3rd year formula student frame project report

By: Jessica Byrne (C14303401)

Final Report: Comparing a Spaceframe to a

Monocoque Report for a Formula Student

Chassis Design

Page | 1

Table of Contents

Declaration ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Background ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Chassis .................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Spaceframe ............................................................................................................................................................. 3

Monocoque .............................................................................................................................................................. 4

Spaceframe ............................................................................................................................................................. 4

Monocoque .............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Design ideas ........................................................................................................................................................... 6

Chosen ideas .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Templates ................................................................................................................................................................ 9

Engine Mount Design .......................................................................................................................................... 11

Suspension ............................................................................................................................................................ 11

FEA analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................. 15

Bodywork ....................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Design ideas ......................................................................................................................................................... 15

Chosen ideas ........................................................................................................................................................ 16

Body panels and assembly methods................................................................................................................. 17

Wheel clearance ................................................................................................................................................... 18

manufacturing processes .................................................................................................................................... 18

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................. 23

Monocoque .................................................................................................................................................................... 23

Design ideas ......................................................................................................................................................... 23

Chosen ideas ........................................................................................................................................................ 24

Connecting monocoque to the main and front roll hoops .............................................................................. 26

Engine Mount Design .......................................................................................................................................... 27

Suspension ............................................................................................................................................................ 28

Structural integrity Calculation ............................................................................................................................ 28

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................. 29

Comparing spaceframe vs monocoque .................................................................................................................... 30

Bibliography................................................................................................................................................................... 36

Declaration To the best of my knowledge and belief, this report is my own work, all source have been properly acknowledged, and

the report contains no plagiarism. The report contains 5594 words excluding words on pictures, and 72 figures.

Name: ___________________________ Date: _______________________

Page | 2

Table of Figures Figure 1 Spaceframe ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 monocoque design .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3 Cisitalia D46 ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 4 Type 360 for Cisitalia .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 5 Lotus 25 .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 6 McLaren MP4/1 ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 7 ATS team D4 racer ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 8 complex monocoque mould ................................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 9 Frame design 1 ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 10 Frame design 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 11 Frame design 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 12 Frame design 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 13 Frame design 4 ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 14 Cockpit Template & Figure 15 Foot well template ............................................................................................ 9 Figure 16 Percy ................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 17 Helmet clearance between main roll hoop and front roll hoop. ...................................................................... 10 Figure 18 Helmet clearance between main roll hoop and rear bracing .......................................................................... 10 Figure 19 untriangulated box & Figure 20 triangulated box ............................................................................................ 10 Figure 21 Engine mounts with the engine & Figure 22 Engine mounts .......................................................................... 11 Figure 23 Frame suspension mounts in the rear ............................................................................................................ 11 Figure 24 Frame suspension mounts in the front ........................................................................................................... 11 Figure 25 Frame – Displacement - Main Roll Hoop ........................................................................................................ 13 Figure 26 Frame - Displacement - Front Roll Hoop ........................................................................................................ 13 Figure 27 Frame - Displacement - Side impact .............................................................................................................. 14 Figure 28 Frame - Displacement – Front Bulkhead ........................................................................................................ 14 Figure 29 Bodywork design 1.......................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 30 Bodywork design 2.......................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 31 Bodywork design 3.......................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 32 Bodywork design 4.......................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 33 Bodywork design 3.......................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 34 how body panels are Split & Figure 35 Dzus Clip .......................................................................................... 17 Figure 36 Minimum Attenuator Size ................................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 37 Open wheel ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 38 Vacuum Forming ............................................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 39 Flow Analyses - Front View ............................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 40 Flow Analyses - Side View ............................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 41 Surface Pressure Plot ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 42 Pressure Flow Trajectories ............................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 43 Velocity Flow Trajectories ............................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 44 The Lift that is caused as the velocity ............................................................................................................. 22 Figure 45 The Lift that is caused as the velocity ............................................................................................................. 22 Figure 46 Monocoque design 1....................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 47 Monocoque design 2....................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 48 Monocoque design 3....................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 49 Monocoque design 4....................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 50 Monocoque Design 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 51 Inserts ............................................................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 52 Rear frame connecting to monocoque rear view ............................................................................................ 26 Figure 53 Rear frame connecting to monocoque............................................................................................................ 26 Figure 54 Monocoque connecting to front roll hoop ....................................................................................................... 27 Figure 55 engine mounts with the engine in place & Figure 56 engine mounts ............................................................. 27 Figure 57 suspension in place in the rear & Figure 58 suspension in place in the front ................................................ 28 Figure 59 Honeycomb Structure ..................................................................................................................................... 28

Page | 3

Introduction

This is a report that compares a spaceframe to a monocoque for a formula student car. The report discusses the

history of both the spaceframe and monocoque. The two types of frames will be compared using FEA. Deciding on

which spaceframe and monocoque that is to be compared first a single spaceframe and a single monocoque must be

designed so that they can be compared to one another. When designing a racing car, it is important to know that each

chassis designs have their own strengths and weaknesses. Every chassis is a compromise between weight,

component size, complexity, vehicle intent, and ultimately the cost.

Background

Chassis

It is important to keep in mind when designing a chassis that any good chassis must do several things:

1. The two most important goals in the design of a race car chassis are that it be lightweight and rigid.

Lightweight is important to get the greatest acceleration for a given engine power.

Rigidity is important to maintain precise control over the suspension geometry. To keep all four of the

wheels firmly in contact with the ground.

Unfortunately, weight and rigidity are often in direct conflict. Finding the best compromise between

these two is known as the science of race car engineering.

2. Be structurally sound in every way over the expected life of the car and beyond. This means that nothing will

ever break under normal conditions.

3. Protect the driver from external intrusion.

Spaceframe

A true space frame construction consists of steel or aluminium tubes placed in a triangulated format that are only in

tension or compression. That means that each load-bearing point must be supported in three dimensions. The

suspension, engine, and body panels are attached to a skeletal frame of tubes, and the body panels have little or no

structural function.

A drawback of the spaceframe chassis is that it encloses much of the working volume of the car and can make access

for both the driver and to the engine difficult.

Spaceframes, unlike the monocoque chassis used in modern Formula 1 or CART, are easily repaired and inspected

for damage.

Figure 1 Spaceframe

Page | 4

Monocoque

Monocoque is a one-piece structure which defines the overall shape of the car. Formula 1 has monocoque structure

this is because carbon-fibre monocoque racing cars have a superior rigidity-to-weight ratio and very high price.

Monocoque chassis also benefit crash protection. Because it uses a lot of metal, crumple zone can be built into the

structure.

