Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
with a focus on Sports Car Structures and a detailed study of the Westfield Sports Car Spaceframe Chassis
SUMMARY
The purpose of a vehicle chassis, the different type of vehicle structures and the analysis of vehicle structures is discussed by way of introduction to a detailed investigation of a Westfield Sports Car space frame chassis. The bending and torsional stiffness of a spaceframe chassis was tested in the laboratory and was modelled using finite element analysis software. Laboratory testing was carried out to establish the validity of the finite element model. The model was then used to investigate methods of improving the torsional stiffness of the chassis without altering the layout of the car. A number of recommendations were made to improve the torsional stiffness of the chassis with some simple modifications.
Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................................4 List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................................6 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................8 1.1 Outline of Project .........................................................................................................................8 2 Background ..................................................................................................................................................9 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................9 2.2 Purpose of the Chassis .................................................................................................................9 2.3 Basics of Vehicle Structural Actions ............................................................................................10 2.4 Requirements of a Chassis ...........................................................................................................15 2.4.1 Strength Requirements ................................................................................................15 2.4.2 Chassis Stiffness Requirements ..................................................................................17 2.4.3 Determining Torsional Stiffness ................................................................................19 2.5 Relationship of Suspension and Chassis Stiffness .......................................................................20 2.6 Vehicle Structure Analysis ...........................................................................................................20 2.7 Development of the Structure of Sports and Racing Cars ..........................................................22 2.8 Background of Clubman Cars ......................................................................................................28 3 Analysis of the Westfield Sports Car ............................................................................................................30 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................30 3.2 Determination of Chassis Geometry ............................................................................................31 3.2 Chassis Bending Stiffness ............................................................................................................32 3.2.1 Laboratory Test Description and Procedure................................................................32 3.1.2 Theoretical Analysis Description ................................................................................34 3.3 Chassis Torsional Stiffness ..........................................................................................................36 3.3.1 Laboratory Test Description and Procedure................................................................36 3.3.2 Theoretical Analysis Description ................................................................................38 4 Results and Discussion .................................................................................................................................39 4.1 Bending Test and Bending Analysis ............................................................................................39 4.2 Torsional Test and Torsional Analysis..........................................................................................41 4.3 Torsional Stiffness - Chassis Variations .......................................................................................45 5 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................54 5.1 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................57 5.2 Further Study................................................................................................................................58 6 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................59 7 References ....................................................................................................................................................60 8 Appendices ...................................................................................................................................................61 Appendix A - Westfield Sports Car Data............................................................................................61 Appendix B - Westfield Sports Car Chassis Drawing........................................................................63 Appendix C - Computer Model Data File..........................................................................................64 Page 2
Appendix D - Laboratory Testing Observations ................................................................................76 Appendix E - Diagrams and Information for Chassis Modifications ................................................77 Appendix F - Components of the Westfield Sports Cars ...................................................................91 Appendix G - Calculations ................................................................................................................92
Page 3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 - Chassis Design Considerations ..........................................10 Figure 2.2 - Exploded View of Girder Chassis ......................................12 Figure 2.3 - Twin Tube Chassis of Triumph TR4 with Cross Bracing ..12 Figure 2.4 - Spaceframe Chassis ...........................................................13 Figure 2.5 - Multitubular Chassis ..........................................................13 Figure 2.6 - Torsion Box Stressed Skin Construction, Ford GT40........14 Figure 2.7 - Monocoque Stressed Skin Construction ............................14 Figure 2.8 - Composite Structure of Mass Produced Renault 16 ..........15 Figure 2.9 - 1966 McLaren Grand Prix Car..........................................20 Figure 2.10 - Lola T92/10 Rollbox Model ............................................24 Figure 2.11 - Live Axle, Swing Axle and Independent Suspension ......26 Figure 2.12 - Independent Suspension Attached to Vehicle Structure...27 Figure 2.13 - Lotus Mark Six ................................................................27 Figure 2.14 - Mercds-Benz 300SL .....................................................28 Figure 2.15 - Mercds-Benz W196 ......................................................28 Figure 2.16 - Structure of the Lotus 25 Grand Prix Car ........................29 Figure 2.17 - 1989 Ferrari Grand Prix Car (bodywork cut away) .........29 Figure 2.18 - 1988 McLaren MP4/4 GP Car, Bodywork Removed ......30 Figure 2.19 - Modern Cars with Space Frames .....................................31 Figure 2.20 - Monocoque Chassis Road Cars .......................................32 Figure 2.21 - Westfield Sports Car ........................................................33 Figure 2.22 - Ginnetta G2 ......................................................................33 Figure 2.23 - Lotus Seven Body ............................................................34 Figure 2.24 - Elfin Clubman Car ...........................................................35 Figure 3.1 - Layout of Chassis Survey ..................................................38 Figure 3.2 - Axes System ......................................................................39 Figure 3.3 - Chassis Bending Test .........................................................39 Figure 3.4 - PAFEC 34000 Beam Element ............................................41 Figure 3.5 - Standard Chassis Model Member Groups .........................42 Figure 3.6 - Chassis Bending Model .....................................................43 Figure 3.7 - Chassis Torsional Test ........................................................44 Figure 3.8 - Pattern of Loading for Torsional Test ................................45 Figure 3.9 - Chassis Torsional Test Model ............................................46 Figure 4.1 - Load Deflection Response of Chassis Bending .................47 Figure 4.2 - Shape of Chassis for Calculated Bending Test ..................49 Figure 4.3 Torsional Load Deflection Response....................................51 Page 4
Figure 4.4 - Scatter of Measured Torsional Stiffness ............................52 Figure 4.5 - Torsional Deflections Along Chassis .................................53 Figure 4.6 - Torsional Stiffness Plots of Changes to Member Sizes .....55 Figure 4.7 - Torsional Stiffness Plots of Engine Bay Changes ..............56 Figure 4.8 - Torsional Stiffness Plots for Chassis with Extra Bracing ..58 Figure 4.9 - Torsional Stiffness Plots of Centre Tunnel Changes ..........59 Figure 4.10 - Torsional Stiffness Plots for Changes Using Plates .........60 Figure 4.11 - Torsional Stiffness Plots for Other Changes ....................61
Page 5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 - Measured Peak Accelerations of Vehicles ...........................18 Table 2.2 - Chassis Torsional Stiffness ..................................................22 Table 4.1 - Standard Chassis Models ....................................................54 Table 4.2 - Category I, Changes to Member Sizes ................................55 Table 4.3 - Category II, Changes to the Engine Bay .............................56 Table 4.4 - Category III, Addition of Bracing Chassis Nose .................58 Table 4.5 - Category IV, Changes to the Centre Tunnel ........................59 Table 4.6 - Category V, Use of Plates ....................................................60 Table 4.7 - Category VI, Other Changes ...............................................61
Page 6
"You have to have passion to go deep inside, where you can then experience special feelings, very special moments which trigger some of the unique sensations, unique touch and feelings that give you something extra when you are right on the limit." Ayrton Senna, December 1991 The analysis of a vehicle structure takes the designer deep inside, looking for something extra to give the driver when he is right on the limit.
Page 7
1 INTRODUCTION
The motor car is an important part of our lives that most of us use every day. Usually considered as a mechanical product because of all the mechanisms attached to it, the car is also an important structure. The motor car is subject to such a variation of loads and a severe fatigue life. For efficiency and performance reasons the car must weigh as little as possible, thus the design and analysis of this structure is essential. The analysis of vehicle structures is also very important because the public who use cars will tolerate the occasional mechanical breakdown, but they expect never to have any problems with the structure of the vehicle regardless of the severity of conditions the vehicle has been subject through its life. The analysis of vehicle structures is an area where Civil Engineers, or more specifically Structural Engineers are well equipped to tackle. The analysis of vehicle structures was researched and a fairly broad overview provided. A detailed stiffness analysis of the Westfield Sports Car chassis was then carried out using a finite element computer model and validated with laboratory testing. Potential modifications to the chassis and their effect of vehicle stiffness using the computer model.
To establish computer models for stress and stiffness analysis of the chassis, various data was collected. The geometry of the chassis was measured using optical surveying techniques in the first instance and then using a tape measure. Around thirty of the major components of the Westfield Sports car were weighed, measured and drawn for use with a lumped mass finite element stress model. However the stress analysis did not proceed because laboratory stress measurements would not have been available to confirm any model results and the time available would not have allowed the use of a detailed stress model. A model for stiffness analysis was created and analysed for bending and torsion load cases. A number of variations to the standard Westfield Sports Car were also investigated. All models were created for and analysed using the PAFEC finite element software, running on an Apollo workstation at Curtin University of Technology. Some of the results of testing and analysis have been interesting, others were what was expected, but the overall result was learning a lot about vehicle structures and learning of the potential of computer analysis as a tool for the development of motor vehicle structures. The author has found this subject very interesting and hopes that this report conveys its information in a way that will pass on this interest to the reader.
