Sei sulla pagina 1di 16


Team Registration ID: 607736 (Customer ID) Author: Tejas Ulavi Co-Author: Nipun Kuzhikattil

ABSTRACT The Supra SAE design competition provides a unique challenge for designing a formula type racing car and test it in the real-world situation. While simulating real world situations is difficult and can be obtained by complex analytical formulations, the advent of CAE has made the job of the engineer easier, given he provides appropriate inputs. Tools like ANSYS, MATLAB, MSC Adams,IDEAS, etc help simulate real-life situations and loading conditions and provides a way to validate results. An attempt has been made to provide a comprehensive insight into the CAE used by team OCTANE RACING for the design stage of the competition in three sections. 1. ROLLCAGE 1.1 Introduction
The static finite element analysis of the rollcage was done in ANSYS, and several realworld situations and loading conditions were simulated as representative of worst-case scenarios. The ultimate aim was to ensure a fully functional, weight-effective and sturdy vehicle that can survive harsh test conditions.

The various cases for the static simulation and analysis of the chassis or rollcage are as follows1. Front impact In this case, the front of the car, disregarding the impact attenuator is considered to collide with a stationary object in a head-on collision at maximum speed with an impact time of 0.3 sec. 2. Rear impact In this case, another car is considered to collide head-on with the rear of the car at maximum speed with an impact time of 0.3 sec. 3. Side impact In this case, a sideways impact into an obstruction is considered at the maximum speed with an impact time of 1.2 sec. (This is a safe case of side rollover) 4. Rollover impact In this case, overturning or rollover of the chassis is considered and the effect of self weight is considered as an impact load. 5. Front wheel bump In this case, a front wheel is considered to go into full bump with all other wheels fixed. 6. Rear wheel bump In this case, a rear wheel is considered to go into full bump with all other wheels fixed. 7. Torsional rigidity - The torsional rigidity of the frame is determined by applying an equal and opposite bending moment on the chassis and quantifying the angular displacement.

1.2 Problem Description

The aim of the analysis is to carry out a design check of the given Mini Baja chassis under estimated loading conditions and to minimize the weight of the frame (limit it to 35 kg) keeping a Safety Factor of 1.5. Material of the tubes is AISI 1020, Hot Rolled with properties Sut = 394.7 MPa Syt = 294.8 MPa

1.3 Simulation Methodology and parameters

A geometric model of the rollcage was constructed in Pro-E and was imported into ANSYS Workbench in IGES format. ANSYS was used to create a finite element formulation of the problem for static structural analysis.


Team Registration ID: 607736 (Customer ID) Author: Tejas Ulavi Co-Author: Nipun Kuzhikattil The Shell81 element was used for meshing the entire rollcage, with real constant as the thickness of the pipes. This was more convenient than the pipe element owing to the incorporation of a number of pipes of different diameters, and cross-sections, and the presence of square and rectangular pipes. The meshing was done globally with a size of 3mm, with local mesh size at the area of interest as low as 1mm. Smooth transition in the mesh size was ensured. The local variation of the mesh size enabled us to achieve good convergence with minimum strain energy error (less than 7% in the area of interest) without compromising seriously on the computational speed and size. The material properties were specified from within the existing library in Workbench. The properties of Structural steel were modified for AISI 1020 steel, with the most important linear, isotropic properties being Ex = 210000MPa, nuxy = 0.30 Calculating thus, Front/rear impact F = 15000N Side impact F = 5000N Rollover impact 6000 N ((weight of car +driver) X 2) Estimation of wheel bump forces An assumption is made that when the vehicle passes over a bump, the entire weight of the vehicle will turn into two point loads at the two points where the wheel force is transmitted to the chassis, through the suspension. The worst case will be when the suspension fails and the entire force is transmitted. As the requirement is not for the Chassis to fail in case the suspension fails. These two point loads will be equal to the weight of the chassis. Hence, 2F = m1 * g F = m1 * g F= *300 * 10 F = 1500 N Hence, designing for F = 1500N (approx). Similarly, F = 2500 N for the rear wheel bump condition.