Monocoque construction techniques that supports structural load by using an object's external skin as opposed to

using an internal frame. Carbon-fibre panels are made by laying up to 12 layers of carbon-fibre mats in either side of

an aluminium or Kevlar paper honeycomb inserts. It is then heated in the autoclave, a giant oven and under negative

pressure, after two and a half hours, the shell is hardened, but still the baking procedure is repeated twice more. Thus,

the monocoque’s are strong enough to protect the drivers even in the most serious of accidents as it provides superior

rigidity yet optimize weight.

Male mould was used to lay up the inner skin directly against the mould, so removing any variance in sandwich

thickness form the final suspension geometry. This resulted in the outer skin being laid up against the honeycomb and

not a mould face, hence the outer finish of these chassis were relatively poor which means these chassis needed a

bodywork over them. Whereas female moulds had a much neater finish which means these chassis did not need any

other bodywork over the chassis.

Figure 2 monocoque design

History

The range of chassis stiffness has varied greatly over the years.

Spaceframe

The first true spaceframe chassis were produced in the 1930s by designers such as Buckminster Fuller and William

Stout (the Dymaxion and the Stout Scarab) who understood the theory of the true spaceframe.

The first racing car to attempt a spaceframe was the Cisitalia D46 of 1946.

Figure 3 Cisitalia D46

Page | 5

In 1947 Porsche designed their Type 360 for Cisitalia. As this included diagonal tubes, it can be considered the first

true spaceframe.

Figure 4 Type 360 for Cisitalia

Monocoque

Monocoque, from Greek for single (mono) and French for shell (coque) (monoshell).

A common shape for 1960s racing cars of monocoque construction was the "cigar". The cylindrical shape helped

reduce Torsional rigidity.

The aluminium alloy monocoque chassis was first used in the 1962 Lotus 25 Formula 1 race car

Figure 5 Lotus 25

Carbon Fibre Monocoque made its debut in Formula 1 1981 with McLaren's MP4/1 Formula One racing car, designed

by John Barnard. McLaren was the first to use carbon-fibre-reinforced polymers to construct the monocoque of the

1981 McLaren MP4/1. In 1992 the McLaren F1 became the first production car with a carbon-fibre monocoque.

Figure 6 McLaren MP4/1

Page | 6

For the 1983 championship, ATS team D4 racer, under the technical direction of Gustav Brunner, made a female

moulded chassis taking advantage of the neater external surface of the moulded chassis, by also making the

monocoques outer skin the primary bodywork for the car and discarding separate bodywork for the large part of the

front of the car.

Figure 7 ATS team D4 racer

Finally moving into the 2000, complex chassis shapes broke the tub up into several sections.

Spaceframe

Design ideas

The following designs were some of the ideas that I came up when designing the space frame. These designs where

drawn in Solidworks.

1 Design 1 – This chassis is Nice and Light weight but this chassis would not be very useful if it got hit, there are

not enough bars to protect the driver. This chassis does not comply with FS rules. The total weight of this

frame is 29kg which is an average weight for a frame.

Figure 9 Frame design 1

Figure 8 complex monocoque mould

Page | 7

2 Design 2 – This chassis has a lot of triangulation which helps strengthen the frame, but this does not fully

comply with FS rules. The total weight of this frame is 45kg which is very heavy for the frame.


3 Design 3 – This chassis design is structurally sound because there is a lot of triangulation it has. This frame

does comply with FS rules. The total weight of this frame is 65kg which is extremely heavy for a frame.


4 Design 4 – This design complies with the FS rules. This chassis has also got some triangulation. The total

weight of this frame is 30kg which is a good weight for a spaceframe for a FS car


Page | 8

Chosen ideas

The reasons for choosing design;

1 Structural Integrity – Meaning that the frame is sturdy and can withstand a reasonable impact so that the

driver will be safe if hit from the side or if the car rolls.

2 Weight – An important factor is the weight of the car as more weight means that the car will accelerate slower

and the top speed will be slower compared to a car with the same engine that is lighter.

3 Ergonomics & Aerodynamics – This is a factor as the car needs to be comfortable to drive. The more strip line

the Car the less drag is created and the faster the car will accelerate, not to mention that the appearance of

the car is part of the judging (marking scheme).

4 Compliance with FS rules.

5 Triangulation – The more triangulation in a frame the stronger the frame will be which may mean less struts

are needed in the frame which will reduce the weight.

6 Engine mounting position - There needs to be room for engine to fit in the rear of the chassis.

7 Templates – All three of the templates need to be able to fit into the chassis.

8 Suspension geometry – The cassis must be able to fit in the give dimensions so that the suspension will fit on

the chassis.

Graded from 1 to 4, 1 being the best meaning the lowest total is best.

Design 3 Design 4 Design 1 Design 2

Structural Integrity 1 2 4 3

Weight 4 2 1 3

Ergonomics 1 2 4 3

Compliance with FS rules 2 1 4 3

Engine mounting 2 1 3 4

Templates 1 2 3 4

Suspension geometry 3 1 2 4

Triangulation 1 2 4 3

Total 15 13 25 27

Table 1 Design criteria grading

The Chosen Design is Design 4.


Page | 9

Templates

As part of the criteria of the frame there are three templates that must fit within the frame in order for the frame to be

considered fit to drive. One of the templates is to fit in the cockpit another in the foot well and the final is to show that a

95th percentile male with helmet fit into the frame with the correct safety room.

The Cockpit template as shown below in Fig. (14) must fit in the cockpit within 300mm of the ground in order to pass

this criteria. The foot well template as shown in Fig. (15) must fit in the foot well within 300mm of the front bulkhead in

order to pass this criteria.

Figure 14 Cockpit Template Figure 15 Foot well template

The final template is the template known as Percy which is a template of a 95th percentile male with helmet fit this is

Fig. (16). This template must be able to fit into the frame and leave the correct amount of space between the top of the

main roll hoop and the top of the helmet with respect to both the front roll hoop and the rear bracing of the main roll

hoop as seen in Fig. (17) and Fig. (18).

Figure 16 Percy

Page | 10

Figure 17 Helmet clearance between main roll hoop and front roll hoop.

Figure 18 Helmet clearance between main roll hoop and rear bracing

Triangulation

Triangles are one of the strongest shapes known to man. It is not surprising then that 'triangulation' is used in building

spaceframes. Triangulation basically means breaking a structure into smaller triangles and putting them together in

such a way as to make the desired shape. It can be seen in Fig. (19) and Fig. (20) that a structure that has

triangulation is much stronger than a structure that does not. When a force is applied to the Fig. (19) it begins to

buckle whereas when a force is applied to Fig. (20) it can withstand the force.