Page 9
eliminate low frequency shaking, fatigue problems, door closure problems on uneven ground. suspension system and tyres is reached.
performance reasons adequate chassis stiffness ensures that the full road holding and handling potential of the
Page 10
Figure 2.2 - Exploded View of Girder Chassis The second type of beam structure is the twin tube or ladder chassis. This chassis has two large section hollow members joined by lateral or diagonal bracing or a combination of both which increases the torsional stiffness of the structure. The torsional stiffness of a twin tube chassis is far superior to a girder chassis of similar weight. A twin tube chassis with diagonal bracing is shown in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3 - Twin Tube Chassis of Triumph TR4 with Cross Bracing
Page 11
ii)
Framed Structures Loads are carried by either a partially or nearly fully braced frame system. Because of the complexity of loading and the number of components which must be accommodated within a car, a fully braced frame would be impractical and almost impossible. A vehicle with a frame as its main structure is called a spaceframe when the frame is well triangulated. It is called a multitubular chassis when the frame is only poorly braced and the loads are carried partly by the bending of the members and joints and partly by tension and compression in the members. multitubular chassis in Figure 2.5. A spaceframe chassis is shown in Figure 2.4 and a
Page 12
iii)
Stressed skin construction With stressed skin construction loads are carried by a series of thin walled panels. The panels are usually stabilised with stiffeners and reinforced locally in regions of high stress such as near suspension mountings. The panels are most commonly sheet steel or aluminium, moulded glass fibre composites, carbon fibre composites. Stressed skin construction can be categorised into two main forms. Firstly those chassis consisting of two closed boxed sections down either side of the car, essentially a very large diameter, twin tube chassis. Figure 2.6 illustrates this type of construction.
Secondly chassis which are like a closed top bath tub; a nearly closed single shell with apertures for driver and engine. This is illustrated in Figure 2.7 by the Lotus 25 structure.
These forms of chassis have both been called monocoque, unitary, bath tub, torsion box and stressed skin bodies. Torsion box probably best describes the former, while the latter fits the definition of a monocoque. Monocoque comes from French: mono- + coque, shell, from Latin.
Page 13
iv)
Compound structures Many vehicles employ a combination of these principal structural actions. Almost all modern
production cars are a composite structure of frame members such as the roof and door pillars and stressed skins such as the roof, floor and other panels in the engine bay and boot. Figure 2.8 illustrates with an exploded view of a Renault production car. Commercial vehicles such as buses and coaches often use a basic frame, very flexible on its own which is stiffened by the addition of exterior body panels. The structures of many light buses and four wheel drive wagons are similar in principal to this. Tray backed vehicles usually have two longitudinal beams along their length and a stressed skin cabin, often with a frame inside the skin. Some of the more limited volume production sports cars are composite structures with a braced frame, further stiffened and strengthened with stressed panels.
The loads in a beam structure are carried by flexure of the main beams, in a braced frame system loads are carried primarily by tension and compression in the members as in a truss. A partially braced frame carries load by bending moment and tension and compression in the members and with stressed skin construction, loads are carried by in plane stresses in the skin.
Page 14
Vehicle structure loadings are generally specified in terms of peak accelerations to which the vehicle is subject. This is independent of the weight of the vehicle thus allowing uniform comparison between loads on cars of different weight. The magnitude of peak accelerations to which a vehicle is subject and the use of these accelerations to determine the loads on a vehicle structure is described by Garrett (1953). He suggests that the worst combinations of loading which could affect a vehicle structure are represented by four design cases. These four load cases do not include any consideration for crash loading, a separate area of vehicle design which is not considered in this report. The four load cases are based on peak accelerations of 1g for forward acceleration or braking, 1g for lateral acceleration due to cornering and 3g for vertical acceleration. These accelerations should be multiplied by 1.5 as a safety factor in arriving at maximum loads for design. A safety factor of 1.5 which is relatively high for steel structures is used due to uncertainty as to the actual magnitude of the loads. The four loading cases which should be considered are: i) ii) iii) iv) Hitting a bump / kerbing while braking in a straight line. Cornering. Hitting a bump while accelerating straight ahead. Hitting a bump while cornering.
Costin and Phipps (1965) used a similar approach in an example of the design of a racing sports car chassis. The peak accelerations and the safety factor used in arriving at loads they used were identical to those suggested by Garrett. Other methods of analysing loads include determining serviceability loads from spring and damper actions and and analysis of the tyre / road interface. Vertical loading for normal operation would be through determining the relationship between compression of the spring damper unit and loading which is a combination of simple elastic deformation of the spring plus dynamic force from the damper unit, whereas strength or ultimate load cases are invariably outside of the normal spring and suspension movement range and may be more dependent on other factors including tyre, bump stop and bushing deformation. Analysing the tyre contact Page 15
patch and tyre deflection may provide an envelope of the longitudnal, lateral and vertical forces potentially transmitted from the road into the vehicle. With steady improvements in suspension design, tyre properties, aerodynamics and downforce, vehicle weight, torsional stiffness and engine outputs, the peak accelerations that a modern production car, sports car or racing car can generate has increased. Examples of the peak accelerations that can be generated by several different cars are given in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 - Measured Peak Accelerations of Vehicles Peak Accelerations, g Longitudinal Lateral . Wheels, October 1992 - Road and race Nissan GTR's Standard Nissan GTR Australian Group A Nissan GTR Wheels, May 1992 Ferrari 1992 Formula 1 Car Ferrari F40 Ferrari 348 Wheels, October 1991 - Australian Group A Racing Cars Holden Commodore Nissan GTR Motor, July 1991 - Tyre Testing Feature Nissan 300zx, Dunlop D40 M2 225/50 ZR16 Tyres Dry, low friction, smooth concrete track Wheels, May 1991 - Handling Test Tested with Valentine Research Inc. G-analyst BMW M5 Ferrari Mondial t348 Honda NSX Nissan GTR Porsche Carrera 4 L J K Setright1968 1953 Grand Prix Car 1965 Grand Prix Car N/A N/A 0.7 1.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.05 1.03 1.07 1.10 1.06 1.09 1.01 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.7 3.4 1.17 1.14 4.31 1.29 1.0 .87 1.22 1.17 1.46
Note that comparisons between these results will not be accurate as factors such as coefficient of friction of road, temperature, test circuit and driver are variables.
Page 16
Modern cars, in particular sports and racing cars commonly achieve higher peak accelerations than those given in references by Garrett (1953) and Costin and Phipps (1965). Consequently the loads on a modern car will be larger, however may be slightly offset by reduction of the safety factor due to: i) More accurate determination of loads using modern measuring equipment ii) Better understanding of the vehicle structure through computer structural analysis techniques iii) Better quality control of materials and manufacturing processes used in vehicle construction This project is concerned with chassis stiffness rather than strength. This discussion about vehicle loads is intended to provide background for vehicle strength. Strength analysis of vehicle structures requires further more detailed information of the loads that apply to a particular vehicle and a range of different load cases apply ranging from serviceability where fatigue stress is a primary consideration to impact loads where controlled failure and permanent plastic deformation occurs. Further discussion focuses on chassis stiffness which can be analysed independently of loads and stresses, thus detailed load cases are not further developed.
Page 17
To obtain good road holding and handling, the suspension geometry of a car is carefully designed and often refined to sub millimetre accuracy. For the suspension system to be most effective, the mounting points for the suspension on the chassis must be held rigidly in place by a stiff chassis. For this reason torsional stiffness is most important. Torsional stiffness is almost always more important than bending stiffness for performance reasons because in bending there is very little deflection at the supports, which in the case of a vehicle are the suspension mountings. However with torsional deformation the maximum deflections are likely to occur at the suspension mounting points. A good illustration of the effect of chassis torsional stiffness is documented by Setright (1968). The 1966 McLaren Grand Prix car was uncompetitive with the leading teams of that season because the engine was large, heavy and underpowered. However the chassis which was designed by young Aerospace Engineer, Robin Herd, which had an aluminium skin over a balsa wood core was of exceptional torsional stiffness. The McLaren had a torsional stiffness of about 13500 Nm/deg compared to about 3300 Nm/deg for a competitive Lotus 33. Setright timed the McLaren of Bruce McLaren shown in Figure 2.9 through Hunzberg Corner at the Zandervoort Grand Prix circuit faster than that achieved by Jim Clark in his Lotus although Clark's lap times were significantly faster than McLaren's.
Another illustration of the importance of chassis torsional stiffness was the Porsche 904 Bergspyder developed for the 1965 European Hillclimb Championship. Its structure was very poor for torsional loads and as a result the handling was erratic and the car was called 'Kangaroo'. Heavy modifications were needed to make the car competitive (Cotton 1988).
