulation (siphoning)


Radiator
Engine
Water
pump
Exchanger
Oil
pump
Total weight: 5,9kg

Measurement of CFS11
cooling temperatures


Cooling System
Requirements
Time [s] Fuel [kg]
Total Fuel
energy
[kJ]
Rate of heat
rejection
[kW]
Total
rejected
heat [kJ]
Percentage
of total fuel
energy
Comment
Run2 160 0.21375 9405 8.84 1415 15.05% Cold engine
Run3 658 0.9975 43890 11.11 7310 16.66% Warm engine
Run4 480 0.64125 28215 11.16 5355 18.98% Warm engine
Run5 555.3 0.78375 34485 7.46 4140 12.01% Cold engine
Cooling System
Requirements
FSUK11 Endurance Event

Fuel used
[kg]
LHV
[kJ/kg]
Time [s]
Total energy
[kJ]
Total Power
[kW]
Mean Cooling
capacity [kW]
Mean Speed
[m/s]
Mean speed
[km/h]
University of Stuttgart 2.7 44000 1339 117117 87.4 17.5 16.4 59.13
University of Hertfordshire 2.9 44000 1452 128436 88.5 17.7 15.2 54.56
Chalmers University of Technology 2.9 44000 1562 126192 80.8 16.2 14.1 50.69
Queen's University Belfast 2.8 44000 1596 122199 76.6 15.3 13.8 49.64

Heat
dissipation
[kW]
Water flow
[l/min]
Air speed
[m/s]
Fan contribution
[Pa]
Ambient t
[C]
Engine t
[C]
High load 20 45 8.59 60 35 105
Medium load 17 25 4.06 60 35 105
Low load 11 12 1.06 60 35 105
Dual pickup
Modified pressure release valve

Lubrication
Transmission and Final drive

Weight reduction of the transmission
Unused gears replaced by aluminum inserts


Final drive
13/44 teeth

85 kg
Total weight
To gain professional experience we will, through efficient engineering and
teamwork while learning from previous experience, deliver a well-tuned and
reliable solution in order to achieve 800 points at FSUK 2012.

Questions?
Suspension
Ibrahim Bakirci
Christoffer Routledge
Dean Todevski

Through simple design and high manufacturability, we will secure the
stiffness and reliability of the suspension and steering which will allow
predictability, adjustability and a high degree of tuning possibilities.
The low weight, center of gravity and a well-tuned car will make us
reach 800 points in FSUK 2012.

Subgroup goal
Simplicity
Reliability
Predictability
Adjustability
Manufacturability
Low weight
Suspension geometry
Design targets
Low bump/roll steer
Stable roll center
Reduced steering effort
Stiff frame nodes

Methodology
Lotus SHARK

Problems
No-box solution
Compromises
Packaging issues

Dampers and springs
Design targets
Adjustability
Damper response
Less body roll and pitch than CFS11

Methodology
Calculations, matlab,
Recommendations, previous experience
Dampertest

Problems
Dampers to stiff
Compromise: to stiff dampers - adjustability
Anti-roll bar
Design targets
Adjustability
Low weight
Simplicity

Methodology
Calculations, matlab
Previous experience

Problems
Very high stresses in torsion bar
Packaging issues
Steering system
Design targets
Reduce the weight of purchased part with
500 g
Reliability
Adjustability (20 sec per side)
Reduce play and steering effort

Methodology
Improvement of last year
Reduce weight on purchased part

Problems
Packaging with pedalbox
Integration with dashboard
Balljoints and quick
adjustment
Design targets
Adjustability
Design for manufacturing
Reliability

Methodology
Benchmarking
Fatigue/ANSYS

Problems
Loadcases
Packaging

Front axle Rear axle
Target Result Target Result
Wheelbase - - - - 1600 mm
Track width 1210 mm 1210 mm 1160 mm 1160 mm
Weight distribution 46% - 54% - -
Center of gravity
height
- - - - 280 mm above
ground
Castor 5 deg 5 deg - -17.9 deg -
Mechanical trail 20 mm 10.89 mm Negative -41.4 mm -
Scrub 30-35 mm 45.3 mm As small as possible 38.6 mm -
Roll center height
static
35 mm above ground 36 mm above ground 49 mm above
ground
61.6 mm above ground -
Anti dive/squat 0 / - % 0 / 0 % 0 / 15 20 % 0 / 18 % -
Ackermann 50 100 % 65 % - - -
Camber gain 0 deg/max eff. roll 0.5 deg camber/deg roll 0 deg/max eff. roll 0.4 deg camber/deg roll
Rollcentre
migration vert/lat
1mm/deg roll 0.03mm/deg roll
2mm/deg roll
1mm/deg roll 0.06mm/deg roll
0.18mm/deg roll
Results Suspension geometry
Results
Dampers and springs
3.2 Hz Front, 3.4 Rear
Motionratio 1.25 (Wheel/Damper)
Compromise between softer settings
and damper response
Stiffer in roll/pitch and bump
Anti-roll bar
Weight saving
Adjustability: Pre defined steps
Simplicity
Rollgradient 1deg/g
Results
Steering systems
Weight reduction with 550g
Adjustable steering arm
No change in steering effort
Inserts and quick adjustments
Shims design fast adjustment
Finetuning through rodends
CNC-operations minimized

Water cutting
Rockers
Steering column mount
ARB levers
CNC-manufacturing
Inserts
Quick adjustments
Welding
Steering system
Laser cutting
Brackets
Glued
Wishbones to inserts


Manufacturing methods
Al 7075 in stressed components
High strength steel
Pull winded carbon fiber tubes
Loctite 9466 with glass balls

To gain professional experience we will, through efficient engineering and
teamwork while learning from previous experience, deliver a well-tuned and
reliable solution in order to achieve 800 points at FSUK 2012.