1.4 Force conditions




Estimation of Impact force By the laws of motion, v = u + a.t For impact analysis, consider u = max. speed (150 kmph i.e. 41.67 m/s) v = 0 (after impact, perfectly inelastic collision) t = time of impact From the above equation, calculate the value of a which is the Gs of acceleration witnessed by the rollcage during the impact. Now, F = m.a, gives the impact force to be applied to the members.

1.5 Boundary conditions

The various loading conditions and the boundary conditions assumed for each of the fore-mentioned analyses have been carefully formulated. For many of the analyses pseudo boundary conditions are assumed to constrain the model so that a realistic simulation result is obtained. The assumptions are enlisted in the Table 1.1.


Team Registration ID: 607736 (Customer ID) Author: Tejas Ulavi Co-Author: Nipun Kuzhikattil

1.6 Simulation Results

Preliminary results and conclusions The preliminary design was analyzed for the above tests and the results have been tabulated in Table 1.2. Also, the various contour plots for the displacement and Vonmisses stress have been shown in Fig. 1.1 to Fig. 1.6 in Appendix 1. The results showed that the design would fail for the side impact and rear bump conditions with FOS 0.90 and 0.73 respectively. Also, the rear impact condition had a low FOS of 1.18, which is less than the aimed minimum FOS of 1.5. Torsional rigidity is important to prevent excessive frame flexure during operation. We created a rigid frame by including structural members in key locations. The torsional rigidity analysis involved fixing the rear of the frame, applying a torque to the front of the frame, and measuring the deflection. Our frame was found to have a torsional rigidity of 5240 N-m/degree without any sign of yield with a factor of strength of 1.63. Iterative Design & Re-validation Considering the results obtained by preliminary analysis, certain changes were implemented in the design of the rollcage. The major identified areas for the proposed changes and the modified rollcage are shown in Fig 1.7. The results after modification are tabulated in Table2.3.

required in the rear and side impact members. In future, alternative materials for the rollcage will be looked at as a viable solution for weight reduction.


The structural integrity of the vehicle and coexistence of all the subsystems depends upon proper material selection and appropriate strength of the components individually and as a unified entity. ANSYS was used to validate the design and to analyze pivotal structural components such as the knuckle, bellcrank, rotor assembly and the brake assembly.

2.2 Front/rear knuckles

The front and rear knuckles were both designed specifically for the application of the competition. Owing to the low weight budget and the high strength requirement, Al6061 was chosen as the material for the knuckles. The aim of the analysis was to determine the best profile of the knuckle to satisfy the strength requirements. Primary calculations were done using a 3G vertical, 2G lateral and 1G longitudinal force template on the knuckle. Thus forces on both the front and rear knuckle were found The factor of safety requirement was again fixed at 1.5 as earlier. Also, Al6061 as the material offers excellent material strength properties Syt = 276 MPa Sut = 310 MPa The different analyses carried out in ANSYS included 1. Static structural analysis

1.7 Conclusions & Recommendations

The final achieved weight of the rollcage is about 40 kg, 5 kg more than the proposed 35 kg. This was due to the strengthening


Team Registration ID: 607736 (Customer ID) Author: Tejas Ulavi Co-Author: Nipun Kuzhikattil 2. Shape optimization analysis 3. Fatigue analysis Front knuckle Lower ball joint, Fx = 1300N, Fy = 0N, Fz = 5813N Upper ball joint, Fx = Fy = 0N , Fz = -1700N Spindle, Fz = 1500, Mz = 228600 N.m Fixed support at the inner race of the knuckle where the spindle rests. For the rear knuckle, the drive shaft goes through the knuckle and is a moving part. Hence, a bearing is fitted in the hub of the knuckle. The forces for the rear knuckle are determined as were for the front. Rear knuckle Lower ball joint, Fx = 1500N, Fy = 0N, Fz = 6310N Upper ball joint, Fx = Fy = 0N, Fz = -1600N Spindle, Fz = 2500N Pseudo fixed support at the inner race of the knuckle where the drive shaft rests.