Page 18
Table 2.2 - Chassis Torsional Stiffness Source Setright 1968 Vehicle 1962 Lotus 25/33 GP car (basic structure weighed 32kg complete) Setright 1968 1966 Brabham GP car multitubular chassis Setright 1968 1966 McLaren GP car chassis of thin aluminium alloy, chemically bonded to end grain balsa core. Fenton 1980 typical family saloon, Minimum: Recommended: Webb 1984 family size saloon 6100 Nm/deg 6500 - 7500 Nm/deg most cars range 4000 9000 Nm/deg 8200 Nm/deg 6870 Nm/deg 13560 Nm/deg Page 19 over 13 500 Nm/deg about 1400 Nm/deg Recommendation or Observation 3300 Nm/deg
Ford Falcon EBII 1992 Lotus Elan (about 1963) backbone chassis only Ford GT40
Fothergill 1984
4000 Nm/deg is design aim 4070 Nm/deg suitable ideally 10 times the suspension roll stiffness estimated 35 000 to 45 000 Nm/deg 4 cyl 6 cyl 8 cyl 4000 Nm/deg 6000 Nm/deg 8000 Nm/deg 300 Nm/deg 8300 Nm/deg
Gard 1992
early 1990's F1
Qld Govt.
English kit Cobra RMC racing Cobra 2014 F Type aluminium body Jaguar
Page 20
space frames, stressed skin and composite construction. Model or prototype testing provided an early solution but testing numerous iterations of loads and design options is time consuming and expensive. With modern vehicle design and construction, the structural actions of vehicle structures have become quite complex. Sports and racing car structures are usually either thin walled (shell) structures or of spaceframe construction. With many members, joints, load paths and a high degree of indeterminacy, manual analysis becomes difficult, often impractical and more susceptible to errors. This is further aggravated by the variability of loading imposed on a vehicle. Thus analysis of these structures has tended toward approximate analysis techniques, design by rules of thumb, prototype or model analysis (not usually thought of as an analysis technique). More detailed calculations for localised areas which are important parts of the structure are usually made. Approximate methods of analysis for thin wall vehicle structures, based on predicting onset of shear instability are described by Bruhn (1958). With developments in computer hardware in the 80's and 90's, computers with adequate power for structural analysis have become more affordable and most major car companies are now using computer finite element techniques to improve and refine their structural designs. Finite element analysis is also becoming a powerful design tool for a number of specialist vehicle constructors. For instance Lola Cars who are leading English constructors of sports and racing car chassis have used finite element analysis in the design of the composite structure for the rollbox for crash loads of the T92/10 sports car (Baxter-Smallwood J. , Advanced Composite Engineering, 1992). Figure 2.10 is a diagram of the model used for the analysis of the Lola rollbox. Stress contours are superimposed on the model.
The finite element method has become one of the most important tools for vehicle structural analysis. It deals with structural analysis problems by breaking down a structure which consists of a few complex elements into many simple elements. Mathematical solution of the systems of simple elements by recognised stiffness matrix techniques is readily performed using commercial software and a workstation or powerful personal computer. Current developments in personal computers is leading software companies to produce affordable finite element software for the PC, effectively bringing this tool within the reach of most engineers. A finite element software package generally consists of modules which: i) Assist with creating a model of the structure to be analysed. Interactive graphics is preferable, and graphics essential for checking input. Page 21
ii) Perform the solution iii) Communicate the results of the analysis. Interactive graphics could be considered essential for this purpose. Factors which make the analysis of vehicle structures complex have been discussed, but a factor which can greatly simplify the structural design and analysis of many vehicles is that the design of a vehicle structure is usually controlled by deflections rather than stresses. That is, if the car is designed to achieve a suitable stiffness, the stresses will be below safe limits. This simplifies design because interpreting the results of a stiffness analysis is generally much simpler and less time consuming than with the analysis of stresses. Hence most analysis work during the design stage is for stiffness and a stress analysis is carried to check the final structural details.
and the wheel and axle assembly moves a single unit. Torsional deformation of the car structure has little effect on the wheel angles whereas the mechanism of wishbone independent suspensions rely on the relative positions of suspension member pivots to determine the angular positions of the wheels. Figure 2.11 shows typical independent wishbone, swing axle and live axle suspension systems.
Around 1934 came the application of independent suspension to racing cars. Whereas before this the angular relationship of the wheels was determined by a live axle acting as a beam joining the wheels, now the car itself was part of the structure required to preserve the angular relationship of the wheels. Figure 2.12 is a simplified diagram of the connection of independent suspension to the vehicle structure.
Page 23
The need for increased torsional stiffness was recognised by designers and attempts were made to improve the basic ladder chassis with extra tubular super structure, however this was generally not effective. It was not until 1952 that two new sports cars that were to be very successful, designed on space frame principals appeared; the Lotus Mark Six, see Figure 2.13 and the Mercds-Benz 300SL, see Figure 2.14.
Spaceframe chassis construction was introduced to Grand Prix racing in 1954 by the Mercds-Benz W196 which had a significant weight and stiffness advantage over rivals whose car structure were based on the ladder chassis.
Page 24
The spaceframe chassis and multitubular chassis were used exclusively in Grand Prix racing until in 1962. Fuelled by the desire to win races, the search for further chassis stiffness and light weight brought about the introduction of the stressed skin construction Lotus 25 Grand Prix car. The Lotus 25, later becoming the Lotus 33 with its stressed skin structure achieved a torsional stiffness of around 2 to 2! times that of the a conventional Grand Prix. It also achieved a typical weight saving of around 10 kg. The benefits of weight saving, excellent torsional stiffness and improved driver safety offered by this form of construction were soon recognised and followed by the majority of Grand Prix teams. The basic structure of the Lotus 25 Grand Prix car is shown in Figure 2.16.
The excellent stiffness and strength to weight ratio achievable with stressed skin construction currently sees all Grand Prix teams building their racing cars this way. It has also proven ideal for construction with new materials that have since become available such as aluminium honeycomb and currently carbon fibre. Figures 2.17 and 2.18 show modern Grand Prix car chassis.
Page 25
Figure 2.17 - 1989 Ferrari Grand Prix Car (bodywork cut away on top)
Figure 2.18 - 1988 McLaren MP4/4 Grand Prix Car, Bodywork Removed
In Australia today, ladder chassis for cars are common only in go-karts, vintage cars and some drag racing cars. Space frame chassis are popular for many types of racing cars, for example; Formula Ford and Formula Vee are restricted to tubular steel construction, Clubman racing cars must be of the "space frame" type and many original sports cars and sports sedans use space frame chassis. Many of the kit cars that are available in Australia are of space frame type construction such as Westfield Sports Car and the PRB Clubman and the AT Riciardi. In contrast to these budget sports cars is the Lamborghini Diablo, currently one of the fastest road cars it employs a space frame chassis (Sports Car World, 1990/91). Two cars with aluminium space frame chassis currently undergoing development for mass production are the Pininfarina Ethos (Motor, 1992) and the Audi Avus (Chiton's Automotive Industries, 1992).
Audi Avus
Page 26
Aluminium monocoques are required in Australia's premier open wheeler racing category, Formula Holden, and carbon fibre monocoques are found in Formula 2, Formula Libre and Sports Sedan cars in Australia. Carbon fibre monocoques provide the basic structure for many of the latest breed of supercars such as Ferrari F40, Jaguar XJ220, Bugatti EB110, McLaren F1 and the Yamaha OX99-11.
Yamaha OX99-11
McLaren F1
Page 27
Figure 2.21 - Westfield Sports Car Two of the earliest clubman cars were the Lotus Mark 6, which was being produced in 1954 and the Ginnetta G2 which was put into production in 1958. Based around multitubular space frames with aluminium body panels, these cars were designed to provide an unprecedented level of performance at a price affordable to the average motoring enthusiast. Their appointments were sparse, with little concession to comfort. They were suitable for transport during the week and could perform well on the racing track or in trials at the weekend.
Figure 2.22 - Ginnetta G2 Many specials' constructors and limited production manufacturers have since produced similar clubman cars, some copies of the more recognised designs, others of more original design, but the principals of the clubman have led to these cars often looking similar and usually performing well. The structural design of these cars is often very similar, many being based on a Lotus design for the Lotus Seven which first appeared in 1957. Since this time engine power outputs have risen, the price of steel has dropped, spring rates of the suspension have risen and there have been significant advances in tyre technology. Hence there is the desire to improve the chassis to gain the most advantage from these changes. Page 28
Elfin Sports Cars first produced the clubman car shown in Figure 2.20 in Australia in 1962. Tilke Engineering (NSW) and Fraser Cars Ltd (New Zealand). concerning the Westfield Sports Car is included in Appendix A.
