Proc. Schl. Eng. Tokai Univ., Ser.

E
44 (2019) 7-13
DOI: 10.18995/24343641.44.7

Structural Characteristics of the Racing Car

in the Student Formula SAE Competition
by

Nanami YAMANOUCHI *1 , Koki ISHII *1 , Hiroyuki MORIYAMA *2 and Hideaki KATO *3

(Received on Mar. 27, 2019 and accepted on May 9, 2019)

Abstract
This paper describes structural characteristics of the racing car for the Student Formula SAE Competition of
Japan and the monocoque structure of the main vehicle body. The structural characteristics are considered
numerically by analysing the entire monocoque by FEM, in which the monocoque structure is subjected to
external forces in the directions of compression, pitch, yaw and roll. The stress distribution and deformation
were obtained from the analysis. With respect to the cross-section of the monocoque structure under
deformation, the moving distance of the centroid and variation in the sectional secondary moment are
examined as significant factors. As a result, the area where the stress becomes larger is distributed widely, thus
verifying the monocoque characteristics by which the internal forces are dispersed throughout the whole
structure. The moving distance of the centroid depends strongly on the load direction and increases greatly due
to this correspondence with the load direction. Therefore, the structural rigidity can be evaluated by
comparison of the moving distance. The ratio between the sectional secondary moments based on loaded and
unloaded situations is used as a factor for evaluating structural rigidity, so the evaluation can accurately grasp
the rigidity and also makes it possible to determine weak points of the monocoque structure.

Keywords: Student formula, Monocoque structure, Centroid of cross section, Sectional secondary moment

1. Introduction and higher rigidity. However, the references to utilize for the
above reconsideration are hardly found and the monocoque
The honeycomb structure, which is used in the fields of structure is designed by trial and error, so that the rational
racing cars, high-speed rails and aerospace, attracts attention design method has not been established yet. In general,
as a structural element with lightweight and high rigidity, and although theoretical and numerical analyses are employed in
has been studied through theoretical, numerical and the design process of monocoque structure, the strength and
experimental approaches. Here, we take note of the racing car rigidity are estimated based on the maximum stress and
for Student Formula SAE Competition of Japan, whereas a deformation in those solutions. To establish the rational
space frame structure is adopted in a lot of student formula design method, it is important not only to rely on published
teams, having characteristics of inexpensive manufacturing references but also to accurately evaluate own monocoque
costs and easiness of design, manufacturing and correction 1-3). structures that were designed before.
However, recently, a carbon monocoque structure tends to be This study takes note of the monocoque structure for
adopted in domestic and foreign teams, enabling to attain Student Formula, which was designed by TFC and actually
light weight and high rigidity at the same time, so that some took part in that competition. The structural characteristics
of them have gotten good results 4-7). are investigated numerically by analysing the entire
Since 2013, TFC (Tokai Formula Club) has adopted a monocoque in FEM, from which the stress distribution and
carbone monocoque structure as the main vehicle body and deformation are obtained as analysis results. In particular,
has reconsidered the structural design to aim at lighter weight with respect to the cross-section of the monocoque structure
from the deformation, the moving distance of the centroid
*1 Undergraduate Student, Department of Prime Mover
and variation in the sectional secondary moment are
Engineering
*2 Professor, Department of Prime Mover Engineering examined as significant factors for evaluating its structural
*3 Junior Associate Professor, Department of Prime rigidity.
Mover Engineering

―7―
Vol. XLIV, 2019
 Nanami YAMANOUCHI, Koki ISHII, Hiroyuki MORIYAMA and Hideaki KATO

