045 Class 1 The University of Edinburgh DR Rev 1

Edinburgh University Formula Student
Class 1 - car n.45 - Formula Student UK 2017

contacteufs@gmail.com
2016-2017 Edinburgh Formula Student Design Report

Introduction
Edinburgh University Formula Student will bring its second build to the FS Class 1 event
of 2017. Having learnt invaluable lessons about design and manufacturing from their first
season, the team returned to the drawing board in September and started developing a
completely new concept. The primary aim of the team this season is to compete in all
dynamic events and develop a solid baseline design to be optimised in the years to come.
Overall concept choice
While recognising the advantage of EVs in the low speed, high acceleration events that
constitute the dynamic side of the competition, an IC engine was chosen due to its relative
simplicity. In fact, with a limited amount of human resources and time available, other
areas with greater potential for overall performance improvement, such as suspension and
geometry design, were identified.
The other major distinction between teams is the frame type. Carbon fibre monocoque
chassis are appealing due to their potential for weight reduction and increased flexural
rigidity. Meanwhile, spaceframe tubular options promise easier design and manufacturing.
This year and the following EUFS entries will use the latter option for the same reason as
above. However, resources were allocated towards research and development of a CF
monocoque impact attenuator with the intent of developing the expertise necessary to
design and manufacture competitive and safe CF monocoque chassis as soon as possible.
Design objectives
Other than the obvious objective of reliability, which is inescapable in engineering design
and more of a challenge with regards to testing, the aim for each subsection of the team
was to design for adjustability and manufacturability. This will allow to modify and optimise
the car during testing. Furthermore, the team felt it was important to develop a basic
telemetry package to compare the cars behaviour to theoretical predictions.
Suspension
Design goals (achieved):
Kingpin inclination angle between 0 and 8 (1)
Scrub radius between 0mm and 10mm (0mm)
Caster angle between 3 and 7 (3)
Static camber adjustable from 0 to -4 (shims on upright)
Roll centre height between 0-50mm in front (43mm), slightly higher at rear (67mm)
50% - 65% of the roll stiffness on the rear axle (60%)
Wheel assemblies:
The notable feature in these assemblies is the upright design. While last years car used
CNC machined aluminium uprights, the team decided to take a step back and make them
out of welded sheet steel sections. While the disadvantage of this design is a slight increase
in unsprung mass, it is much simpler and faster to manufacture hence allowing for a much
greater degree of adjustability. This is true not only in terms of static camber and caster
adjustments, but also in terms of improving how the assembly comes together.
Suspension links:
A 2D Simulink model for the front and rear suspension being subjected to displacements
at the wheels was created. The output was the camber gain and instantaneous roll centre
for hundreds of different geometries. A solution that would satisfy the above requirements
was found using iterative optimisation. This provided the pickup points on the chassis, A-
arm lengths and the distance between upright pickups.
Roll stiffness calculations:
Using the roll centre data and a predicted weight distribution based off of last years car,
the weight transfer experienced in a 1.25g corner was computed. This value was based
1
on an analysis of skid-pad times from other teams. Based on 350lbs/inch springs, front
and rear motion ratios that satisfied the goal of a 50%-65% balance of roll stiffness on
the rear axle was found. Bell-cranks for the front pullrod and rear pushrod systems were
then designed accordingly. Furthermore, this model also provided the force distribution at
each wheel during cornering. Based on these results, and on the load cases for traction
limited acceleration and braking, the forces in each of the A-arms could be computed.
Allowing minimum size of the A-arm members to be found while still maintaining structural
integrity.
For the front suspension a pullrod system was implemented, allowing the whole system to
be located at floor level, hence lowering the COG. On the other hand, at the rear a push
rod system was used to avoid having to implement a tightly packaged pull rod system that
would have been difficult to modify if testing proved it wasnt working well.
Steering:
Considering the low speed, tight radius corners the car is expected to negotiate, 110%
Ackermann geometry was used. Bump steer was accounted for by locating the steering
link on the upright at a height such that at neutral steering the tie rod would be collinear
to the line connecting steering link and instant centre.
Powertrain
Engine:
Presented with a wide range of options, from 1 to 4 cylinders and up to 710cc, the team
decided to use a 636cc inline-4 from a Kawasaki ZX-6R. While a 2 or 3 cylinder would
weigh less, an inline 4 was chosen because of its more constant intake rate, making it a
more reasonable solution given the restrictor. Furthermore, from discussion with other
teams at the 2016 competition, 4 cylinder engines are the most reliable.
ECU:
A Link G4+ Atom ECU was chosen as it is a reasonably priced option that will:
Control engine temperature (with the option of multiple fans if needed)
Cut the spark in order to perform clutchless upshifts
High resolution fuel and ignition maps
Read wheel speed sensor signal for launch control
Read a wideband lambda sensor to have information about air-fuel ratio
Log data
Have CAN bus compatibility
Drivetrain:
Power will be transmitted to the rear wheels by a chain drive with a final drive ratio of
3.53:1. This to allow the car to reach a top speed of 96kph at an engine speed of 10000
rpm, the estimated peak power engine speed. The transmission will use a 13 teeth front
sprocket and a 46 teeth rear sprocket with a central distance of 260 to 302mm (TBD at
time of writing). These sprockets were chosen as they are the smallest available that are
compatible with our engine and drive ratio. The rear sprocket will be connected to the
differential using an adaptor designed to withstand a shock torque of 3357Nm (sf = 2.5).
A Honda Foreman TRX450 Rubicon (ATV) limited slip differential was selected as it had
the best price to performance ratio, as well as being light and easy to tune, when compared
to the Drexler FSAE and Torsen University Special differentials. It will be kept in place
using laser cut aluminium brackets, which are attached to laser cut mounts welded to the
chassis. Turnbuckles are placed between the brackets and the upper set of mounts
allowing the chain tension to be adjusted. Turned steel bearing mounts are bolted into the
aluminium brackets. These mounts also incorporate oil seals to prevent the leakage of oil
from the differential. The CV joints, half shafts and wheel hubs have all been taken from
the same vehicle as the differential.
2
Air intake:
A final year MEng student is building a dynamometer for EUFS as part of her thesis. For
this reason, a variable volume and variable runner length air intake system has been
designed and manufactured. It will be used to determine the approximate dimensions of
the optimal air intake for the Kawasaki engine. Once this is done, optimisation of the
plenum shape and intake layout to improve flow into the engine will be carried out using
CFD analysis.
Frame
Chassis:
Initially the suspension geometry, driver position and main components relative positions
were defined, giving the main nodes of the frame. These nodes were then connected in
such a way as to minimise bending stresses within the connecting members. Full
consideration was given to the rules at all points throughout the design process. Cold
drawn seamless steel was chosen because it is relatively inexpensive, easy to weld and
the experience of working with it already existed within the team. Dimensions are as per
SAE rules: 25.4mm x 2.6 mm for the roll hoops and shoulder harness and 25.4mm x
1.6mm for the rest of the chassis. FEA was performed on the chassis in ANSYS(table 1).
As can be seen from the table, the torsional stiffness of this year's chassis is 1084 Nm/deg,
well within the acceptable range of 500-1500 Nm/deg range quoted in many FSAE papers.
Load Max Max