Currently
clubman cars are available in Australia in kit form from Westfield Sports Cars (WA), PRB Motors (NSW), Specifications and general information
Page 29
The effect of variations on the torsional stiffness of the chassis was investigated using a computer model. The model was created for, and analysed with PAFEC finite element software on an Apollo workstation. Variations that were tested were aimed at either improving the torsional stiffness of the chassis or reducing construction costs. Only the stiffness of the chassis was investigated because of the following reasons: i) The strength of the Westfield Sports Car has been well proven
ii) Measurement of stresses is expensive and was beyond the finances available to this project iii) Computer stress analysis of a vehicle requires a much more complicated model than does stiffness analysis. The number of load cases that must be considered for stress analysis also extends the time required to set up and analyse a model. iv) Stresses predicted by a model can only be as accurate as the loads that are used. To determine loads with reasonable accuracy would require special measuring equipment, unavailable to this project. Alternatively loads may be used as determined from other peoples work, however it appeared that the references that were available (Garrett 1953 and Costin and Phipps 1965) were somewhat dated as are the analysis methods that were used when these load cases were first suggested. v) Developments in suspension and tyre technology mean that the cornering performance of the car is likely to benefit from improved chassis stiffness.
Page 30
A quick overview of the activities that were involved in testing and analysis follows: Laboratory Testing Construction of sub frames for attachment of chassis to testing frame. Setting up the chassis, loading devices and measuring equipment for testing. Carrying out the test. Recording observations and the results of the test for later analysis and scrutiny. Theoretical Model Analysis Determining the geometry of the model Creating a data file that describes the geometry of the chassis, member and section properties, loads and restraints. Checking the data for errors Analysis of the model Interpretation of the results of analysis.
At the time it was thought that an optical survey would provide the most accurate measurement of the chassis geometry, so with the assistance of Associate Professor L. A. White a survey of the chassis was commenced. Two theodolites, two subtense bars and the chassis were layed out as shown in Figure 3.1. A subtense bar is a bar with markings accurately calibrated to two metres.
Page 31
Vertical and horizontal angles to each end of the subtense bars and several of the nodes were observed and the distance between stations A and B was measured. This data enabled calculation of positions of the nodes in three dimensional space. However the chassis survey technique of measurement was found unsuitable for the following reasons: i) Making the observations was very time consuming.
ii) A check on measurements determined by the survey with a tape showed errors of 4 to 7mm. The time consuming nature of the theodolite observations and the large errors were partly to the level of skill of the operator. The geometry of the chassis was subsequently measured using a tape. Beams were clamped to the chassis to act as a reference for measurements. A one fifth scale orthogonal drawing was produced as a reference for further work. A copy of this drawing has been included in Appendix B. The geometry of the theoretical model was compiled into standard file format for the PAFEC finite element software by typing the node coordinates, member connectivities and other information defining loads, restraints and member properties. A graphics interface was used for checking that information was correct. The following diagram, Figure 3.2 shows the global axes of the model. consistently in this report. This is the axes system used
3.2 Chassis Bending Stiffness 3.2.1 Laboratory Test Description and Procedure
The chassis bending test of the Westfield Sports Car involved simply supporting the chassis on its front and rear extremities as shown in Figure 3.3 and applying loads near the middle of the chassis while the deflections at known positions were measured.
Page 32
The chassis was placed on timber blocks in the four restraint positions shown in Figure 3.3. The blocks were supported on a smooth concrete floor. Dial gauges were set up to measure deflections at nodes 12 and 24 relative to the concrete floor. A load hanger was placed midway between nodes 151 and 154 on which dead weights were placed. The following steps were carried out during testing: i) The chassis was first proof loaded to with 50 kg to bed in the chassis at the supports and to ensure the chassis was sitting evenly on its supports. ii) iii) The proof load was removed and dial gauge readings were observed at nodes 12 and 24. A load of 10 kg was applied and dial gauge readings at nodes 12 and 24 were observed. This was repeated for loads of 10 kg, 20 kg, 40 kg, 50 kg and 60 kg. Observations were made as the load was increased to 60 kg and then reduced in the same increments back to zero. iv) v) Dial gauge deflections were then observed for a loading pattern of 0 kg, 50 kg, 0 kg, 50 kg, 0 kg. The average deflections of the gauges at nodes 12 and 24 were calculated for the load increments. These are plotted in Figure 4.1 in the results section.
Page 33
Figure 3.4 - PAFEC 34000 Beam Element The theoretical basis of this model is that bending displacements in each direction vary as a cubic along the length, giving linearly varying bending moments. Axial force and twisting moment are constant along the length. Results produced by this element are exact in statics. The beam members in the model are represented by the member centre lines. Other elements used in the model were the suspension members which were only axial force elements and plate elements for the engine and gearbox mounts. The plate elements were capable of accepting both in plane and out of plane forces. The elements of the model were separated into eleven groups of similar members with the same sectional properties. This was done to enable quick and simple specification and changing of member properties. A diagram showing the node numbering and the data file which defined the chassis model is included in Appendix C. Figure 3.5 on the following page shows the member groups and their colours with brief explanations of each of the groups used in the model.
Page 34
The restraints and loading used for the chassis bending analysis as a model of the chassis bending test are shown in Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6 - Chassis Bending Model A load of 1000 N was applied mid way between nodes 151 and 154. The chosen value of the load was not important, just that the value was known because the theory used to analyse the model assumed linear elastic response.
Page 35
3.3 Chassis Torsional Stiffness 3.3.1 Laboratory Test Description and Procedure
The torsional stiffness test was carried out in the Curtin University of Technology Civil Engineering concrete laboratory, using a substantial reaction frame designed for testing concrete beams. The chassis was supported on the frame at three points; one front and two rear simulated wishbones. The connections to the wishbones were retained by loosely fitting bolts that allowed the connections to act as joints pinned in three dimensions. The simulated wishbones along with solid links replacing the spring and shock absorber units distribute test loads into the chassis similarly to how loads in a car are transmitted through the suspension. At the rear of the chassis, restraint from rotation about the longitudinal X axis was provided by the wishbone connections. At the front of the chassis the one wishbone connection prevented mechanistic rotation of the chassis and facilitated the application of a torque loading to the front of the chassis. The load was applied at the unsupported front wishbone and deflections of the chassis were measured by dial gauges supported from the reaction frame. Loads were applied as steel dead weights in 20 kg and 18.1 kg increments with deflections observed at selected node points for each increment. Figure 3.7 shows the chassis with simulated wishbones and the loading and restraint conditions.
Figure 3.7 - Chassis Torsional Test The test was carried out on two occasions; after the first test was carried out, inspection of the results indicated inconsistent load - deflection behaviour. To rectify this two steps were taken before and during the second test: i) The removal of a pulley through which the load was initially being applied. The pulley allowed the vertical load to be applied upwards, however it appeared that the pulley was jamming when load was applied.
Page 36
ii)
After incrementing the load, the chassis was tapped with a small block of wood until the dial gauge readings became steady, before deflections were observed.
The testing procedure was carried out as follows: i) ii) The chassis and subframes were set up in the test frame as shown in Figure 3.7. Dial gauges were set up at selected nodes on the chassis. Two dial gauges at the front measured rotation at the front while two dial gauges at the rear measured rotation of the rear of the chassis. Deflections were measured at the rear of the chassis because although the rear was prevented from mechanistic rotation, elastic deformations of the sub frame and wishbones allowed some rotation. iii) iv) Distances between dial gauges and the load lever arm were measured with a tape. A 60 kg proof load was applied to settle in the chassis at its supports. Loads were applied at the front wishbone as shown in Figure 3.7. v) Dial gauge readings were observed before loading was commenced. Loads were then applied and
removed in the pattern shown in Figure 3.8. Before observing dial gauge readings and after the load was applied, the chassis was tapped with a small block of wood until dial gauge readings stabilised. vi) Measurements of distance between dial gauges and load lever arm distance were checked.
Page 37
Figure 3.9 - Chassis Torsional Test Model The load applied to the front wishbone was 1000 N. load because the computer model was linear. Where deflections for other loads are required the
deflections obtained from analysis with the 1000 N load may be scaled directly proportionally to the change of
Page 38
Page 39
The relationship between load and deflection observed in the test followed a linear pattern with a coefficient of correlation, r2 = 0.995. The measured stiffness of the chassis in bending is less than the calculated stiffness by about 11%. The linear relationship between load and deflection from Figure 4.1 being: Observed stiffness: Theoretical stiffness:$ " = load # 0.70 " = load # 0.62 where " = deflection in mm, load = load in kN The linear relationship for observed stiffness ignores the permanent set which is labelled in Figure 4.1. The permanent set was probably the result of local crushing of the timber supports where high spots of welds were in contact with the supports. The difference in stiffness between the model and the measured stiffness of 11% may be due at least partly to the following reason. The chassis was supported on timber blocks into which stresses were transmitted across the grain. These timber blocks were quite thick and supported the chassis on a relatively small bearing area. As any deflections at the supports will be reflected in the measured deflections, compression of the supports will result in measured stiffness apparently less than the actual stiffness of the chassis. A quick check for elastic compression of the supports indicates that up to 1 - 3% of the difference may be as a result of deformation in the supports. This does not include local deformation of the supports which may occur where there are local high spots in the chassis above the supports. Other reasons for the model stiffness differing from the observed stiffness were: The supports used in the test may not have been properly level. Some member eccentricities were difficult to include in the model and where they were not large they were excluded. This would increase the effectiveness of the bracing and slightly increase the stiffness of the model. Angular deformation of the members to which the dial gauges were attached may have caused increases to the observed deflections. The shape of the deflected chassis undergoing bending was determined from the model. Deflections for the bottom plane outer edge members are plotted in Figure 4.2 for a load of 1000 N between nodes 151 and 154.