2. Numerical Analysis Method performance. Therefore, the multiscale analysis is utilized to

analyse the entire monocoque structure in FEM.
2.1 Analytical model Figure 2 shows the honeycomb structure used in this
The paper takes about two kinds of racing cars that were analysis, then this is the unit cell and is regarded as the
produced by TFC, as shown in Fig. 1. They are denoted by microscale model to practice the multiscale analysis. Here,
Model A and B, which have respective specifications shown the coordinates y 1, y 2 and y 3 are introduced anew in this
in Table 1. Although both models adopt a carbone monocoque figure, and the arbitrary displacements on sides A and B are
structure as the main vehicle body in order to attempt their denoted by u 1A and u 1B in y 1 direction and are defined as
lightweight and high rigidity, the design and production of follows 8):
Model B is newer than those of Model A.
"#$ = &## '#$ + &#) ')$ + &#* '*$ + "#$* , (1)
Figure 1 shows the analytical model to carry out actually
the numerical analysis in ANSYS. The coordinates are set as "#$ = &## '#$ + &#) ')$ + &#* '*$ + "#$* . (2)
X, Y and Z in this figure and the monocoque body is fixed at
The suffixes 1, 2 and 3 indicate y 1, y 2 and y 3 directions and
the square portions surrounded by red circles, which are in its
the suffixes A and B mean the arbitrary positions on the sides
rear part, in all directions of these axes. The external forces
A and B. !"# is a strain component in the tensor field and
are applied to the square portions surrounded by yellow
!"#* and !"#* are periodic disturbances caused by the
circles, which are in the front part of the monocoque body,
structural heterogeneity.
along the respective axes.
According to the above indications of the arbitrary
2.2 Multiscale analysis displacements on sides A and B, the displacements !"#$ ,
The above monocoque structure has been constructed of !"#$ and !"#$ between the sides A and B can be expressed
a honeycomb structure made by aluminum alloy and its as follows:
surface plates made by CFRP. Although we employ FEM as a
numerical method in such a honeycomb structure, the direct !"#$ ("$ ("# *"" *"% *"& ,"$ ,"#
method with microscale model, which must mesh in the !%#$
= (% - (%# = *%" *%% *%&
$ $
,% - ,%#
!&#$ (&$ (&# *&" *&% *&& ,&$ ,&#
entire structure, not only brings a lot of the analysis time in
FEM, but also can make FEM infeasible due to our computer #$$ #$% #$& '$()
= #%$ #%% #%& '%() , (3)
#&$ #&% #&& '&()

where !"#$ , !"#$ and !"#$ are the distances in the respective
directions between the sides A and B, and then it is assumed
to cancel out the periodic disturbances. Such a relationship
functions not only between the sides A and B but also
between other sides.
In actual numerical analysis, stress analysis is executed
with the displacement constraint conditions based on Eq. (3).
The stress is integrated in the unit cell and its volume average
is obtained, so that elastic coefficients of the homogenized
unit cell can be determined.

Fig. 1 Analytical model.

Table 1 Specifications of racing car.

Model A B
Overall length [mm] 3100 3075
Overall height [mm] 1243 1237
Overall width [mm] 1400 1440
Wheel base [mm] 1600 1700
Monocoque mass [kg] 51.5 50.6
Fig. 2 Microscale model for honeycomb structure.

―8― Proceedings of the School of Engineering

Tokai University, Series E
 Structural Characteristics of the Racing Car in the Student Formula SAE Competition