Figure 19 untriangulated box Figure 20 triangulated box

Page | 11

Engine Mount Design

The chosen design can be seen in Fig. (21) and Fig. (22) as it can be seen the engine sits perfectly in the space

provided for it. Fig. (21) shows the engine mounts with the engine in place whereas Fig. (22) shows the engine

mounts without the engine in.

Figure 21 Engine mounts with the engine Figure 22 Engine mounts

Suspension

The chosen design can be seen in Fig. (23) and Fig. (24) as it can be seen the suspension sits perfectly in the space

provided for it. Fig. (23) shows the frame with the suspension in place in the rear of the frame whereas Fig. (24) shows

the suspension in the front of the frame.

Figure 24 Frame suspension mounts in the front Figure 23 Frame suspension mounts in the rear

Page | 12

FEA analysis

Table 3 FEA Solidworks

Model Reference Properties Components

NAME: Plain Carbon Steel

MODEL TYPE: Linear Elastic Isotropic

DEFAULT FAILURE

CRITERION:

Max von Mises Stress

YIELD STRENGTH: 2.20594e+008 N/m^2

TENSILE STRENGTH: 3.99826e+008 N/m^2

ELASTIC MODULUS: 2.1e+011 N/m^2

POISSON'S RATIO: 0.28

MASS DENSITY: 7800 kg/m^3

SHEAR

MODULUS:

7.9e+010 N/m^2

THERMAL EXPANSION

COEFFICIENT:

1.3e-005 /Kelvin

Frame(Pipe 24.5 X 2.5)

Study Properties

Study name FEA on Frame

Analysis type Static

Mesh type Mixed Mesh

Thermal Effect On

Thermal option Include temperature loads

Zero strain temperature 298 Kelvin

Include fluid pressure effects from Flow Simulation Off

Solver type Direct sparse solver

Inplane Effect: Off

Soft Spring: Off

Inertial Relief: Off

Incompatible bonding options Automatic

Large displacement Off

Compute free body forces On

Friction Off

Use Adaptive Method: Off

Table 2 Critical information on FEA of frame

Page | 13

Main Roll Hoop

This test is applying a force on the main roll hoop of the chassis.

Reaction Forces

Selection set Units Sum X Sum Y Sum Z Resultant

Entire Model N -6000 9000 5000 11916.4

Name Type Min Max

Displacement URES: Resultant Displacement 0 mm Node: 20315 4.15904 mm Node: 20525

Figure 25 Frame – Displacement - Main Roll Hoop

As it can be seen from the Fig. (25) the deflection does not pass the maximum allowable deflection of 25mm the

maximum deflection that occurs when a force: Fx = 6.0 kN, Fy=5.0 kN, Fz=-9.0 kN is applied is 4.15904 mm. This

means that the frame has passed this parameter.

Front Roll Hoop

Reaction Forces


Entire Model N -5999.99 9000 5000 11916.4

Name Type Min Max


Figure 26 Frame - Displacement - Front Roll Hoop

Page | 14


maximum deflection that occurs when a force: Fx = 6.0 kN, Fy=5.0 kN, Fz=-9.0 kN is applied is 5.22231 mm. Which

again means that the frame has passed this parameter.

Side Impact

Reaction Forces


Entire Model N 0 0 7000 7000

Name Type Min Max


Figure 27 Frame - Displacement - Side impact

As it can be seen from the Fig. (27) the deflection in the frame does not pass the maximum allowable deflection of

25mm the maximum deflection that occurs when a force: Fx = 0 kN, Fy=7 kN, Fz=0 kN is applied is 18.9678 mm.

Which again means that the frame has passed this parameter.

Front Bulk Head

Reaction Forces


Entire Model N -96026.4 0.170654 -0.050293 96026.4

Name Type Min Max


Figure 28 Frame - Displacement – Front Bulkhead

Page | 15


maximum deflection that occurs when a force: Fx = 120 kN, Fy=0 kN, Fz 0 kN is applied is 5.91989 mm. This means

that the frame has passed this parameter.

Conclusion

It should be noted that all A4 and A3 orthographic drawings are at the end of the report, for this section the drawing

include are;

1. The frame with the templates that are required to fit in the frame as part of the FS rules.

2. The frame with the templates of a person known as Percy that is required to fit in the frame as part of the FS rules.

3. The frame with the suspension and engine mounted.

4. An A3 drawing of the frame with the cut list.

5. An A3 fully dimensioned orthographic drawing of frame.

To conclude the space frame that has been designed is very strong, durable and of a reasonable weight. The chassis

has also the criteria set by the rules in terms of the FEA analysis. One major advantages of this frame is that this

chassis would be fairly easy to repair any problem caused by small crashes or if any small adjustment need to be

make on the day of the competition.

Bodywork

Design ideas

The following designs were some of the ideas that I came up when designing the space frame. These designs where

hand drawn.

1 Design 1 – This design is very light and simple however because of the simplicity the bodywork is not very

aerodynamic. The design would be easy to remove in different parts.

Figure 29 Bodywork design 1

2 Design 2 – This design is very aerodynamic but quite large. the size of the bodywork means that it does not fit

into the requirement in the FS rules.


Page | 16

3 Design 3 - This design is very streamline which will help reduce air resistance as the car is moving. The

bodywork also complies with all the FS rule.


4 Design 4 –Another simple Design.


Chosen ideas


1 Ease of Manufacture – How easily it is to manufacture the shell.

2 Ease of Assembly – How easily the shell can be removed and put back onto the frame.

3 Ergonomics & Aerodynamics – This is a factor as the car needs to be comfortable to drive. The more

streamline the car the less drag is created and the faster the car will accelerate, not to mention that the

appearance of the car is part of the judging (marking scheme).


5 Engine mounting position- Needs to be room for engine.

6 Suspension geometry – Able to fix give dimensions


Page | 17


Ease of Manufacture 1 3 4 2

Ease of Assembly 4 3 1 2

Ergonomics 4 2 1 2

Compliance with FS Rules 2 3 1 4

Engine Mounting 4 3 2 1

Suspension Geometry 2 4 1 3

Total 17 18 10 14

Table 4 Design Criteria

The chosen design is design number 3.