Questions?
Unsprung Mass
Erik Bergman
Marc Oll Bernades
Jean-Adrien Develet
Oskar Eklund
Simon Johansson

By being the best engineers in the team, we will deliver a reliable and
adjustable subsystem with sufficient stiffness/weight ratio and good
performance and thereby contribute to the team goal of reaching 800
points at FSUK 2012
Subgroup goal
Brake System
Main specifications

Calipers
Front: ISR 22-048, 4 piston 25 mm bore, 460 g
Rear: ISR 22-049, 2 piston 25 mm bore, 290 g

Discs
Front: OD: 240 mm, ID: 186 mm, 687 g
Rear: OD: 220 mm, ID: 166 mm, 595 g

Master cylinders
Front: 14 mm piston bore, 210 g
Rear: 14 mm piston bore, 210 g


Brake deceleration in combination with
pedal effort (applied foot force per g
deceleration) targets meet and exceeded
Brake System
Front disc assembly
Rear disc assembly
Assembly weight: 789g
High stiffness over weight ratio
Grooves and wave shape to clean pads

Assembly weight: 680g
Pedal box Characteristics
Overall mass: 2.5 kg
Pedal ratio: from 4.5 to 5
AP Racing MC + balance bar
Brake pedal: alu 7075, CNC
Throttle pedal: alu base +
carbon fibre beam and foot
support
Two separate heel supports in
carbon fibre
Length tuning: 7 positions,
192mm. Spring mounted pins.
Rims





Target Achieved
Camber
Compliance
(deg/Nm)
0,0003 0,0004
Weight (kg) 1,6 4,5
Uprights
Front Rear
Target Achieved
Camber
Compliance
(deg/Nm)
0,0003 0,0003
Weight,
front (kg)
1 0.8
Weight, rear
(kg)
1 0.9
Rear and Front Hub Simulation analysis
Driveline
Constant velocity inner housing


Diff mounts & Sprocket


Left Diff mount - disassembled
Right Diff mount
Sprocket assembly
Targets
Target Achieved
Camber compliance, wheel
assembly (deg/Nm)
0.0003 Yet to be verified
Weight UM (kg) 36 39.6
Brake acceleration (g) 1.7 1.9
Pedal effort (N/g) 350 335
Pedal box weight (kg) 2.5 2.5
To gain professional experience we will, through efficient engineering and
teamwork while learning from previous experience, deliver a well-tuned and
reliable solution in order to achieve 800 points at FSUK 2012.

Questions?
Electronics
Andreas Andersson
Frej Edberg
Jonas Nland
Victor Psse


Deliver a reliable system, powerful and advanced
enough to meet the demands from the other subgroups
Designed to
Operate the car
Make testing more effective
More data, live presentation at the track, flexibility

Subgroup goal
Design targets
Weight <11 kg
Accessibility
Reliability
Meet requirements from the team
Sensors, sampling rate etc.
Design methodology
Electrical and software parts
a top-down approach
Investigation
State requirements
Basic features
Testing
Evaluation
Refining and expanding
Test circuit v1
Eagle CAD front and rear node circuits
Design methodology
Mechanical parts
Analyze different solutions
Evaluate
Over-all performance
Function
Accessibility
Manufacturing
Consequences
CAD models
FEM-calculations
Test circuit v1
Eagle CAD front and rear node circuits
Weight < 9 kg (12 kg) - Estimations
Logging 40 parameters (8-10)
Accessibility
Quick releases, better placement
New features
Serial com
Wireless com. with PC-interface
Pneumatic clutch

Results
() = CFS11

PC interface
Results
CAD assembly
Packaging issues
CAD Assembly
Results
Clutch cylinder
Auto clutch
Launch Control
Down shift
Clutch cylinder bracket
Brackets
Watercut
Circuits
Produced by MakePCB,
China
Completed in house
Manufacturing
To gain professional experience we will, through efficient engineering and
teamwork while learning from previous experience, deliver a well-tuned and
reliable solution in order to achieve 800 points at FSUK 2012.

Questions?
Body
Lucas Brjesson
Sven Rehnberg
Robert Svensson

Previous subgroup goal
By implementing efficient
engineering and learning from
previous experience the body
subgroup will deliver a
lightweight and reliable
solution which garanties a
sound ergonomic
environment for the driver,
sufficient cooling for the
engine and low overall drag in
order to reach 800 points at
FSUK 2012.

New subgroup goal
By implementing efficient
engineering and learning from
previous experience the body
subgroup will deliver a
lightweight and reliable
solution which garanties a
sound ergonomic
environment for the driver,
sufficient cooling for the
engine and high downforce in
order to reach 800 points at
FSUK 2012.

Subgroup goal
Ergonomic targets
Rules compliant
Subjective comfortable
Design targets
Aerodynamic targets
Lift = -500N at 56 km/h
Cd <1
Frontal area <1.33 m
Drag <200N at 56 km/h
Mass flow through
radiator = 0.56 kg/s at 56
km/h
Ergonomic methodology
Reading literature
Benchmarking
Simulation using Catia and
Jack
Design methodology
Aerodynamic methodology
Reading literature
Benchmarking
Simulation using
Carmaker and CFD
Ergonomics



Results vs. design
Aerodynamics


Results vs. design
To be continued