3. Results and Discussion Figure 3 shows an example of the analysis results, in

which Models A and B are subjected to the force in the yaw
3.1 Stress characteristics of monocoque structure direction. The stress distributions are indicated in the XZ
The above honeycomb structure is made by aluminum plane to estimate the strength characteristics, von Mises
3
alloy A5086, which has density of 2660 kg/mm , Young’s stress is used in these results. The area where the stress
modulus of 70.6 MPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.33, and has foil becomes larger is distributed widely due to monocoque
thickness of 0.2 mm, length of a side of 3.0 mm, cell size of characteristics. It is recognized that such an area of Model A
5.2 mm and height of 10 mm. This honeycomb structure is extends to wider area than that of Model B. However, in
regarded as the unit cell and FEM analysis with microscale Model B, it is also confirmed that such an area extends to the
model is carried out, so that the mechanical properties in the side walls of the cockpit and the plate partitioning off the
respective coordinate directions are obtained and are cockpit and engine space.
exhibited in Table 2.
Moreover, although these results are applied to the 3.2 Factor to evaluate monocoque rigidity
multiscale analysis using ANSYS to analyse the entire Figure 4 shows the deformation situation in the XY plane,
monocoque structure, both surfaces of the honeycomb when the monocoque structure is subjected to the forces in
structure are covered by CFRP plates whose thickness is 1 the roll direction. However, the deformation is enlarged to
mm. This CFRP material is provided as the application of 640 times in comparison with the actual deformation by the
ANSYS, and its Young’s modulus is 121 GPa in the direction function that ANSYS has, being too small and being hardly
of the carbon fiber and is 8.60 GPa in the normal direction of distinguished in the difference between the unloaded and
the fiber. The shear modulus and Poisson's ratio are 4.70 GPa loaded situations. In general, the estimation of such a
and 0.27 in the plane including the carbon fiber axis and are deformation is practiced in the maximum value, whereas it is
3.10 GPa and 0.40 in other planes. hard to examine accurately the structural rigidity of the
In the whole analysis for the monocoque structure, the monocoque with just that. Therefore, the centroid and
structure is subjected to the external force of 1000 N, which sectional secondary moment are investigated in arbitrary
is loaded in the directions of X, Y and Z, (i.e. the forces in the cross-sectional planes (XY planes).
directions of yaw, pitch and compression), respectively. On Here, the x and y coordinates are defined newly as
the other hand, the external force in the direction of the roll is shown in Fig. 5. The areas, and sectional primary and
expressed by -500 N and 500 N in Y direction and is applied secondary moments in xy planes are calculated by using
clockwise with respect to the Z axis. Gauss's theorem, which is established in a closed space 9). The
area A is obtained by setting x i and y i, which are the
Table 2 Mechanical properties of unit cell. respective x and y coordinates in n divisions of the closed
Coordinate y1 y2 y3 curve, as follows:
3
Young's 63.7 75.7 49.1×10 -
1
modulus [MPa] （E 11） （E 22） （E 33） "= &' (')* -&')* (' . (4)
2
Shear 23.9 9.96×10 2 9.16×10 2 '.*
modulus [MPa] （G 12） （G 23） （G 13）
0.892 6.09×10 -3 3.32×10 -3 Then the sectional primary moments S x and S y with respect to
Poisson's ratio x and y axes are calculated from the following equations, Fig.
（ ν 12） （ ν 23） （ ν 13）

Model A

Model B

Fig. 4 Deformation state of twisted monocoque.

Fig. 3 Stress distribution of monocoque structure.

―9―
Vol. XLIV, 2019
 Nanami YAMANOUCHI, Koki ISHII, Hiroyuki MORIYAMA and Hideaki KATO

respectively. and I Gy, new factor I xy is defined as follows:

- "#$ = "&# + "&$ . (10)

1
"# = '( )(*+ -'(*+ )( '( + '(*+ , (5)
6 I in an unloaded condition is denoted by I 0 and it is used in
xy
(.+
later examination.
- The convergence of the above factor values should be
1
"# = '( )(*+ -'(*+ )( )( + )(*+ . (6) evaluated with changes in n divisions, depending strongly on
6
(.+
the division number. Figure 5 shows the cross-sectional area
The central coordinates G x and G y of the sectional plane are A as functions of n at Z = 1110 mm in Model B, which is not
derived from A, S x and S y and are induced from Eq. (7).
only unloaded but also is subjected to the twisting load. Then
%& %# the position is where the cockpit width is extending with
"# = , "& = . (7)
' ' increasing Z (refer to Figs. 3 and 7). The area A increases
greatly with n and varies widely until n reaches around 50 in
On the other hand, the sectional secondary moments I x and I y
both cases. The area A has a convergence tendency beyond
with respect to x and y axes are obtained from Eqs. (8) and
such a n region and converges into the respective values.
(9), respectively.
Actually, both convergence values should be so close,
/
1 . . . whereas the difference of them is clear because the
"# = '( )(*+ -'(*+ )( )( + )(*+ + )( + )(*+ , (8)
6 deformation of the loaded model was enlarged to 640 times in
(0+

comparison with the actual that.