Max Torsional Torsional
Magnitude Torsion rotational rotational
Stress Stiffness Stiffness
at each (Nm) deformatio deformation
(Mpa) (deg/kNm) (Nm/deg)
node (N) n (radians) (deg)
0 0 0 0 0 0 1084.314
200 208 3.35E-03 0.1918 23.58 0.92224 1084.314
400 416 6.70E-03 0.3837 47.17 0.92237 1084.152
600 624 1.00E-02 0.5755 70.75 0.92242 1084.098
800 832 1.34E-02 0.7677 94.33 0.92279 1083.667
1000 1040 1.67E-02 0.9568 117.9 0.92003 1086.911
Table 1; FEA on 2017 chassis
Impact attenuator:
As discussed above, a composite IA was designed with the intent of exploring the
challenges in design and manufacturing of a monocoque. Additionally, the assembly
combines 3 components, the bodywork, impact attenuator and Anti-intrusion plate into
one. This saves weight while incorporating the anti-intrusion plate into the nose cone,
enabling access to the cockpit through the front bulkhead, which was blocked last year as
the plate was welded to the bulkhead.
Finite element analysis was not used as the behaviour of carbon fibre in dynamic failure is
not yet understood well enough to accurately model the structures behaviour in a crash.
Instead a Matlab model was developed to predict the deceleration and energy absorption
of the cone based on an assumed specific energy absorption, as described by Gary Savage,
former operations director at the Honda F1, in one of his many papers on composite design
in F1.
The basic design process began with the shape of the cone which takes into account
aerodynamic and structural considerations. After this the Matlab model helped define the
laminate thickness throughout the cone. A multivariable optimisation function to try and
achieve the lightest design possible was used but in the end a safer design was chosen to
limit the chances of failure: this could be an interesting area for future development. The
3
final design stage was converting this distribution of thickness to 66 individual plies, this
was done though a draping software supplied by a local engineering consultancy.
The nose cone was crash tested at the Cranfield Impact Centre where it passed all
regulations and absorbed 8.32 kJ, above the required 7.35 kJ. Almost half of the nose
cone remained intact, indicating that further weight savings could be made next year. A
composite AI plate was also designed and tested. However, regulations require a
composite plate to be many times stronger than the standard steel plate, making the
added design and manufacturing complexity unjustifiable in light of a mere 200g weight
saving: a standard steel plate, bonded to the nose cone and bolted to the front bulkhead
was used. The final nose cone/ anti-intrusion plate assembly weighs 3.3 kg which is 3kg
lighter than the components it replaces from last years car.
Aerodynamics
Willing to explore the potential of aerodynamic devices on their car, the team has designed
removable underbody and sidepods. The efficacy of these devices will be assessed during
testing to decide whether or not they should be included in the final design.
Underbody:
A fibreglass undertray with slight rake angles following the shape of the chassis creates
inlet and outlet sections, using the Venturi effect to establish an area of low pressure close
to the centre of gravity of the car. This effect is further exploited using two flanking
tunnels. These reduce airflow speed towards free stream velocity to reduce drag at the
rear of the car whilst generating downforce. The outlet angle of the tunnels is 12 to
minimize separation at the diffuser.
Side pods:
The side pods were designed with an inverted wing shape which acts as physical base for
its features. The front face of each pod is tilted 20 and acts as a barge board which
deflects turbulent air over and away from the rear tyres. These are known to reduce drag
by up to 30%, however, the sharp deflection angle may cause some separation and wake
on the pod itself, although this can be limited by the inclusion of fins whose location is
visible by the slots in the below images. The inlet is small, and its position was chosen
based on a location with airflow that is unobstructed by suspension members, and on the
cars lateral face which is known for faster laminar airflow. This effective throttle speeds
up inlet airflow to increase mass flow rate by up to 207% per a CFD report from Chalmers
FS; alongside the barge board, it allows for the creation of a duct within the pod, whose
subsequent expansion slows the air down enough for the radiator to benefit from contact
with cooling. The inverted wing shape also serves to close off the pod from its underside
to complete the duct structure without sacrificing rear tyre exposure, as the shape itself
creates a low pressure beneath the pod, and the inclusion of vortex generators mounted
to the underbody prevents air from entering the pods flanks and disrupting this effect.
The tilted rear opening and 60 radiator angle support natural heat convection by smoothly
redirecting the hot air towards the pods outlet, and generating some thrust. At 60kmph,
these features should produce a combined downforce of 170N on each pod according to
research.
Telemetry
The car will be monitored in real-time as well as storing data. To monitor in real-time, a NI
myRIO will connect to a laptop over Wi-Fi using a high-gain receiver to connect up to 1km
away. Data can be stored both on the laptop and also onto a USB drive also connected to the
myRIO. The data monitored will include engine data, suspension angles, brake and tyre
temperatures, and individual wheel speeds.
4