Page 40
The average deflections of nodes 12 and 24 are shown in Figure 4.2 by a dashed line. The maximum vertical deflection of the chassis between front and rear wheel centres of 0.26mm is shown on Figure 4.2. The observed vertical deflection of 0.26 mm per 1000 N can be linearly extrapolated to 1.73 mm per 680 kg mid span load. This compares to a recommended bending stiffness of not more than 1.27mm deflection for a mid span load of 680 kg by Fenton (1980). The bending stiffness achieved by the Westfield Sports Car chassis is obviously less than that recommended by Fenton, however Fenton's recommendations include no discussion on the weight of the vehicle for which his recommendation is made. It would be logical to include the weight of a car in a recommendation for bending stiffness as the bending deflections are likely to increase proportionally to the weight of the car. The sharp change in stiffness graph of Figure 4.2 at point A is as a consequence of the presentation of the data for this graph. Point A is an external node on the bottom plane of the chassis, point B is a node on the same member as point A, but it is closer to the longitudinal centreline of the chassis and directly under the rear support. Also there is no reason for concern over a sharp decrease in the stiffness of the chassis in this position because this part of the structure is outside of the wheelbase of the car and only subject to small loads.
smoothly and freely when unloaded, it was likely that the pulley was binding against the pulley shaft when load was applied. Thus the pulley was discarded for the second test. Another precaution that was taken for the second test was to tap several times checking that dial gauge positions did not fluctuate before dial gauge readings were recorded. The results of the first torsional test are not included in this report because due to their inconsistent nature, they are of little use. The torsional deflection response for the second torsion test of the Westfield Sports Car chassis is shown in Figure 4.3. The load deflection response calculated from the chassis model is also shown on this graph for comparison with the measured response.
The results of the second torsional stiffness test show very little scatter. A response which is clearly linear may be observed. For the torsional stiffness test, deflections were measured at the front and rear of the chassis on each side of the chassis at nodes 102 and 123 at the front and nodes 105 and 111 at the rear. Figure 3.9 previously defined these node numbers. To calculate the torsional stiffness, the rotation at the rear of the chassis was subtracted from the rotation at the front of the chassis. The torque applied at the front of the chassis was calculated from the magnitude and lever arm of the load. Thus the torsional stiffness was the Torque applied divided by the rotation between the front and rear of the chassis.
Page 42
The torsional stiffness of the chassis in the test calculated in this way was 1134 Nm/deg on average (see Figure 4.4) and the stiffness of the model was 1121 Nm/deg.
Figure 4.4 - Scatter of Measured Torsional Stiffness For the torsional test errors such as error of measurement of the chassis geometry, approximations in the model by ignoring some eccentricities and error in reading dial gauges should be the same as those for the bending stiffness test.
Page 43
The difference between the measured torsional stiffness of 1134 Nm/deg and the model torsional stiffness of 1121 Nm/deg of 1.2% was extremely good and suggests that the model was a good representation of the chassis. The range of torsional stiffness observed during testing was from +5.4% to -10.4% of the model stiffness. The biggest difference of 10.4% between model and test is still within the average difference observed for the bending test.. When the torsional stiffness of the model was calculated from the rotation of the front suspension wishbones with the rear wishbone restrained from movement by the supports, the torsional stiffness of the chassis was found to be 1050 Nm/degree. The difference between the two calculated stiffnesses is due to the position of the load relative to where the stiffness was measured. Measuring the torsional stiffness from the wishbones resulted in an apparently more flexible structure because the loads and supports were attached directly to the wishbones. Nodes 102, 123, 111 and 115 were away from the loads and supports which were the most highly stressed regions, thus the measured stiffness was higher. The graph of angular deflections along the chassis in Figure 4.5 highlights the most flexible areas of the chassis. The most flexible areas, which are where the curve is steepest are the first 70mm from the front of the chassis and 200mm to 500mm from the front of the chassis which is in the engine bay area. The stiffest parts of the chassis is the 250mm directly behind the hoop on which the steering wheel is mounted and the very front of the chassis, after the first 70mm and where there is corner bracing in the front, top plane of the engine bay. If the entire chassis was able to be increased to the same stiffness as directly behind the steering hoop, the chassis would have a torsional stiffness of over 2000 Nm/deg.
Weight (kg)
63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 16.6
Car20 Car23
Hereafter all files are the same as the standard Westfield Sports Car chassis except for those variations specified. Minimum three point restraint and torsional stiffness calculated from deflections at the wishbones is used consistently.
Page 45
Table 4.2 - Category I, Changes to Member Sizes File Car2 Car3 Car 16 Car26 Car27 Car29 Description
Top plane members changed to 31.8 x 1.6 SHS Bottom plane members changed to 31.8 x 1.6 SHS Top and bottom plane members changed to 40 x 1.2 SHS Bottom side members changed to 40 x 1.6 SHS Bottom and top side members changed to 40 x 1.6 SHS All member changed to 40x40x1.0 SHS
% Change from Stiffness Car1 to Weight Stiffness Weight Ratio 9.7 1.7 17.9 5.9 95.3 12.9 34.5 171 3.0 12.2 5.8 9.6 17.9 17.1 28.9 17.7 20.3 38.1
Changes to member sizes produced the biggest increases in torsional stiffness to weight ratio when the section sizes of the members were increased significantly and the wall thicknesses of the hollow members decreased. Comparing changes of the top longitudinal members to changes to the bottom longitudinal members showed that changes to the top longitudinal members produced a more pronounced effect on torsional stiffness.
Page 46
Table 4.3 - Category II, Changes to the Engine Bay File Car4 Car5 Car6 Car9 Car10 Car11 Car15 Car 18 Description
Extra brace in top plane of engine bay Side bracing in engine bay changed Extra lateral member across top of engine bay Extra top, right hand engine bay brace Normal engine bay brace removed Normal engine bay brace replaced by LH and RH braces Engine bay side braces replaced by 1mm steel panels Extra cross members in engine bay
Torsional Stiffness (Nm/deg) 1261 1040 1105 1060 683 1148 1061 1475
Weight (kg) 63.8 63.5 64.0 63.8 62.5 63.5 66.9 64.9
% Change from Stiffness Car1 to Weight Stiffness Weight Ratio 20.1 0.8 19.8 -1.0 0.3 16.4 5.2 1.1 17.3 1.0 -35.0 9.3 1.0 40.5 0.8 -1.3 0.3 5.7 2.5 16.6 10.9 18.1 15.9 22.7
Page 47
The changes around the engine bay consisted of changes to the top plane bracing, changes to the bracing in the side of the engine bay and use of plates instead of bracing in the sides. Additional bracing in the top plane, correctly positioned achieved an excellent increase in torsional stiffness for a simple change. When the added bracing was not well positioned only insignificant increases to torsional stiffness were observed. The removal of the main top plane engine bay brace caused a dramatic reduction in the torsional stiffness of the chassis. Changes to the the bracing in the side of the engine bay was carried out so that the degree of triangulation was not reduced. Consequently there was no large changes to the torsional stiffness for the variations analysed. Using plates instead of bracing was a solution which increased the weight of the chassis with no significant gain in torsional stiffness.
Page 48
Table 4.4 - Category III, Addition of bracing to Chassis Nose File Car8 Car17 Car24 Car25 Description
Nose fully braced (some of this may not be practical) Extra nose bracing Some extra nose bracing Some extra nose bracing
% Change from Stiffness Car1 to Weight Stiffness Weight Ratio 38.4 3.9 22.1 27.0 9.4 15.7 2.7 1.1 2.1 20.5 18.0 18.8
Figure 4.8 - Torsional Stiffness Plots for Chassis with Extra Bracing
Bracing added to the nose of the chassis produced some worthwile increases in torsional stiffness. The fully braced nosed produced a 38% increse in torsional stiffness, and while this may not be practical for production, each of the other changes that were more suitable for production resulted in an increased stiffness to weight ratio. The nose is a relatively short part of the overall length of the chassis so the magnitude of these increases in stiffness was unexpected.
Page 49
Table 4.5 - Category IV, Changes to the Centre Tunnel File Car12 Car19 Car21 Car28 Description
1mm steel plates added to front of tunnel Extra centre tunnel bracing, except on bottom plane Extra centre tunnel bracing all around Tunnel members changed to 25 x 1.6 SHS
% Change from Stiffness Car1 to Weight Stiffness Weight Ratio 10.2 12.3 16.3 38.1 43.2 12.7 6.8 8.1 4.1 21.4 22.0 18.0
Fully bracing the centre tunnel section, which had external dimensions of 220mm x 140mm over the main part of its length produced a 43% increase in torsional stiffness. This shows that the centre tunnel section plays an important part in the overall torsional stiffness of the chassis. Fully bracing the centre tunnel may not be practical in that it would restrict access to the driveshaft which passes through this tunnel. Bracing the tunnel on all but the bottom plane also resulted in a large increase in torsional stiffness of 38%. Welding plates to the tunnel section was a solution which was not analysed but could be worthwhile considering in the future.