0
1 . The cross-sectional shapes and their centroids in the
"# = '( )(*+ -'(*+ )( '( + '(*+ + '( . + '(*+ . . (9)
6 above cross sections are compared in the unloaded and
(1+

loaded cases in Fig. 6. The shapes and centroids are exhibited

These I x and I y are applied to the parallel axis theorem, so
in circles and crosses and the unloaded and loaded cases are
that the sectional secondary moments I Gx and I Gy with respect
distinguished in blue and red plots. Then the n is set to 600
to the axes, which are parallel to x and y axes and pass
divisions and the display magnification remains 640 times.
through the centroid, are gotten, respectively. From these I Gx
The structural deflection and moving centroid can be grasped
very well from this figure.
14000
A [mm2]

13000

12000 Model B

11000 Z = 1110 [mm]

Unloaded
10000 Loaded

9000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
n
Fig. 5 Cross-sectional area as functions of division number.
Fig. 7 Cross section where movement of centroid and
sectional secondary moment are examined.

Table 3 Z coordinate of examined cross section.

Position Model A [mm] Model B [mm]
1 336.4 383.9
2 597.8 614.5
3 1031 1110
4 1294 1308
5 1461 1537
Fig. 6 Deformation state and movement of centroid 6 1877 1901
on cross-section.
7 2147 2263

―10― Proceedings of the School of Engineering

Tokai University, Series E
 Structural Characteristics of the Racing Car in the Student Formula SAE Competition

3.3 Rigidity characteristics of monocoque structure The great changes of Δ G y in the pitch direction are
Here, in order to evaluate rigidity characteristics of the caused by the correspondence between the moving and load
monocoque structure, the moving distance of the centroid and directions and are maximized at the front end, near which the
variation in sectional secondary moment attract attention as load is applied. Model B is suppressed more than Model A in
evaluation points with respect to an arbitrary xy plane. Such a not only those maximum Δ G y but also the variation width of
plane is the cross-sections on the lines drawn in the Δ G y in the other loading conditions. On the other hand, the
respective models as shown in Fig. 7. The specific positions moving distance Δ G x in the x direction is indicated in Fig. 9
are exhibited in Table 3 and are described by Z coordinate and is plotted in the same manner as Fig. 8. Δ G x increases in
from the front end, so that the xy plane in Figs. 5 and 6 the load direction and is suppressed in the other directions, as
corresponds to Position 3 in Model B. with the consideration in Fig. 8.
The moving distance of the centroid is denoted by Furthermore, in the larger Δ G x and Δ G y that occur in the
subtraction values Δ G x and Δ G y, which are calculated by correspondence between the moving and load directions, the
subtracting the loaded G x and G y from the unloaded values, decrease rate of Δ G x is suppressed more than that of Δ G y, in
respectively. However, the loaded G x and G y are the actual changing Z, and the tendency is remarkable in Model B. Then
centroid coordinates, not being enlarged as before. Figure 8 in the other directions, the variation width of Δ G x is larger
shows Δ G y as functions of Z in Models A and B, when the than that of Δ G y and is promoted in Model A. These depend
forces in the directions of compression, pitch and yaw are on symmetries with respect to x and y axes of the monocoque
applied to the monocoque structure and the twisting force in structure. Specifically, Δ G y is the moving distance of the
the direction of the roll is also applied to that. In both models, centroid on the y axis, about which the cross-section on xy
Δ G y in the pitch direction decreases gradually with increasing plane is almost symmetric, whereas Δ G x is on the axis of the
Z from the maximum value at the front end and is minimized asymmetric cross-section in the cockpit and the engine and
at Position 7. However, the other Δ G y is uniformly differential gear spaces. Therefore, the variation width of Δ G x
maintained over the entire range of Z while having small becomes larger in the pitch and roll directions and is remark-
variations.