Body panels and assembly methods

Fig. (34) shows how the front of the car is split into two separate panels. The black line shows this. Fig. (35) shows

how the different body panels where held together, using Dzus clips

Figure 34 how body panels are Split Figure 35 Dzus Clip

Page | 18

Attenuator size

The attenuator must be directly before the bulkhead. There is a minimum size that the attenuator must be 200mm

long, 100mm high and 200mm wide. Fig. (36) shows how the minimum attenuator looks.

Figure 36 Minimum Attenuator Size

Wheel clearance

As this competition is open wheel the vehicle must pass the open wheel criteria. The criteria is a following:

1. “The top 180 degrees of the wheels/tires must be unobstructed when viewed from vertically above the wheel.

2. The wheels/tires must be unobstructed when viewed from the side.

3. No part of the vehicle may enter a keep-out-zone defined by two lines extending vertically from positions 75mm in

front of and 75mm behind, the outer diameter of the front and rear tires in the side view elevation of the vehicle, with

tires steered straight ahead. This keep out zone will extend laterally from the outside plane of the wheel/tire to the

inboard plane of the wheel/tire.

4. Must also comply with the dimensions/requirements of Article 9 Aerodynamic devices” [ 2015 Formula SAE® Rules]

The rules for open wheel basically means from the Fig. (37) below no part of the bodywork is allowed in the green

sections

Figure 37 Open wheel

manufacturing processes

the manufacturing process that would be best for the shell would be vacuum forming. Vacuum forming is

accomplished through heating Acrylic or Polyethylene to a specific temperature that allows it to conform to the shape

you require. Forming your plastics around a mould will give you the perfect fit every time. Vacuum forming would be

the ideal manufacturing process this is because once the mould is made and the machine is bought it is very easy to

make multiple shells in case there are any crashes that result in damaged bodywork. The use of vacuum forming

would reduce the weight as the thickness of the bodywork is very thin and lightweight. Fig. (38) shows how the

vacuum forming process is accomplished.

Page | 19

Figure 38 Vacuum Forming

FEA Analysis

External Flow Analyses

Below is a side view and front view to show the pressure points in the external flow analyses. As it can be seen the

pressure is very similar around the whole shell.

Figure 39 Flow Analyses - Front View

Page | 20

Figure 40 Flow Analyses - Side View

Surface pressure plot

Figure 41 Surface Pressure Plot

As it can be seen in the Fig. (41) most of the surface of the shell is the same colour meaning it is at the same pressure

but there are a few different colored patches the darker blue meaning it is under a lower pressure concentration in

those places where as the green patches are under a higher-pressure concentration.

Page | 21

Pressure flow Trajectories

Figure 42 Pressure Flow Trajectories

As it can be seen from the Fig. (42) the pressure flow around the shell is uniform with small areas under a higher-

pressure concentration.

Velocity f low Trajectories

Figure 43 Velocity Flow Trajectories

As it can be seen from the Fig. (43) the velocity flow around the shell is uniform with areas under a high velocity

concentration and other areas under a lower velocity concentration.

Page | 22

Flow Simulation

Below is a summary of the values recorded while doing the flow simulation

Analysis interval: 21 Iterations [ ]: 63

In Fig. (44) is a graph that is plotting the lift created as the iterations increased. As it can be seen the lift does not go

below -0.4 or above +0.4 which shows the lift is resonalbly small. Also in Fig. (45) is a graph that is plotting the drag

created as the iterations increased. As it can be seen the drag starts quite high but as the iterations increase the drag

decreases.

Goal

Name

Unit Value Averaged

Value

Minimum

Value

Maximum

Value

Progress

[%]

Use in

Convergence

Delta Criteria

Drag mile/h -51.340 -51.438 -51.675 -51.340 100 Yes 0.335 0.372

Lift mile/h 0.375 0.364 0.356 0.375 100 Yes 0.018 0.106

Table 2 Flow Simulation Table

Figure 44 The Lift that is caused as the velocity

Figure 45 The Lift that is caused as the velocity

Page | 23

Conclusion


include are;

1. The bodywork with the clips and showing how body panels go together.

2. An A3 fully dimensioned orthographic drawing of the bodywork showing compliance with FS rules.

To conclude the Bodywork that has been designed is very streamline, creates a reasonable amount of drag and lift.

The bodywork has also met all the criteria set. One major advantages of this bodywork is that the engine is covered

which helps with the aerodynamics of the vehicle. The appearance of the vehicle also looks well which will help for

judging as it is one important aspect looked at.

Monocoque

Design ideas

The following designs were some of the ideas that I came up when designing the monocoque. The thickness of the

design is not taken into account when choosing the design. These designs where drawn in Solidworks.

1 Design 1 – This design is very simply. There I a lot of space that could be saved if the chassis was adjusted.

Figure 46 Monocoque design 1

2 Design 2 – This design is quite large and does not meet all design criteria.


Page | 24

3 Design 3 – Very small design.


4 Design 4 – Simple design that meets all design criteria.


Chosen ideas


1 Structural Integrity – Meaning that the monocoque is sturdy and can withstand a reasonable impact so that

the driver will be safe if hit from the side or if the car rolls, must also be able to stand up against the frame.

2 Ergonomics & Aerodynamics – This is a factor as the car needs to be comfortable to drive. The more strip line

the Car the less drag is created and the faster the car will accelerate, not to mention that the appearance of

the car is part of the judging (marking scheme).


4 Engine mounting position - There needs to be room for engine to fit in the rear of the chassis.

5 Templates – All three of the templates need to be able to fit into the chassis.

Page | 25

6 Suspension geometry – The cassis must be able to fit in the give dimensions so that the suspension will fit on

the chassis.



Structural Integrity 4 2 3 1

Ergonomics 4 3 2 1

Compliance with FS rules 2 4 1 3

Engine mounting 1 3 4 2

templates 4 2 3 1

Suspension geometry 2 4 3 1

Total 17 18 16 9

Table 3 Design Criteria

The Chosen Design is Design 4.

Figure 50 Monocoque Design 4

Templates

As with the spaceframe a part of the criteria of the monocoque the same three templates that must fit within the

chassis in order for the monocoque to be considered fit to drive.

Page | 26

Connecting monocoque to the main and front roll hoops

In Fig. (51) is the inserts used to connect the monocoque to the rear frame and any other attachments need such as

suspension as it cannot be welded onto the monocoque.

Figure 51 Inserts

Fig. (52), Fig. (53) shows how and where the inserts are used to connect the monocoque to the rear frame.

Figure 52 Rear frame connecting to monocoque rear view

Figure 53 Rear frame connecting to monocoque

Page | 27

Fig. (54) shows how and where the inserts are used to connect the monocoque to the front roll hope.