% Change from Stiffness Car1 to Weight Stiffness Weight Ratio 10.2 12.3 16.3 12.3 1.7 18.3
Page 50
Car15
1061
66.9
1.0
5.7
15.9
The increases in torsional stiffness that were achieved by adding plates to the chassis were generally offset by the increases in weight and reduction in accessibility that resulted from using plates. The plated engine support beams gave a torsional stiffness increase of 12% but the engine support beams were also modified in this case. The modified engine support beams increased torsional stiffness by 11% without the use of plates. These results should not be construed to suggest that plate solutions will not be viable, rather that the variations which were tested were not particularly viable.
Page 51
Table 4.7 - Category VI, Other Changes File Car7 Car13 Car14 Description
Member added under gearbox (Node 61 to 63) Geometry of engine support beams altered Altered engine support beams webbed with 1mm plate
% Change from Stiffness Car1 to Weight Stiffness Weight Ratio 1.5 0.5 16.8 10.8 12.3 0.0 1.7 18.4 18.3
The modified engine support beams gave an 11% increase of torsional stiffness for a relatively simple change in geometry and no increase in weight. The member under the gearbox was a change that would be difficult to put into production. The effect of this member was minimal.
Page 52
The changes that have been considered are only a sample of the changes that could be considered in a serious effort to improve the torsional stiffness of this chassis. For instance no additional bracing was considered for the rear part of the chassis. The changes that were considered targeted the more flexible areas of the chassis, as indicated by the torsional stiffness diagram, Figure 4.5 where changes could be made without disrupting the layout of the chassis. Where positive improvements to the chassis have been determined, these changes could be refined by further analysis with the computer model.
Page 53
5 CONCLUSIONS
The first objective of this project that was carried out was to investigate the use of a computer model for predicting the stiffness of a vehicle chassis. The space frame type chassis of the Westfield Sports Car was modelled using finite element software. The model consisted of mainly beam elements and it was found that a beam model predicted the stiffness of the chassis with good accuracy. The accuracy of the computer model was established from carrying out the same tests both in the laboratory and with the computer model and comparing the results. Two distinct tests were carried out that were bending stiffness and torsional stiffness. The bending stiffness test showed that the computer model was within 11% of the laboratory observations. This difference may be partly accounted for by a problem with the way the laboratory test was carried out. The chassis was supported on compressible timber supports and because this was not foreseen as a problem, no measurement of the deflections at the supports were taken during the test. Consequently the results of the test indicated the chassis was more flexible than it actually was. The computer model was stiffer than the results of the bending test so at least some of the 11% difference was due to compression at the supports in the laboratory test. The torsional stiffness test did not have the problems of the bending test and comparison between model and average measured stiffnesses was of the order of 1%. The torsional stiffness was measured a number of times for different loads and the range of all measurements was about 10% if the extremes are discarded. The 1% difference between the model and average observed stiffness is well within this 10% range. accuracy to which the model can be confirmed is limited by the accuracy of test measurements. The load deflection response of the chassis was consistent and linear for both laboratory tests which further confirms the use of a simple beam model based on linear elastic theory. The second objective that was carried out was to make use of the computer model for testing changes to the chassis. The torsional stiffness only was tested for the chassis modifications because it was desirable for the torsional stiffness of the chassis to be improved, where as the bending stiffness was already adequate. Hence the
Page 54
There were a number of changes that Westfield Sports Cars may test further on a full scale chassis and there were a number of other changes that may be beneficial. The changes fell into five broad categories: i) Changes to member sizes
ii) Addition or removal of bracing in the engine bay iii) Addition of bracing to the nose of the chassis iv) Addition of members to the centre tunnel v) Use of plates instead of bracing vi) Other changes The first category which was changes to member sizes showed excellent improvements to torsional stiffness for a minimal weight penalty with increased section sizes. Reducing the wall thicknesses of the hollow members when the section sizes were increased minimised increases of weight in the chassis. The most pronounced effects of changing member sizes were observed where members in areas with a lack of bracing were changed such as the top and bottom plane members in the engine bay and cockpit. The largest increase of stiffness of all the changes analysed, changing all members to 40x40x1.0 SHS, was in this category. Although this change could not be directly incorporated into manufacture of new Westfields because there is physically not enough space in some places for these larger members, it demonstrates the efficiency of larger section sizes and smaller wall thicknesses for this type of chassis. The second category which was the addition and removal of bracing in the engine bay showed that the bracing in the top plane of the engine bay was very significant. The removal of the existing main engine bay brace in the top plane reduced torsional stiffness by 35% while adding a second main engine bay brace in the top plane increased the torsional stiffness by 20%. No major changes were made to the side bracing of the engine bay but presumably there is little potential for increased torsional stiffness by adding bracing to the sides because the sides are already well braced. Significant decreases in torsional stiffness would be likely if the side bracing of the engine bay is partly or wholly removed.
Page 55
Bracing in the nose of the chassis was the third category and some worthwhile increases in torsional stiffness were obtained with nose bracing. However at the nose of the car there are other requirements which limit the use of bracing. Steering arms protrude through the side of the nose and the engine cooling system limits bracing in the front plane. Thus the benefits of nose cone bracing indicated by the model would not achievable on a finished car. Extra bracing of the centre tunnel was very effective in increasing the torsional stiffness of the model. The largest increase in torsional stiffness was observed when the centre tunnel was braced on the sides and top and bottom planes. The torsional stiffness increased by 43% for only an 8% increase in weight for this case. Changing the member section sizes of the tunnel increased torsional stiffness by 13% and while this increase is much less than that achieved with extra bracing, it would require less labour for construction than would the extra bracing. If additional bracing and increased section size is applied to the centre tunnel, the individual increases are very unlikely to be cumulative. The reason why increased member sizes gave such an increase in torsional stiffness was because the centre tunnel was poorly braced. With a well braced tunnel, section sizes will be much less significant. The use of plates in the place of hollow section bracing was generally not structurally advantageous. Flat plates 1mm thick were analysed with the model. Where plates were used instead of hollow section bracing, the plated solution was heavier and the model suggested only a small increase in torsional stiffness. Plates of 1mm thickness were used because thinner plates may have been difficult to weld. It may be beneficial to investigate the use of thinner plates and also the use of profiled plates. Plate solutions have the advantage that they are simpler to fabricate than tubular members when no services are required to pass through the plate and disadvantages of restricting access through the chassis and difficulty of fabrication where services are required to pass through the plate. The final category considered two unrelated changes; addition of a member under the gearbox and alteration of the engine support beams. The member under the gearbox would be a difficult member to add in practice and had little effect on torsional stiffness. Alteration of the engine support beams did not affect the weight of the chassis but produced a worthwhile increase in torsional stiffness of 11%. This change would be relatively simple and it should be considered for incorporation into production. The further addition of 1mm steel plates to the altered engine support beams had little effect. Only a small number of the possible changes to the chassis have been analysed. With the work in creating and verifying the model already done, it would not require much more work to investigate numerous other changes. Testing a large number of changes to the chassis would have been a relatively simple task but in the context of this project it was seen as more advantageous to concentrate on establishing the accuracy of the model and showing how this was done. The results of a smaller number of variations could also be presented in more detail, making the use of a computer model for testing vehicle structures more clear. With the importance of light weight and good stiffness for a car chassis and the high cost of building a testing prototype vehicles computer model analysis is likely to be cost effective method of determining upgrades to an existing chassis. vehicles alike. Page 56 Computer model analysis can be effective for large production and special production
5.1 Recommendations
From analysis of the computer model, there are a number of changes to the chassis that should be investigated for immediate inclusion into the production of the Westfield Sports Car chassis. effective changes were: i) ii) iii) iv) v) Additional top plane engine bay brace Additional bracing of the centre tunnel Increased top plane member section size with same or reduced wall thickness. Geometry of the engine support beams altered Extra nose bracing. Suitable bracing geometry may be determined by investigation of complete car and further analysis with the computer model. In general for a structure of this type the stiffness will be increased for any given weight when section sizes are increased and wall thicknesses decreased. Such changes should be subject to further investigation to determine if welding thinner walls will cause a problem and if particular wall thicknesses are required for withstanding rust, abrasion and local stresses around mounting brackets such as suspension mounting brackets. A recommendation not associated with the analysis of the Westfield Sports Car, comes from applying an engineering knowledge to the background information given in this report. It very beneficial to consider the weight of vehicle as well as the vehicle's purpose or engine size when recommending or legislating for stiffness of the vehicle. Whether torsional stiffness or bending stiffness is considered, the reason stiffness is required is to limit deflections. The deflections of a structure are just as dependent on the applied loads as the stiffness of the structure. In the case of a vehicle, the loads are as a direct result of the weight of the vehicle, thus any sensible recommendations or legislation for vehicle stiffness should include consideration for vehicle weight. The most practical and
Page 57
Page 58
6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Atkinson, Scott Mr Atkinson provided a great deal of assistance with numerous computing problems, writing programs for manipulating data, fixing up sick computers, processing information for plotting and printing and transferring information between different computers. Chandler Dr I Dr Chandler was always prepared to talk about ideas and problems encountered in the course of the project. I have enjoyed these discussions, often being infected with his positive attitude. His time spent sifting through computer print outs or laboratory results to try a find where I had gone wrong was invaluable. Dr Chandler has also helped to improve the standard of this report by his efforts in proof reading several draft copies, making valuable comments. Fox, Stephen I wish to thank Mr Fox for his interest in my project and specially thank him for supplying the Westfield Sports Car chassis on which my project was based. It has also been a privilege talking to Mr Fox and learning from his experiences building road and racing cars. Gard, Jaime I would like to thank Mr Gard for the interest he has shown in my project and for the time he has spent discussing vehicles and vehicle structures with me, in particular his work chassis torsional testing and race car suspensions. Mr Gard has also spent time checking the accuracy of information in my report and I greatly appreciate this and express my sincere thanks. Kong, Paul Mr Kong has helped me by checking computer models for errors. I would like to thank him for this. Curtin University of Technology Civil Engineering laboratory technical staff The laboratory staff have provided assistance in carrying out laboratory tests, different to the testing normally carried out in the Curtin Civil laboratories. Sceresini, Robert I would like to thank Mr Sceresini for helping with physical problems such as moving chassis and lifting engines. Associate Professor L.A. White I extend my thanks for assistance in carrying out the survey of the chassis.