2.2.1 Simulation parameters



The knuckles were designed in Pro-E and imported into ANSYS. Minor modifications whenever required were made in the ANSYS modeler. The Solid45 element was used for meshing the knuckle as a three-dimensional entity. This was convenient given the complex geometry of the knuckle and a thickness of almost 2 inches. Hence, the plate or shell element could not have been effectively used to represent the geometry. Meshing was done with a size of 1 mm due to the small size of the knuckle. Initially, local size was not tampered with for the first run. After the first run results were obtained, local element sizing was enhanced for greater convergence. In the final iteration, the mesh size locally was as low as 0.7 mm. The material chosen from the library was Al6061 alloy. The properties were changed as per requirements. The typical properties of Al6061 are Ex = 69000MPa, nuxy = 0.33

2.2.3 Simulation results and iterative process

Static structural analysis The results for the static structural analysis of the front and the rear knuckles are shown in Fig 1.8 and Fig 1.9. The following Table 2.4 shows a tabulated result of the analysis Shape optimization analysis Initially, the knuckle was considered to be a solid block of the outermost dimensions. These dimensions were calculated by preliminary calculations with a FOS of 2 and considering a uniform beam section under bending. (Fig 2.2) The block thus obtained was analyzed for optimization of material. The resulting shape

2.2.2 Boundary conditions

For the front knuckle the spindle is stationary and the wheel rotates with the help of a bearing which has its inner race on the spindle and outer race on the hub of the wheel. The forces from the tire are transmitted to the knuckle through the moment arm of the spindle, thus creating a torque. The forces on the tires were thus transferred to the knuckle in addition to the torque produced.


Team Registration ID: 607736 (Customer ID) Author: Tejas Ulavi Co-Author: Nipun Kuzhikattil plot obtained was as shown in Fig. 2.3. This was used as a template for further weight reduction in the knuckle. The reduced knuckle was iterated till the material reduction and strength obtained were optimal. The final design is shown in Appendix 1 and mentioned under the static structural analysis earlier. Fatigue analysis weight possible, yet sturdy enough to support the tire forces. Material used is again Al6061 and the FOS requirement is 2.

2.3.1 Simulation parameters



Same as for the front and rear knuckles

2.3.2 Boundary conditions

The knuckle is one of the most important suspension components and is the medium that joins the wheel to the chassis. The knuckle thus is thus subjected to constant fluctuating loads and fatigue failure is an important criteria. Fatigue is also responsible for failure of 50-60 % of the components. For fatigue analysis, the fatigue tool was added to the solution in the ANSYS Workbench environment. Analysis for life in cycles and factor of strength were calculated. The minimum life of the front knuckle was determined as 98806 cycles and the least factor of strength as 0.45 (for 106 cycles) The minimum life of the rear knuckle was determined as 70500 cycles and the factor of strength 0.39. The bellccrank has a central pivot with either end supporting the spring one side and the pushrod on the other. The bellcrank bolts will be loaded in shear as the pushrod actuates the spring and experiences the opposite reaction. Fixed support the inner race of the central pivot.

2.3.3 Simulation results and weight reduction

The results have been tabulated in the Table 2.4. Also the contour plots for the bellcranks are given in Fig 1.10. The result obtained still has a higher FOS than required, even after high weight reduction of the cut-outs through a process identical to the knuckle iterative loop.

2.3 Bellcranks
Inboard suspension system in the front facilitates the use of bellcranks to pivot the spring and pushrod assembly. The entire road forces are transferred to the spring through the bellcranks, hence appropriate design of the bellcranks is necessary for fatigue. The aim of the analysis was to design a functional bellcrank in the least amount of

2.4 Wishbones or A-arms

The wishbones or the A-arms of a typical double wishbone suspension have been analyzed for strength. The results for the front lower wishbone have been showed as an example to represent the design process of the suspension A-arms. The factor of safety for the A-arms is chosen to be 1.5 and the material as AISI 4130 steel.