Figure 54 Monocoque connecting to front roll hoop

Engine Mount Design

The chosen design can be seen in Fig. (55) and Fig. (56) as it can be seen the engine sits perfectly in the space

provided for it. Fig. (55) shows the engine mounts with the engine in place whereas Fig. (56) shows the engine

mounts without the engine in.

Figure 55 engine mounts with the engine in place Figure 56 engine mounts

Page | 28

Suspension

The chosen design can be seen in Fig. (57) and Fig. (58) as it can be seen the suspension sits perfectly in the space

provided for it. Fig. (57) shows the frame with the suspension in place in the rear of the monocoque whereas Fig. (58)

shows the suspension in the front of the monocoque.

Figure 57 suspension in place in the rear Figure 58 suspension in place in the front

Tests on monocoque

Some of the test that should be conducted on the honeycomb to ensure that the monocoques is safe in the case of a

crash; Joint tests, fold tests, insert tests

Structural integrity Calculation

B= inner skin – 0.1mm

D= Outer skin – 0.1mm

C= Honeycomb core – 15.8mm

A= overall thickness – 16mm

A=B+C+D

D

Figure 59 Honeycomb Structure

Page | 29

Front bulkhead-pipes

OD = Outer Diameter = 25mm, ID = Inner Diameter = 21.5 Youngs Modulas for Steel E = 200000N

mm2

Moment of Inerita of 1 tube Itube =π

64(OD4 − ID4)=

π

64(254 − 21.54)= 8686mm4 for Itube

Structural integrity of 6 tubes = 6EItube = 6×200 000×8686 = 10.423×109 Nmm2

Front bulkhead-panels

Youngs Modulas for Aluminium E = 70300N

mm2

Moment of Inerita I =[(h + b)(A3 − (A − (B + D))

3]

12=

[(409.98 + 409.99

4)(163 − (0.1 + 0.1))

3]

12= 69962.9567mm4

Flexural rigidity of whole bulkhead = 4EI = 4×70300×69962.9567 = 19.67×109Nmm2

Side Impact-pipes

OD = Outer Diameter = 25mm, ID = Inner Diameter = 21.5 Youngs Modulas for Steel E = 200000N

mm2

Moment of Inerita of 1 tube Itube =π

64(OD4 − ID4)=

π

64(254 − 21.54)= 8686mm4 for Itube

Structural integrity of 6 tubes = 3EItube = 3×200 000×8686 = 5.2116×109 Nmm2

Side Impact-panels

Youngs Modulas for Aluminium E = 70300N

mm2

Moment of Inerita I =[(h)(A3 − (A − (B + D))

3]

12=

[(333.45)(163 − (0.1 + 0.1))3

]

12= 113817.38mm4

Flexural rigidity of whole bulkhead = 4EI = 4×70300×113817.38 = 32×109Nmm2

Conclusion


include are;

1. The Monocoque with the templates that are required to fit in the chassis as part of the FS rules.

2. The Monocoque with the templates of a person known as Percy that is required to fit in the chassis as part of the

FS rules.

3. The Monocoque with the suspension and engine mounted.

4. An A3 fully dimensioned orthographic drawing of monocoque.

To conclude the monocoque that has been designed is very strong, durable and of a reasonable weight. The chassis

has also the criteria set by the rules in terms of the FEA analysis.

Page | 30

Comparing spaceframe vs monocoque Front bulkhead-pipes vs panels

Structural integrity of pipes = 10.423×109 Nmm2

Structural integrity of panels = 19.67×109Nmm2

As it can be seen from the results above a monocoque is almost twice as stronger s the spaceframe. Therefore, the

monocoque is a better choice.

Side Impact-pipes vs panels

Structural integrity of pipes = 5.2116×109 Nmm2

Structural integrity of panels = 32×109Nmm2

As it can be seen from the results above a monocoque is over 100 times as stronger than a spaceframe. Therefore,

the monocoque is a better choice.

The monocoque is a stronger option. It is quite expensive to make a monocoque in terms of time and money. The

spaceframe however is cheaper easier to make and will take less time to make and as said before the spaceframe is

a lot easier to repair.

Structural Integrity

Main Roll Hoop – Pipes

Table 4 Main Roll Hoop – Pipes

Material Property Baseline Your Tube

Material type Steel Steel

Tube shape Round Round

Material name /grade Steel Steel

Youngs Modulus, E 2.00E+11 2.00E+11

Yield strength, Pa 3.05E+08 3.05E+08

UTS, Pa 3.65E+08 3.65E+08

Yield strength, welded, Pa 1.80E+08 1.80E+08

UTS welded, Pa 3.00E+08 3.00E+08

Tube OD, mm 25 25

Wall, mm 2.5 2.5

Baseline Your Tube

OD, m 0.025 0.025

Wall, m 0.0025 0.0025

I, m^4 1.1322E-08 1.13222E-08

EI 2.26E+03 2.26E+03 100.0

Area, mm^2 176.7 176.7 100.0

Yield tensile strength, N 5.39E+04 5.39E+04 100.0

UTS, N 6.45E+04 6.45E+04 100.0

Yield tensile strength, N as welded 3.18E+04 3.18E+04 100.0

UTS, N as welded 5.30E+04 5.30E+04 100.0

Max load at mid span to give UTS for 1m long tube, N 1.32E+03 1.32E+03 100.0

Max deflection at baseline load for 1m long tube, m 1.22E-02 1.22E-02 100.0

Energy absorbed up to UTS, J 8.04E+00 8.04E+00 100.0

Page | 31

Front Roll Hoop - Pipes

Table 5 Front Roll Hoop - Pipes

Main Roll Hoop Bracing - Pipes

Material Property Baseline Your Tube Material type Steel Steel Tube shape Round Round Material name /grade Steel Steel Youngs Modulus, E 2.00E+11 2.00E+11 Yield strength, Pa 3.05E+08 3.05E+08 UTS, Pa 3.65E+08 3.65E+08 Yield strength, welded, Pa 1.80E+08 1.80E+08 UTS welded, Pa 3.00E+08 3.00E+08 Tube OD, mm 25 25 Wall, mm 1.75 2 Baseline Your Tube OD, m 0.025 0.025 Wall, m 0.00175 0.002 I, m^4 8.69E-09 9.63E-09 EI 1.74E+03 1.93E+03 110.8