A B C D E F G H
IF IN DOUBT - ASK
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
5
3 3
2 2
1 1
TOLERANCE ON ANGLES 1 1 PLACE DECIMALS 0.1 EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY FORMULA STUDENT
0 PLACE DECIMALS 0.5 2 PLACE DECIMALS 0.05 ENGINEERING STORES
DRG: 01 MATERIAL: AS PER COMPONENT MASS(g):
Sheet1 ALRICK BUILDING
MAX BORN CRESCENT
PAGE 1 OF 3
DESCRIPTION: SIDE VIEW DRAWN BY: DATE: EDINBURGH
TS
SOLIDWORKS Educational For Instructional Use Only
EH9 3BF
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: NONEProduct.
REQUIRED THIS DRAWING IS GENERATED AND MAINTAINED IN CAD
PRINTS AND PLOTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE
CHECKED BY: AG DATE: UNCONTROLLED DOCUMENTS
PLEASE BREAK ALL SHARP CORNERS AND EDGES DIMENSIONS IN MM VERIFY CORRECT CHANGE LEVEL BEFORE MANUFACTURE
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
A4 THIRD ANGLE PROJECTION (FILE): DR_drawings
SURFACE ROUGHNESS 1.6RA OR BETTER COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

A B C D E F G H
IF IN DOUBT - ASK
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
6
3 3
2 2
1 1
MAX BORN CRESCENT
PAGE 2 OF 3
DESCRIPTION: TOP VIEW DRAWN BY: DATE: EDINBURGH
TS
EH9 3BF

A B C D E F G H
IF IN DOUBT - ASK
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
7
3 3
2 2
1 1
MAX BORN CRESCENT
PAGE 3 OF 3
DESCRIPTION: FRONT VIEW DRAWN BY: DATE: EDINBURGH
TS
EH9 3BF
Figure 1; chassis with body Figure 2; nosecone FEA
Figure 3; sidepod Figure 4; experimental intake

design with volume insert
Figure 5; roll centre and camber characteristics

045 Class 1 The University of Edinburgh DR Rev 1

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

045 Class 1 The University of Edinburgh DR Rev 1

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Edinburgh University Formula Student

Class 1 - car n.45 - Formula Student UK 2017

2016-2017 Edinburgh Formula Student Design Report

Load Max Max

Figure 1; chassis with body Figure 2; nosecone FEA

Figure 3; sidepod Figure 4; experimental intake

Figure 5; roll centre and camber characteristics

S-ar putea să vă placă și