Team Registration ID: 607736 (Customer ID) Author: Tejas Ulavi Co-Author: Nipun Kuzhikattil Syt = 360 MPa Sut = 560 MPa Fx = 0.3 * 600 Fx = 180 N

2.4.1 Simulation parameters



The Pipe18 element was chosen for the representation of the A-arms. This facilitated the construction of a simple line figure in ANSYS, hence allowing for a flexible design which could be reiterated or changed easily. Also, this would reduce the computational time and endow a simple geometry. Meshing size was chosen as 1mm uniform, which gave sufficiently good results for the analysis. Material properties for 4130 alloy steel were entered after creating a new material model. The major properties were Ex = 320000 Mpa, nuxy = 0.3

In addition to this, the pushrod mounting on the A-arm will experience a maximum force equivalent to the weight of the front end, about 800 N. Hence, the loading and boundary conditions are, Fx = 180, Fz = 600 at the ball joint/rod end Fz = 800 N at the pushrod mount Fixed support at the rod end bearing and chassis mounts.

2.4.3 Simulation results

The contours have been shown in Fig 1.13. The FOS was iterated by changing the crosssection of the Pipe18 elements. An acceptable design is obtained with a hollow circular pipe of dimensions 20 X 2 mm.

2.4.2. Boundary conditions 2.4.4 Conclusions

To find the optimal loading condition for the front geometry Total Weight of vehicle + human = 3000 N Number of Suspension Arms = 4 *2 = 8 Assuming 40% force distribution on front arms, Static Upward Force on each arm, Fzs= 3000*0.4/4 = 300 N Since the suspension may be subjected to dynamic loads which can have a maximum value equal to twice the static load, Hence, Fz = 2 * Fzs=2 *300 = 600 N Also, due to rolling motion and friction there will be a load in the direction of motion, which was estimated as 0.3 times the normal load where 0.3 is the estimated co-efficient of friction. Fx = 0.3 * Fz Weight of front/rear knuckle = 1.023/1.25 kg Weight of bellcrank = 0.77 kg The wishbones were also chosen of optimal cross-section. Hence, targets were achieved.


Team Registration ID: 607736 (Customer ID) Author: Tejas Ulavi Co-Author: Nipun Kuzhikattil

2.6 Additional CAE for suspension and dynamic analysis of the vehicle MSC Adams
MSC Adams is a mechanical systems analysis software which enabled us to study the dynamics of our sub-systems, the interactions of various sub-systems and thus optimize their design and performance. It helped us to eliminate the need to actually build and test our designs.

MATLAB is a powerful mathematical tool with multiple applications and a user-friendly interface. We used MATLAB to simulate the longitudinal vehicle dynamics of the entire vehicle by considering the vehicle to be a two DOF system.

2.6.3 Simulation parameters



2.6.1 Front Suspension and Steering

MSC Adams was used to create a template of the suspension and steering system of the car into a front assembly. This was done by modifying the hardpoints of an available FSAE template for inboard suspension. The resulting assembly was analyzed for parallel wheel travel and toe change was measured against wheel travel. The height of the steering rack was iterated for minimum toe change during the suspension travel. Hence Bump Steer was eliminated. An optimized graph for bum steer is shown in Fig 2.5.

The entire vehicle was modeled as a 2 degree of freedom (DOF) spring-damper system in MATLAB. Differential equations for the model were derived from first principles, and modeled for the gross vehicle parameters.

2.6.4 Loading conditions and results

Sinusoidal excitation of 10mm amplitude and 20 rad/s frequency was given as input to obtain the frequency of front and rear setups, and the overall vehicle pitch and bounce for the said excitation. The pitch and bounce values originally received depended upon the damper gain in the SimuLink model. Increasing this gain, we were able to achieve reduction in pitch from 0.28 deg to 0.20 deg and the bounce from 15 mm to 10 mm. The results have been shown in Appendix 2, Fig 2.6.

2.6.2 Full-vehicle assembly

We have presently constructed a full-vehicle assembly in MSC Adams incorporating the suspension, steering, chassis, brake, powertrain and engine into a single assembly. Results with this assembly for dynamic driving conditions are being pursued.