Area, mm^2 127.8 144.5 113.1


UTS, N 4.67E+04 5.27E+04 113.1


UTS, N as welded 3.83E+04 4.34E+04 113.1




Table 6 Main Roll Hoop Bracing - Pipes

Material Property Baseline Your Tube

Material type Steel Steel

Tube shape Round Round

Material name /grade Steel Steel

Youngs Modulus, E 2.00E+11 2.00E+11

Yield strength, Pa 3.05E+08 3.05E+08

UTS, Pa 3.65E+08 3.65E+08

Yield strength, welded, Pa 1.80E+08 1.80E+08

UTS welded, Pa 3.00E+08 3.00E+08

Tube OD, mm 25 25

Wall, mm 2.5 2.5

Baseline Your Tube

OD, m 0.025 0.025

Wall, m 0.0025 0.0025

I, m^4 1.1322E-08 1.13222E-08

EI 2.26E+03 2.26E+03 100.0

Area, mm^2 176.7 176.7 100.0


UTS, N 6.45E+04 6.45E+04 100.0


UTS, N as welded 5.30E+04 5.30E+04 100.0




Page | 32

Front Bulkhead - Monocoques

Table 7 Front Bulkhead - Monocoque

Front Bulkhead Support - Monocoques

Table 8 Front Bulkhead Support - Monocoque

Material Property Baseline Your Tube Your Composite Your Total Monocoque Bulkhead Dimensions BH FBHSMaterial type Steel Steel Composite 1 b (m) 0.05499 0.0001 b3 (m)

Tubing Type Round Round NA h1 (m) 0.0001 0.0001 b4 (m)

Material name /grade Steel Steel T3.31_Laminate h2 (m) 0.0001 0.0254 h (m)

Youngs Modulus, E 2.00E+11 2.00E+11 #REF! A1 (m^2) 5.50E-06 I1 (m^4) 4.58E-15

Yield strength, Pa 3.05E+08 3.05E+08 #REF! A2 (m^2) 5.50E-06 I2 (m^4) 4.58E-15

UTS, Pa 3.65E+08 3.65E+08 #REF! A3 (m^2) 2.54E-06 I3 (m^4) 1.37E-10

Yield strength, welded, Pa 1.80E+08 1.80E+08 N/A Cutout Width A4 (m^2) 2.54E-06 I4 (m^4) 1.37E-10

UTS welded, Pa 3.00E+08 3.00E+08 N/A x1 (m) 0.00005 Ic1 (m^4) 1.15E-09

UTS shear, Pa 2.19E+08 #REF! x2 (m) 0.01595 Ic2 (m^4) 1.09E-11

Number of tubes 2 4 x3 (m) 0.0287 Ic3 (m^4) 6.46E-10

Tube OD, mm 25.4 25 Bulkhead Width, mm x4 (m) 0.0287 Ic4 (m^4) 6.46E-10

Wall, mm 1.6 2 Bulkhead Height, mm Centroid (m) 0.0145

Cutout Width, mm Ic12 (m^4) 1.17E-09

Thickness of panel, mm 16 Cutout Height, mm Ic34 (m^4) 1.29E-09

Thickness of core, mm 15.8 E34 #REF!

Thickness of inner skin, mm 0.1

Thickness of outer skin, mm 0.1

Panel height,mm 109.98

OD, m 0.0254 0.025

Wall, m 0.0016 0.002

I, m^4 8.51E-09 9.63E-09 Tubing Only 9.63E-09

EI 3.40E+03 7.70E+03 7.70E+03 226.3

Area, mm^2 239.3 578.1 578.1 241.6

Yield tensile strength, N 7.30E+04 1.76E+05 1.76E+05 241.6

UTS, N 8.73E+04 2.11E+05 2.11E+05 241.6

Yield tensile strength, N as welded 4.31E+04 1.04E+05 1.04E+05 241.6

UTS, N as welded 7.18E+04 1.73E+05 1.73E+05 241.6

Max load at mid span to give UTS for 1m long tube, N 1.96E+03 4.50E+03 4.50E+03 229.9

Max deflection at baseline load for 1m long tube, m 1.20E-02 5.29E-03 5.29E-03 44.2

Energy absorbed up to UTS, J 1.17E+01 2.74E+01 2.74E+01 233.6

Perimeter shear, N (monocoques only) 5.39E+05 N/A N/A NA

Enter construction type Tubing only

Cuto

ut H

eig

ht

Bulkhead Width

Bulk

head H

eig

ht

409.99

300

300

409.98

Material Property Baseline

Your Tube

type 1

Your Tube

type 2

Your Tube

type 3

Your Tubes

Total

Your

Composite Your Total Outer Inner

Material type Steel Steel Steel Steel Composite 1 b (m) 0.3 0.3

Tubing Type Round Round Round Round NA h (m) 0.0001 0.0001

Material name /grade Steel Steel Steel Steel T3.31_Laminate

Youngs Modulus, E 2.00E+11 2.00E+11 2.00E+11 2.00E+11 #REF! A1 (m^2) 3.00E-05 I1 (m^4) 2.50E-14

Yield strength, Pa 3.05E+08 3.05E+08 3.05E+08 3.05E+08 #REF! A2 (m^2) 3.00E-05 I2 (m^4) 2.50E-14

UTS, Pa 3.65E+08 3.65E+08 3.65E+08 3.65E+08 #REF! x1 (m) 0.00005 Ic1 (m^4) 1.90E-09

Yield strength, welded, Pa 1.80E+08 1.80E+08 1.80E+08 1.80E+08 N/A x2 (m) 0.01595 Ic2 (m^4) 1.90E-09

UTS welded, Pa 3.00E+08 3.00E+08 3.00E+08 3.00E+08 N/A Centroid (m) 0.0080 Ic12 (m^4) 3.79E-09

Number of tubes 3 4 0 0

Tube OD, mm 25.4 24 25.4 25.4

Wall, mm 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.2

Baseline design? NO

Thickness of panel, mm NO N/A N/A 16

Thickness of core, mm 15.8



Panel height,mm 300

OD, m 0.0254 0.024 No tubes No tubes

Wall, m 0.0012 0.0015

I, m^4 6.70E-09 6.74E-09 6.74E-09 Tubing Only 6.74E-09

EI 4.02E+03 5.39E+03 5.39E+03 5.39E+03 134.2

Area, mm^2 273.7 424.1 424.1 424.1 155.0

Yield tensile strength, N 8.35E+04 1.29E+05 1.29E+05 1.29E+05 155.0

UTS, N 9.99E+04 1.55E+05 1.55E+05 1.55E+05 155.0

Yield tensile strength, N as welded 4.93E+04 7.63E+04 7.63E+04 7.63E+04 155.0

UTS, N as welded 8.21E+04 1.27E+05 1.27E+05 1.27E+05 155.0

Max load at mid span to give UTS for 1m long tube, N 2.31E+03 3.28E+03 3.28E+03 3.28E+03 142.0