Page 59
7 REFERENCES
Baxter-Smallwood, J (1992) "FEA gets Lola rolling", Advanced Composites Engineering June Beermann, H J (1989) The Analysis of Commercial Vehicle Structures, Mechanical Engineering Publications Ltd, London. Bruhn, E F (1958) Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics (1990) Cost of Road Crashes in Australia - 1988 Campbell, Colin (1973) Design of Racing Sports Cars, Robert Bentley Inc., Cambridge. Campbell, Colin (1978) The Sports Car,: Its Design and Performance, Robert Bentley Inc., Cambridge. Carey J (1991) "The G Force", Wheels Magazine, May Carey, J (1992) "Max Factor", Wheels Magazine, May Costin, M and Phipps, D (1965) Racing and Sports Car Chassis Design, B. T. Batsford Ltd, London Cotton, M (1988) Classic Porsche Racing Cars, Patrick Stephens Ltd, England. Coulter, J (1986) The Lotus and Caterham Sevens, Motor Racing Publications Ltd., England. Crombac, G (1986) Colin Chapman. The Man and His Cars, Patrick Stephens Ltd, England. Dubensky, R G (1986) What Every Engineer Should Know About Finite Element Analysis Methods, Chrysler Motors Corp. Federal Office of Road Safety (1989) Australian Design Rules for Motor Vehicles and Trailers, Third Edition, Federal Department of Transport and Communications. Fenton, J (1980) Vehicle Layout and Analysis, Mechanical Engineering Publications, London. Fothergill, D J, Southall, R, Osmond, E, (1984) "Computer Aided Concept Design of a Sports Car Chassis System", Proceedings of Institution of Mechanical Engineers Gard, J (1992) Oral Communication Garrett, K (1953) "Automobile Dynamic Loads", Automobile Engineer, February Garrett, T K (1953) "Structure Design", Automobile Engineer, March/April General Motors Holden's (1990) FEM of Motor Body Structures, ACADS Seminar, 25 June 1990 Greenway, W R, (1969/70) "Automobile Body Testing Techniques", Proceedings of Institution of Mechanical Engineers Lake, B (1992) "Budget Barnstormers", Motor Magazine, September McCarthy, M, (1987) Great Australian Sports Cars and Specials, Australian Consolidated Press, Sydney. National Council of CAMS, (19992) CAMS 1992 Manual of Motor Sport 1992, Confederation of Australian Motor Sport. Page 60
Niemi, E, Makelainen, P (1990) Tubular Structures, Third International Symposium, PAFEC Limited (1984) Data Preparation User Manual Level 6.1 PAFEC Limited (1984) PAFEC Theory Page, E (1991) "Two Way Stretch", Wheels Magazine, October Palmer Tube Mills Australia Pty Ltd (1991) Catalogue 1991, Palmer Tube Mills, Australia. Rose, J (1988) Ginetta The Illustrated History, Haynes Publications Inc., California. Setright, LJK (1968) The Grand Prix Car 1954-1966, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London. Setright, LJK (1976) The Designers, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. Sturz, W D, (1990/91) "Hell Fire", Sports Car World, Summer pp 14-21 Timishenko and Gere (1968) Elements of Strength of Materials, Webb, G G Engineers Westerman, A (1991) "Tyre Supertest", Motor Magazine, July Westfield Sports Cars Ltd, Westfield SE - SEi Instruction Manual, Westfield Sports Cars Ltd Williams, G (1991) McLaren. A Racing History, The Crowood Press Ltd, Wiltshire. (1984) "Torsional Stiffness of Passenger Cars", Proceedings of Institution of Mechanical
Member Properties of Westfield Sports Car Chassis Tubemakers B.T.M. Square Hollow Sections Section Size mm Wall Thickness 2020 2525 20 25 mm 1.6 1.6 Area mm" 111 143 0.873 1.12 6080 12800 10300 21200 kg/m Ixx mm4 J mm4
Page 62
Page 63
Appendix C - Computer Model Data File (diagrams showing nodes and elements at end of data file listing)
C C Standard Chassis C Generally units are in Newtons, N and metres, m CONTROL CONTROL.END C C .......1.........2.........3.........4.........5.........6.........7.........8 BEAMS MATERIAL=1 C (NOTE THAT SECTION.NUM IS THAT REFERRED TO BY PROPERTY NO. IN ELEMENTS MODULE) SECTI IYY IZZ TORSION AREA KY KZ ZY ZZ 1 12.8E-9 12.8E-9 21.2E-9 143E-6 .9 .9 816E-9 816E-9 C BOTTOM PLANE 2 6.08E-9 6.08E-9 10.3E-9 111E-6 .9 .9 608E-9 608E-9 C CENTRE TUNNEL 3 12.8E-9 12.8E-9 21.2E-9 143E-6 .9 .9 816E-9 816E-9 C TOP PLANE 4 5.36E-9 5.36E-9 10.7E-9 103E-6 .9 .9 487E-9 487E-9 C 5 6.08E-9 6.08E-9 10.3E-9 111E-6 .9 .9 608E-9 608E-9 C 6 5.36E-9 5.36E-9 10.7E-9 103E-6 .9 .9 487E-9 487E-9 C 7 6.08E-9 6.08E-9 10.3E-9 111E-6 .9 .9 608E-9 608E-9 C SUSP'N MEMBERS 8 12.8E-9 12.8E-9 21.2E-9 143E-6 .9 .9 816E-9 816E-9 C UPRIGHTS 9 16.1E-9 16.1E-9 1.0E-9 111E-6 .9 .9 800E-9 800E-9 C BRACKETS 10 16E-9 810E-9 20E-9 492E-6 .3 .7 100E-9 12.1E-6 C FLOORPANS C C MATERIAL MATE.NUM E NU RO 1 200E9 0.3 7850 C C C *** THE NODES MODULE IS PRINTED C *** USING GLOBAL CARTESIAN AXES C NODES NODE X Y Z C C NODES ON PERIMETER OF BOTTOM PLANE C 1 0 0.000 0.000 3 0.000 -.123 0.000 4 0.000 -.145 0.000 5 .196 -.182 0.000 6 .257 -.199 0.000 7 .341 -.224 0.000 8 .499 -.272 0.000 9 .585 -.297 0.000 10 .962 -.411 0.000 12 1.553 -.517 0.000 13 2.307 -.517 0.000 14 2.293 -.517 0.000 16 2.930 -.442 .127 17 2.930 -.126 .127 Page 64
18 19 20 21 22 23 36 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 38 37 C C C 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 C C C 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
2.930 2.930 2.930 2.930 2.930 2.307 2.293 1.553 .962 .585 .499 .341 .257 .196 0 0 1.809 1.809 .542 .542
0.000 -.456 .126 .442 .456 .517 .517 .517 .411 .297 .272 .224 .199 .182 .145 .123 -.517 .517 -.2845 .2845
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 C C C 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 C C C
1.553 1.553 1.553 1.553 1.553 1.553 1.286 1.286 1.386 1.386 2.282 2.282 2.307 2.307 1.336 1.336
-.065 .055 -.143 .135 -.434 .432 -.100 .073 -.087 .065 -.060 .060 -.060 .060 -.0935 .069
-.003 -.003 -.003 -.003 -.003 -.003 -.003 -.003 -.003 -.003 -.003 -.003 -.003 -.003 -.003 -.003
156 C C C 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 C C C 220 225 221 224 222 223 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 C C C 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267
.967
.108
.310
268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294
2.327 2.327 2.694 2.694 2.414 2.414 2.693 2.693 .170 .170 .170 .170 2.550 2.550 2.550 2.550 2.497 2.497 .170 .170 2.550 2.550 .17 .17 2.550 2.550 .17
-.120 .0425 .120 .0425 -.120 .045 .120 .045 -.231 .225 .231 .225 -.231 .225 .231 .225 -.492 .275 .492 .275 -.487 .070 .487 .070 -.55 .23 .55 .23 -.55 .04 .55 .04 -.325 .478 .325 .478 -.49 .17 .49 .17 -.55 .17 .55 .17 -.55 -.1 .55 -.1 -.60 -.1 .60 -.1 0 -.1
C RIGID.LINK N1 N2 7 51 29 58 C C ELEMENTS ELEM= 34100 NUMB GROUP PROP TOPO C C BOTTOM PERIMETER PLANE C 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 3 4 3 1 1 3 5 4 1 1 5 6 5 1 1 6 7 6 1 1 7 8 7 1 1 8 38 33 1 1 38 9 8 1 1 9 10 9 1 1 10 12 10 1 1 12 34 11 1 1 34 14 12 1 1 14 13 14 1 1 16 19 15 1 1 16 17 16 1 1 17 18 17 1 1 18 20 18 1 1 20 21
ELEMENTS
Page 68
19 21 22 23 24 25 26 34 27 28 29 30 31 32 C C C
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
21 23 36 35 24 26 27 37 28 29 30 31 33 33
22 36 35 24 26 27 37 28 29 30 31 33 32 1
65 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 C C C
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13 64 65 66 67 95 96 68 69 70 71
64 65 66 67 95 96 68 69 70 71 23
C C C