2.6.5 Future work

Presently, we are working on a MATLAB model for optimizing the lateral dynamics of the vehicle. This can be controlled by the yaw rate, yaw acceleration, etc. The MATLAB model is ready, but results obtained are unrealistic at present.


Team Registration ID: 607736 (Customer ID) Author: Tejas Ulavi Co-Author: Nipun Kuzhikattil

3. AERODYNAMICS Intake Restrictor Analysis

The intake Restrictor is to be fitted in the air intake pipe in order to restrict the air flow into the engine in order to limit the speeds attainable by the engine. The commercially available software Fluent was used for simulating the flow through the nozzle.

Reduction in the throat area will only serve to reduce the mass flow The maximum possible area is defined by the rulebook i.e. maximum diameter of 20mm Thus, the only design variable is to check the restrictor geometry for flow separation in the exit section i.e. the divergent portion of the nozzle. That is done on ANSYS 12 FLUENT software. In FLUENT analysis, we used different outlet pressure values and studied the flow pattern. In analysis, the turbulence model used is komega SST (shear stress transport) for low to medium turbulence intensity. The flow separation was not shown by any result. Hence the restrictor design in free from separation losses.

In the Octane Racing vehicle, we used a front wing, a rear wing and a nose cone to optimize downforce and drag across the vehicle. We have used the software FOILSIM available at the NASA website for selecting an aerofoil that satisfies our downforce requirements. The results have been validated by referring a book The Theory of Wing Sections by Ira Abott.

The downforce required in the Octane Racing vehicle was approximated as one-third of the downforce available on a Formula 1 vehicle. The downforce generated by the rear wing of a Formula1 race car is approximately 450 kg at 300 kmph. Considering the top speed of the Octane racing car as 100 kmph, the downforce required is approximately 170 N (as downforce is directly proportional to square of the velocity). The aerofoil section was chosen using FOILSIM software, and the profile selected was NACA4412 which provides 162 N downforce at zero degree angle of attack. The flow across the wing was analysed using Ansys 12 Fluent and CFX for validation of the downforce and drag values. Thus far we have been unsuccessful in obtaining realistic values for the drag and downforce. However, we

3.1 Problem Description Intake restrictor

The restrictor has to be fit in intake manifold of the engine. So the diameter of manifold as actually measured is 35mm. The maximum diameter allowed in rulebook for restrictor is 20mm, that is going to be the throat diameter. The Inlet pressure is approximately equal to the atmospheric pressure, barring the pressure losses in the inlet filter. The outlet pressure will be decided by the engine intake pressure i.e. suction pressure. Due to fixed diameter values of inlet, throat, exit, inlet pressure and outlet pressure, the restrictor is pre-designed for a certain mass flow rate, since


Team Registration ID: 607736 (Customer ID) Author: Tejas Ulavi Co-Author: Nipun Kuzhikattil have used a book THEORY OF WING SECTIONS by IRA ABOTT for validation. We decided not to use the front wing for obtaining downforce as the requirement for the Octane Racing vehicle is minimal. Hence, we chose the NACA0008 profile for the front wing; it only serves the purpose of supporting the end plates. incorporate the requirements of the various sub-systems in the present application. Apart from ANSYS, ANSYS FLUENT has been used to design and validate the intake restrictor, side-pod and the wings. MSC Adams has been used for dynamic simulation of steering and suspension systems for the elimination of bump steer. MATLAB and C++ have been used for the optimizing various vehicle dynamics parameters, such as the longitudinal, lateral and vertical behavior of the vehicle.

3.2 Simulation results

The simulation images from ANSYS FLUENT 12 are shown in Fig. 1.14 and Fig. 1.15 in the appendix.

1. Supra SAE rulebook, 2011 (Version 2) 2. Theory of wing sections Ira Abott 3. Race Car Vehicle Dynamics Milliken and Milliken 4. Octane Racing Preliminary Design Report, Supra SAE 2011 5. Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics Thomas Gillespie 6. ANSYS Help system (supported by full version ANSYS) 7. Race Car Aerodynamics Gregor Seljak 8. Finite Element Procedures K. J. Bathe 9. 10.