-12 -8
ΔGy [mm]

ΔGx [mm]

-10 Model A Model A

Compression -6
-8 Pitch
Yaw Compression
-6 -4 Pitch
Roll
Yaw
-4 Roll
-2
-2
0
0
2 2
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Z [mm] Z [mm]

-12 -8
ΔGx [mm]
ΔGy [mm]

Model B
-10 Model B Compression
Compression -6 Pitch
-8 Pitch Yaw
Yaw Roll
-6 Roll -4

-4 -2
-2
0
0
2 2
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Z [mm] Z [mm]

Fig. 8 Moving distance of centroid in y direction when Fig. 9 Moving distance of centroid in x direction when
monocoque is subjected to 4 kinds of loads, respectively. monocoque is subjected to 4 kinds of loads, respectively.

―11―
Vol. XLIV, 2019
 Nanami YAMANOUCHI, Koki ISHII, Hiroyuki MORIYAMA and Hideaki KATO

able particularly in Model A. Then the variation width of Δ G y Being used as the factor for evaluating the structural
is also promoted relatively in the pitch and roll directions of rigidity, I is divided by I , which corresponds with I in the
xy 0 xy

Model A. unloaded condition, and is made dimensionless. Figure 10

Taking into consideration the above estimation, it is shows I / I as functions of Z in Models A and B, respectively,
xy 0

supposed that Model B is intensified in the structural rigidity when each force is applied to the monocoque structure. I / I xy 0

of the monocoque in comparison with Model A. However, varies with Z and its variation width in Model A is much
Model B exceeds Model A in the variation width of Δ G x at larger than that of Model B. In general, a structural rigidity
the differential gear space. This is because Model B is depends greatly on the sectional secondary moment, so that
narrower than Model A in the width of the differential gear the structural rigidity should be strengthened with increasing
space (refer to Fig. 7). the sectional secondary moment. However, I / I herein is the xy 0

The above estimation of the structural rigidity was factor to evaluate the degree of sectional deformation by
carried out indirectly from the moving distance of the applying the respective forces to the monocoque structure.
centroid. So, in order to attempt direct estimation of that, the The increase and decrease in I / I do not mean strengthening
xy 0

sectional secondary moment is examined in the same and weakening the rigidity but mean promoting the degree of
cross-section. Although the structural rigidity should be sectional deformation. In other words, the approach to I / I = xy 0

evaluated by the respective sectional secondary moments I Gx 1.0 shows weakening the degree and implies promoting the
and I Gy with respect to the x and y axes, the another sectional structural rigidity.
secondary moment I is employed here. Summing I Gx and I Gy
xy I / I of Model A increases in the yaw direction at Z =
xy 0

as described in Eq. (10), I xy expresses overall bending 336.4 and 1461 mm (Positions 1 and 5 in Fig. 7) and this is
characteristics with respect to the xy plane. Then, too, it also suggesting that those cross-sections have relatively large
means approximately torsional characteristics with respect to deformation. The increase in I / I at Position 2 is derived
xy 0

the Z axis and the torsional rigidity is one of the most from the existence of the inspection hole that is crossed by
significant performances in actual racing cars. the cross-section (refer to Model A in Fig. 7). Because the
cross-section is not closed shape and becomes asymmetric
1.020 with respect to the axis along the yaw direction, the structural
Ixy / I0

Model A rigidity is weakened relatively. Moreover, Position 5 is in the

1.015 Compression
Pitch proximity of the boundary between the cockpit and engine
1.010 Yaw space and has the widest opening, so that the rigidity
Roll
lowering is remarkable. On the other hand, I xy / I is 0