Max deflection at baseline load for 1m long tube, m 1.20E-02 8.92E-03 8.92E-03 8.92E-03 74.5

Energy absorbed up to UTS, J 1.38E+01 2.08E+01 2.08E+01 2.08E+01 150.3


Page | 33

Side Impact Structure - Monocoques

Table 9 Side Impact Structure - Monocoque

Main Hoop Bracing Support – Monocoques

Table 10 Main Hoop Bracing Support – Monocoque

Material Property Baseline

Your Tube

type 1

Your Tube

type 2

Your Tube

type 3

Your Tubes

Total

Composite Side

(Vertical)

Composite Floor

(Horizontal) Your Total Side Outer Inner

Material type Steel Steel Steel Steel Composite 1 Composite 1 b (m) 0.3 0.3

Tubing Type Round Round Square Round NA NA h (m) 0.0001 0.0001

Material name /grade Steel Steel Steel Steel T3.31_Laminate T3.31_Laminate

Youngs Modulus, E 2.00E+11 2.00E+11 2.00E+11 2.00E+11 #REF! #REF! A1 (m^2) 3.00E-05 I1 (m^4) 2.50E-14

Yield strength, Pa 3.05E+08 3.05E+08 3.05E+08 3.05E+08 #REF! #REF! A2 (m^2) 3.00E-05 I2 (m^4) 2.50E-14

UTS, Pa 3.65E+08 3.65E+08 3.65E+08 3.65E+08 #REF! #REF! x1 (m) 0.00005 Ic1 (m^4) 1.94E-09

Yield strength, welded, Pa 1.80E+08 1.80E+08 1.80E+08 1.80E+08 N/A N/A x2 (m) 0.01615 Ic2 (m^4) 1.94E-09

UTS welded, Pa 3.00E+08 3.00E+08 3.00E+08 3.00E+08 N/A N/A Centroid (m) 0.0081 Ic12 (m^4) 3.89E-09

Number of tubes 3 4 0 0 Floor Outer Inner

Tube OD, mm 25.4 25 25.4 25.4 b (m) 0.0001 0.0001

Wall, mm 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 h (m) 0.2 0.2

Baseline design? YES

Thickness of panel, mm YES N/A N/A 16.2 16.2 A1 (m^2) 2.00E-05 I1 (m^4) 1.67E-14

Thickness of core, mm 16 16 A2 (m^2) 2.00E-05 I2 (m^4) 1.67E-14

Thickness of inner skin, mm 0.1 0.1 y1 (m) 0.00005 Ic1 (m^4) 1.30E-09

Thickness of outer skin, mm 0.1 0.1 y2 (m) 0.01615 Ic2 (m^4) 1.30E-09

Panel height (Vertical Side)/width (Horiz. Floor),mm 300 200 Centroid (m) 0.0081 Ic12 (m^4) 2.59E-09

OD, m 0.0254 0.025 No tubes No tubes

Wall, m 0.0016 0.0018

I, m^4 8.51E-09 8.88E-09 8.88E-09 Tubing Only Tubing Only 8.88E-09

EI 5.11E+03 7.10E+03 7.10E+03 7.10E+03 139.1

Area, mm^2 358.9 524.8 524.8 5.25E+02 146.2

Yield tensile strength, N 1.09E+05 1.60E+05 1.60E+05 1.60E+05 146.2

UTS, N 1.31E+05 1.92E+05 1.92E+05 1.92E+05 146.2

Yield tensile strength, N as welded 6.46E+04 9.45E+04 9.45E+04 9.45E+04 146.2

UTS, N as welded 1.08E+05 1.57E+05 1.57E+05 1.57E+05 146.2

Max load at mid span to give UTS for 1m long tube, N 2.93E+03 4.15E+03 4.15E+03 4.15E+03 141.4


Energy absorbed up to UTS, J 1.76E+01 2.52E+01 2.52E+01 2.52E+01 143.6


Material Property Baseline Your Tube Your Composite Your Total Outer Inner

Material type Steel Steel Composite 1 b (m) 0.25 0.25

Tubing Type Round Round NA h (m) 0.0003 0.0005

Material name /grade Steel Steel T3.31_Laminate

Youngs Modulus, E 2.00E+11 2.00E+11 #REF! A1 (m^2) 7.50E-05 I1 (m^4) 5.63E-13

Yield strength, Pa 3.05E+08 3.05E+08 #REF! A2 (m^2) 1.25E-04 I2 (m^4) 2.60E-12

UTS, Pa 3.65E+08 3.65E+08 #REF! x1 (m) 0.00015 Ic1 (m^4) 6.95E-09

Yield strength, welded, Pa 1.80E+08 1.80E+08 N/A x2 (m) 0.01555 Ic2 (m^4) 4.17E-09

UTS welded, Pa 3.00E+08 3.00E+08 N/A Centroid (m) 0.0098 Ic12 (m^4) 1.11E-08

Number of tubes 2 2

Tube OD, mm 25.4 25

Wall, mm 1.20 1.5

Thickness of panel, mm 15.8

Thickness of core, mm 15



Panel height,mm 250

OD, m 0.0254 0.025

Wall, m 0.0012 0.0015

I, m^4 6.70E-09 7.68E-09 Tubing Only 7.68E-09

EI 2.68E+03 3.07E+03 3.07E+03 114.6

Area, mm^2 182.5 221.5 221.5 121.4

Yield tensile strength, N 5.57E+04 6.76E+04 6.76E+04 121.4

UTS, N 6.66E+04 8.08E+04 8.08E+04 121.4

Yield tensile strength, N as welded 3.28E+04 3.99E+04 3.99E+04 121.4

UTS, N as welded 5.47E+04 6.64E+04 6.64E+04 121.4

Max load at mid span to give UTS for 1m long tube, N 1.54E+03 1.79E+03 1.79E+03 116.5


Energy absorbed up to UTS, J 9.22E+00 1.09E+01 1.09E+01 118.3


Page | 34

Main Hoop Attachment - Monocoques

Table 11 Main Hoop Attachment - Monocoque

Front Hoop Attachment - Monocoques

Table 12 Front Hoop Attachment - Monocoque

Hoop Bracing Attach - Monocoques

No. of attachment points per side 2

Attachment 1 Attachment 2

Attachment Status

Fastener dia., mm 10 PASS 10 PASS

No. of fasteners 2 PASS 2 PASS

Bracket to hoop weld length, mm 80 PASS 80 PASS

Bracket thickness, mm 2 PASS 2 PASS

Bracket perimeter, mm 220 220

Skin thickness, mm 0 0

Insert Perimeter, mm 47 47


Backing plate thickness, mm 2 PASS 2 PASS

Backing plate perimeter, mm 0 0

Skin shear strength, MPa #REF! #REF!