3.3 Future work

We hope to get concrete results in the flow simulation for the validation of the chosen profiles for the rear and front wings. Also, we propose to conduct simulations for nozzle flow analysis using actual pressure values for the restrictor.

CAE is a powerful tool and has been amply utilized by our team throughout the design process as an aid to design and a means for validation of the design. ANSYS has been our primary CAE software, which has been used for analyzing the chassis, optimizing it for weight and stiffness, validating the design of key structural components like the knuckle, bellcrank, brake assembly, etc. ANSYS Workbench provides a simple interface which offers options for online modification of the design and reevaluation. ANSYS also offers various modules such as static structural, transient structural, modal, thermal, etc. which can be effectively used to


Team Registration ID: 607736 (Customer ID) Author: Tejas Ulavi Co-Author: Nipun Kuzhikattil

APPENDIX 1 List of Figures

Fig 1.1. Front impact

Fig 1.2 Rear impact

Fig 1.3 Side impact


Team Registration ID: 607736 (Customer ID) Author: Tejas Ulavi Co-Author: Nipun Kuzhikattil

Fig 1.4 Rollover impact

Fig 1.5 Front bump

Fig 1.6 Rear bump

Fig 1.7 Modified rollcage

Fig 1.8 Front knuckle deformation, stress, fatigue life

Fig 1.9 Rear knuckle

12 | P a g e


Team Registration ID: 607736 (Customer ID) Author: Tejas Ulavi Co-Author: Nipun Kuzhikattil

Fig 1.10 Bellcrank

Fig 1.11 MSC Adams suspension, steering assembly

Fig 1.12 MSC Adams full vehicle assembly

Fig 1.13 Front wishbones

Page | 13


Team Registration ID: 607736 (Customer ID) Author: Tejas Ulavi Co-Author: Nipun Kuzhikattil

Fig 1.14 NACA models - Ira Abott

Fig 1.15 FLUENT simulations

Page | 14


Team Registration ID: 607736 (Customer ID) Author: Tejas Ulavi Co-Author: Nipun Kuzhikattil

APPENDIX 2 Tables and graphs

Load value 5G 5G 3G 2G 1500N 2500N 1320Nm

No Type of analysis 1 Frontal impact 2 Rear impact 3 Side impact 4 Roll over impact Front wheel 5 bump 6 Rear wheel bump 7 Torsional rigidity

Boundary conditions Suspension mounts Ux=Uy=0, Rear corner points All DOF=0 Suspension mounts Ux=Uy=0, Front corner points All DOF=0 Right side frame All DOF=0 Base All DOF=0 1 front+2 rear wheels All DOF=0 2 front+1 rear wheels All DOF=0 Rear roll hoop All DOF=0

Table 2.1 Rollcage boundary conditions

No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Type of analysis Frontal impact Rear impact Side impact Roll over impact Front wheel bump Rear wheel bump Torsional rigidity

Displacem ent (mm) 0.02 4.64 0.53 0.71 0.43 27.01 0.78

Stress ( MPa) 77.283 250.07 325.57 74.219 49.554 401.46 105.55

FOS 3.80 1.18 0.90 3.96 5.93 0.73 2.79

Table 2.2 Rollcage analysis results old design

Type of analysis Rear impact Side impact Rear wheel bump

Stress (old) 250.07 325.57 401.46

Stress (modified) 182.34 203.45 256.01

New FOS 1.62 1.45 1.15

Table 2.3 Results for the modified rollcage

Page | 15


Team Registration ID: 607736 (Customer ID) Author: Tejas Ulavi Co-Author: Nipun Kuzhikattil

Front knuckle Rear knuckle Bellcrank

0.46855 0.06475 0.01412

Stress (Mpa)
180.87 106.53 22.127

1.53 2.59 12.47

Table 2.4 Result for suspension components

Fig. 2.5 Bump steer, MSC Adams

Fig. 2.6 MATLAB suspension, longitudinal dynamics

Page | 16