Final Progress Report. David Baker, Adam Baldan, Matthew Grusenmeyer, Evan Jenkins, & Shane Marcks

Transcription

1 Final Progress Report David Baker, Adam Baldan, Matthew Grusenmeyer, Evan Jenkins, & Shane Marcks

2 An international collegiate competition regulated by the Society of Automotive Engineers Build an open wheel race car to participate in both design and dynamic competitions The UD Formula SAE team will compete in the 2011 FSAE West competition in California

3 Design, Fabricate, and Test a Steel Space Frame Chassis and Fuel System High considerations to manufacturability On par with top teams performance Torsional and Flexural Rigidity Weight Center of Gravity Height Seamlessly Integrate all critical System Components Resources Steel Tubing Cost (<$1000)

4 Wants Minimize the weight to stiffness ratio Maintain Low Center of Gravity Reasonable material and manufacturing costs Create a solid base chassis to evolve on for years to come Aesthetically pleasing design Needs Purposefully integrate all car systems including drivetrain, driver controls, and suspension together Efficiently locate/design or select a fuel tank Create a cockpit that can accommodate up to a 95 th percentile male

5 All vehicle systems must fit onto the chassis Suspension Members, Engine, Fuel Tank, Differential, Axles, Pedals, etc Must comply to all 2011 Formula SAE rules for Safety Geometry Materials Maximum cost of $1000, less donated parts/tools/materials

6 Top Teams of 2010 FSAE Competitions as well as our Previous Chassis Rigidity Weight Type of Chassis (Composite, Steel, Hybrid) Consultations with CCM Faculty Dr. Suresh Advani, Dr. John Tierney, Pit Schulze, and Dr. Dirk Heider

7 Vertical Center of Gravity Manufacturability Aesthetics Reliability Weight Flexure Resistance Longitudinal Torsional Rigidity Metric Target Values Metric Manufacturability Longitudinal Torisonal Rigidity Flexure Resistance Weight Vertical Center of Gravity Target Value 225 Hrs 1800 Foot Pounds per Degree 4500 Pounds per Inch Under 75 Pounds Under 10 Inches

8 Our research has shown three prevalent designs in FSAE racing: Steel Space Frame Current standard in FSAE Low cost, manufactured with conventional tools Easy to repair and modify Low strength/weight ratio means a heavier structure Full Monocoque Pinnacle of racing technology only type used in Formula 1 Racing Enhanced strength/weight ratio over steel frames Exotic materials add cost, difficult to manufacture Difficult to repair/modify, poor accessibility to critical systems Difficult to obtain sufficient pull out strength at mount points Hybrid Monocoque/Spaceframe Realize benefits of monocoque while avoiding rear mounting complications

9 Tubing Summary Material Tensile Strength (ksi) Yield Strength (ksi) Appr. Cost ($/ft.) 1 x SAE1010 ERW x x x SAE1020 DOM x x x SAE4130 DOM x x Design Considerations Torsional and Flexural Rigidity along the length of the vehicle Triangulated Sections Accommodation of Driver and Major Systems Notching Tubing bending for Roll Hoops Welding

10 Pros: - Based off existing frame - Revised load paths - Lighter than existing frame - Expanded roll hoops for more driver comfort and accessibility Cons: - Heavier than Monocoque Designs

11 Design Considerations Pull out strength of critical connections (>17kN) Pedal Box Accessibility Manufacturability of Mold and Foam Core Joining Rear Steel Frame to Front Composite Monocoque General Mounting Points of Various Components Pros: - Realizes the structural benefits of monocoque construction - Lighter and more aesthetically pleasing than a space frame with bodywork - Avoids packaging, manufacturing and accessibility challenges of a full monocoque Cons: - Difficulty of achieving proper pull out strength of critical connections - Limited pedal box Accessibility - General mounting of peripheral components is a challenge

12 Composite monocoque structure from firewall forward Steel space frame utilized for the rear section

13 Utilized concept selection Matrices Concepts vs. Weighted Wants, Weighted Metrics, and Constraints Conclusion Hybrid Monocoque/Space Frame The hybrid form utilizes the exceptional weight to stiffness properties and the sleek appearance of a composite monocoque, while maintaining the ease of component mounting and adjustability of a steel frame.

14 Carbon Fiber Sample Testing Test panels with donated materials did not have sufficient mechanical properties to allow for use in chassis Change was made from Hybrid Frame concept to Steel Frame concept Driven by poor material performance

15

16

17

18

19 Wooden Spine Jig Flat Tube Profile Patterns

20 Weight Center of Gravity Rigidity (Torsional & Flexural) Manufacturability 450hrs Torsional Test Rig

21

22

23 Torsional Test Rig

24

25

26

27 Part: Price: ($) Notes: Fuel Pump 80 Stock Yamaha Electric Fuel Pump, bracket and o ring Fuel Lines and Fittings 30 Space Frame Material DOM tubing already purchased Body Work Materials 0 Donated by CCM Suspension Mounting Materials 35 Returned Mounts Fuel Cell Aluminum 60 3 X3 1/16 sheet of aluminum Wood For Frame Jig 50 For manufacturing of tube frame Engine Bushings 30 4 Bushings Bimetal Hole Saws 40 1 inch hole saws Tube Clamps 90 For manufacturing of tube frame Body Work Manufacturing 100 Foam and wood to build mold Paint for Frame 50 Rustoleum and Clear Coat Total: 915

28