1.005 distributed in the vicinity of 1.0 with changing Z in Model B

1.000 in comparison with that of Model A
According to the above results, i.e. the moving distance
0.995 of the centroid and variation in the sectional secondary
moment, it is obvious that Model B is superior to Model A in
0.990
0 500 1000 1500 2000 the structural rigidity. Actually, the racing cars, which the
Z [mm] above monocoque structures were adopted, have taken part in
1.020 Student Formula SAE Competition of Japan. The
Ixy / I0

Model B examination of this competition is classified roughly into

1.015 Compression tech inspection, static and dynamic events, and the dynamic
Pitch
1.010 Yaw events have some evaluation items that consist of
Roll acceleration, skidpad, autocross and endurance. Since the
1.005 autocross is subjected strongly to the influence of the
structural rigidity, the comparison between Models A and B is
1.000
attempted in its results. Models A and B obtained 70.301 and
0.995 59.225 seconds as the respective records, which were the
spent times for one round in the course of autocross.
0.990
0 500 1000 1500 2000 Those actual results demonstrate that the evaluation of
Z [mm] the structural rigidity is valid for the monocoque structure. In
particular, a weak point of the monocoque structure could be
Fig. 10 Variation in sectional secondary moment when
monocoque is subjected to 4 kinds of loads, respectively. found using variations in the sectional secondary moment. To

―12― Proceedings of the School of Engineering

Tokai University, Series E
 Structural Characteristics of the Racing Car in the Student Formula SAE Competition

reflect such a result in a rational design of the monocoque possible to determine weak points of the monocoque
structure, the design should be executed with evaluating the structure.
stress distribution characteristics. Then it is necessary to
consider measures to make the monocoque structure more Acknowledgement
superior and it is a future significant matter for this study.
This work was accomplished by receiving monocoque
4. Conclusion data from Tokai Formula Club.

In this study, the monocoque structure for Student References

Formula, which was constructed of the honeycomb structure
made by aluminum alloy and its surface plates made by CFRP, 1) Website of Grandelfino (Kyoto Institute of Technology),
was adopted as the analytical model. The multiscale analysis [Link]
was utilized to analyse the entire monocoque structure in 2) Website of N.I.T. Formula Project (Nagoya Institute of
FEM and the structural characteristics were investigated Technology), [Link]
using the analysis results, as which the stress distribution and 3) Website of SHIBAURA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLO-
deformation were obtained. Particularly, with respect to its GY FORMULA RACIMG (Shibaura Institute of Tech-
cross-section from the deformation, the moving distance of nology), [Link]
the centroid and variation in the sectional secondary moment 4) Website of TUT FORMULA (Toyohashi University of
attracted attention as significant evaluation factors. As a Technology), [Link]
result, the following conclusion was obtained. 5) Website of Tokai Formula Club (Tokai University),
The area where the stress becomes larger is distributed [Link]
widely and the monocoque characteristics, by which the 6) Website of Sophia Racing (Sophia University),
internal force is dispersed in the whole structure, are captured. [Link]
The moving distance of the centroid depends strongly on the 7) Motion video of TUG Racing Team (Graz University of
load direction and increases greatly due to the correspon- Technology), [Link]
dence with the load direction. Then the structural rigidity can 8) N. Hirayama, Multiscale CAE using ANSYS – Numeri-
be evaluated by the comparison of its moving distance. cal material examination using ANSYS, Website of
Moreover, the ratio between the sectional secondary moments ANSYS, [Link]
based on loaded and unloaded situations is adopted to /multiscale/r elation/[Link].
evaluate a degree promoting the sectional deformation, so the 9) Explanation of some properties with respect to cross-
evaluation can accurately grasp the rigidity and also makes it section, [Link]

―13―
Vol. XLIV, 2019