Perimeter shear strength, kN #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!


#REF! #REF!

No. of attachment points per side 2

Front hoop material Steel

Side Impact or Frt B'Head S'port SIS

Attachment 1 Attachment 2

Attachment Status

Fastener dia., mm 10 PASS 10 PASS


Bracket to hoop weld length, mm 80 PASS 80 PASS











#REF! #REF!

Page | 35

Table 13 Hoop Bracing Attach - Monocoque

Conclusion

From the research done and the funds available for competing in a FS competition I believe that the monocoque is the

better choice. However, in order to take advantage of the serious advantage that monocoques there is a lot more

work, money and time needed to make it and the best monocoque are made of carbon-fibre and Kevlar whereas the

monocoques made in the formula student completion tend to be aluminium which is not as good, so the weight and

strength gained is significantly reduce. Even with this reduction it can be concluded that a monocoque chassis is still

the better option.

Front Hoop Brace to Monocoque? NO

Front Hoop Brace Material? Steel

Main Hoop Brace to Monocoque? NO

Side Impact or Frt B'Head S'port SIS

Front Hoop Main Hoop

Attachment Status

Fastener dia., mm 10.0 PASS 10.0 PASS


Bracket to brace weld length, mm 80 PASS 80 PASS











N/A N/A

Page | 36

Bibliography

[Monocoque] http://www.whyhighend.com/monocoque-vs-ladder-chassis.html

[carbon fiber] http://www.pitt.edu/~awd16/ConferencePaper.pdf

[Spaceframe] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-unibody-monocoque-and-space-frame-in-cars

[SFsMono] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-space-frame-and-body-on-frame-car-designs

[Evolution] http://www.f1scarlet.com/evolution_f1car.html

[History] http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/heritage/cars/

[F1] http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/g4457/photos-evolution-of-f1-cars/?

[vacuum Forming] http://www.technologystudent.com/equip1/vacform1.htm

[2015 Formula SAE® Rules] 2015 Formula SAE® Rules part 2 ARTICLE 2: GENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

T2.1 Vehicle Configuration Page 24

A A

B B

C C

D D

E E

F F

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

Jessica

DWG NO.

SCALE:1:50 SHEET 1 OF 1

A4Frame with TemplatesSOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

R150

R100

R100

816.13

292.26

31.

88

A A

B B

C C

D D

E E

F F

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

Q.A

TITLE:

DWG NO.


A4Frame

Percy Template

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

A A

B B

C C

D D

E E

F F

8

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

Jessica

DWG NO.


A3Frame And AttachmentsSOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

217.11 200 695.06 243.39

1395.06

254.34 153.68 184.09 487.21 700

515.26 255.57

209

.27

670.78 280.46

271

.30

436

.40

238

.19

246

.61

650

365

.63

407

.33

351

.12

353

.16

397

.39

681.42 355.05

142.82°

239.41° 247.65°

131.46°

274

.36

578

.15 6

57.1

4

R88.35

R160.65

0

512.30

251

.18

251.18

A A

B B

C C

D D

E E

F F

8

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

Jessica

DWG NO.


A3Frame2.0SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

12 32 23 24 31 6 30 64 28 9 8 29 74 81 ? 82 53 65 56 51

54

52

80

79

75

76

78

77

60

11

10

50

59

66

?

7

45

57

16

11749313385846721544626719477321486114

22

20

18

37

36

34

70

39

5

43

68

69

42

41

4

33

26

2

25

ITEM NO. QTY. DESCRIPTION LENGTH

1 2 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 126.652 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 235.623 3 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 273.824 6 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 93.685 4 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 268.826 2 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 312.37 2 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 512.38 2 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 667.589 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 167.55

10 2 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 90.6511 2 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 316.812 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 20013 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 512.6614 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 266.5515 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 376.5116 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 513.6217 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 382.518 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 197.8919 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 353.1620 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 21.0621 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 236.7422 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 237.823 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 360.5624 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 215.4125 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 519.3626 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 315.4527 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 262.2828 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 233.6629 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 796.3330 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 261.4131 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 180.2832 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 179.0733 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 576.9734 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 240.235 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 113.0936 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 162.6337 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 704.5738 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 521.5839 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 259.4740 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 699.3141 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 715.9542 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 715.9543 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 699.3144 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 525.7845 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 521.9746 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 221.8347 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 162.5448 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 704.9249 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 577.0650 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 358.7951 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 233.4552 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 262.2753 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 815.154 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 262.4355 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 215.4156 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 518.6557 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 315.5858 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 302.1159 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 180.2860 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 179.3561 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 258.562 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 242.3963 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 113.6664 2 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 212.8965 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 251.4566 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 194.7767 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 208.5468 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 322.8769 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 239.0670 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 525.3471 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 0.4172 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 253.8673 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 127.274 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 239.375 2 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 230.8376 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 271.377 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 238.5178 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 25079 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 184.7580 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 471.6481 2 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 184.7582 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 203.2

A A

B B

C C

D D

E E

F F

8

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

Jessica

DWG NO.


A3Frame CutlistSOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

A A

B B

C C

D D

E E

F F

8

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

Jessica

DWG NO.


A3Frame AssemblySOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

699.21 397.98 200 499.95

141

.55

143

.42

200

.78

272

.43

R10.65

774

.07

699.55

447

.05

271

.30

246

.61

392.42

237.25

509.05

700.16

543

.03

200

529 356.23

807

.63

R90.65

135°

663

.56

665.50

135°

260

260

60

A A

B B

C C

D D

E E

F F

8

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

Jessica

DWG NO.


A3MonocoqueSOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

936.22 969.51

968.11 1

131.

18

604

.01

A A

B B

C C

D D

E E

F F

8

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

TITLE:


A3

WEIGHT:

Full FrameSOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

A A

B B

C C

D D

E E

F F

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

DWG NO.


A4Jessica

Monocoque with TeplatesSOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

A A

B B

C C

D D

E E

F F

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

DWG NO.


A4Jessica

Monocoque with PercySOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

A A

B B

C C

D D

E E

F F

8

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

Jessica

DWG NO.


A3Monocoque AssemblySOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

3rd year formula student frame project report

Documents