163 164 165 166 177 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 C C C 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 250 274 275 252 276 277 251 280 278 253 279 281 C C C
3 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4
3 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4
154 118 111 16 115 21 151 77 77 78 154 78 77 79 78 80 79 81 80 82 81 232 82 233 109 128 128 129 129 117
305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
263 253 256 266 257 267 258 264 259 265 274 234 275 235 270 221 271 224 268 66 269 69 236 272 237 273
C Front Suspension ELEMENTS ELEM= 34400 NUMB GROUP PROP TOPO 318 7 7 250 278 319 7 7 251 279 320 7 7 278 258 321 7 7 279 259 326 7 7 254 278 327 7 7 255 279 C Rear Suspension 328 7 7 268 282 329 7 7 269 283 330 7 7 270 282 331 7 7 271 283 336 7 7 282 126 337 7 7 283 127 C Uprights ELEMENTS ELEM= 34100 NUMB GROUP PROP TOPO C C BRACING MEMBERS C 200 6 6 200 202 201 6 6 201 203 202 6 6 202 204 203 6 6 203 205 204 5 5 206 34 205 5 5 207 35 206 3 3 34 208 207 3 3 35 209 208 3 3 208 110 209 3 3 209 116 214 3 3 14 208 215 3 3 36 209 216 2 2 154 84 C TUNNEL FRONT BRACE C C MEMBERS OF THE REAR INTERNAL BACK) C 350 1 1 66 221 351 1 1 221 222 352 1 1 222 17 Page 72
353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 377 368 376 369 370 371 372 379 378 380 373 374 375 C C C
1 1 1 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
69 224 224 223 223 20 221 19 224 22 226 228 228 230 230 232 232 233 233 231 231 229 229 227 226 112 227 114 228 220 220 210 229 225 225 211 67 230 68 231 234 235 220 236 236 234 225 237 237 235 234 222 222 223 223 235
C ELEMENTS ELEM=46210 NUMB GROUP PROP TOPO 425 11 11 8 9 52 53 38 0 0 72 426 11 11 57 56 28 27 73 0 0 37 427 11 11 89 91 90 92 97 0 0 98 C C PLATES.AND.SHELLS PLATE.OR.SHELL MATER.NUMB THICKNESS 11 1 0.0030 LOADS CASE NODE DIRE VALUE 1 279 3 1000 C C RESTRAINTS NODE.NUM DIRECTION 278 123 282 23 283 3 C Page 73
C REACTIONS C NODE.NUM C 278 C 279 C 282 C 283 C C STRESS.ELEMENT C START FINISH STEP C 1 9999 1 C END.OF.DATA
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Appendix E - Diagrams and Information for Chassis Modifications i) Diagrams Showing Changes to Chassis
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
0.155E-02 0.130
CAR2 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 64.4 1.58 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 9.64 Iyy 207. Izz 212.
0.152E-02 0.133
CAR3 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 65.2 1.58 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 9.67 Iyy 209. Izz 214.
0.148E-02 0.126
CAR5 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 63.5 1.60 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 9.36 Iyy 206. Izz 211.
0.155E-02 0.130
CAR6 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 64.0 1.59 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 9.44 Iyy 206. Izz 211.
0.154E-02 0.132
CAR7 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 63.6 1.60 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 9.36 Iyy 206. Izz 211.
0.142E-02 0.129
CAR8 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 65.8 1.54 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 9.50 Iyy 206. Izz 211.
0.356E-02 0.131
Page 88
Ixx 9.44
Iyy 206.
Izz 211.
0.326E-02 0.131
CAR10 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 62.5 1.61 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 9.24 Iyy 206. Izz 210.
-0.850E-03 0.127
CAR11 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 63.5 1.60 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 9.41 Iyy 206. Izz 211.
-0.959E-03 0.131
CAR12 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 71.1 1.53 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 10.1 Iyy 214. Izz 219.
0.780E-03 0.134
CAR13 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 63.3 1.60 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 9.34 Iyy 206. Izz 210.
0.141E-02 0.130
CAR14 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 64.4 1.59 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 9.42 Iyy 207. Izz 211.
0.159E-02 0.128
CAR15 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 66.9 1.55 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 9.86 Iyy 208. Izz 212.
0.141E-02 0.131
CAR16 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 71.0 1.59 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 10.6 Iyy 231. Izz 236.
0.205E-02 0.133
CAR17
Page 89
CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z
0.218E-02 0.132
CAR18 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 64.9 1.57 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 9.55 Iyy 207. Izz 211.
0.499E-03 0.133
CAR19 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 67.6 1.58 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 9.55 Iyy 216. Izz 220.
0.240E-03 0.132
CAR20 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 63.3 1.60 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 9.35 Iyy 206. Izz 210.
0.155E-02 0.130
CAR21 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 68.4 1.59 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 9.55 Iyy 219. Izz 223.
0.209E-03 0.131
CAR22 GROUP NUMBER MASS ALL 67.5 1.54 CENTRE OF MASS X Y Z MOMENTS OF INERTIA Ixx 9.86 Iyy 208. Izz 213.
0.151E-02 0.136
Page 90
Page 91
Appendix G - Calculations
i) Chassis Torsional Stiffness The deflections at four dial gauges are as follows:
102 -5.77
123 -14.01
111 0.84
115 -1.15
Page 92
As a means to evaluating the effectiveness of the geometry of a space frame in resisting torsional loading, it would be helpful to consider: How much does the torsional stiffness of the members independently contribute to the overall torsional stiffness of the chassis. Note that a low percentage contribution from individual members will suggest an effective geometry of the overall chassis. A typical cross section of the chassis would consist of four 25x1.6 SHS and four 20x1.6 SHS. The chassis alone was calculated as having a stiffness of 1121 Nm/deg over a length of 2420mm. Consider member stiffnesses alone over this length:
The percentage to which the members alone contribute to torsional stiffness is: 6.5% Hence the stiffness of the chassis is primarily derived from the members "acting as a team" within the structure rather than from the individual member stiffnesses, as would be the case with a ladder type chassis.
ii) Equivalent Structures It may be helpful in understanding the improvements in chassis technology over the years to consider the typical torsional stiffness of different types of chassis of the same weight. Westfield Chassis: weight = 63 kg wheelbase = 2420 mm torsional stiffness = 1121 Nm/deg Girder Chassis of Equivalent Weight Two girders 2.9 m long and three 0.8 m cross members of the same section, weighing 63 kg combined would require a member of 7.7 kg/m. Page 93
Using 100 TFB (Taper Flanged Beam); 7.20 kg/m the weight of the chassis will be 59 kg and the torsional stiffness of the chassis will be:
Page 94
Ladder Chassis of Equivalent Weight (ignoring the effect of lateral bracing) Use 102 CHS 3.2 7.77kg/m. Two 2.9m beams and three 0.8m laterals weigh 63.7 kg.
Stressed Skin Chassis of Equivalent Weight Using 0.9mm steel skin, the dimensions for two boxes with a combined weight of around 63 kg are: 430mm x 300mm x 0.9mm thick; two 3m boxes would weigh 62kg
Page 95