Paper Number

Design, Development and Analysis of the NCSHFH.09 Chassis

Michael Broad and Terry Gilbert
North Carolina State University College of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Copyright 2009 SAE International

ABSTRACT
This paper provides a thorough overview of the design and development considerations for a SAE Formula Hybrid chassis using the 2009 entry from North Carolina State University, codenamed NCSUFH.09, as a case study. The proper design methodology for the development of a series-hybrid vehicle chassis is explored. Next, several loading scenarios are investigated in order to understand the substantially increased forces that must be communicated through the chassis and suspension components due to the added mass of hybrid apparatus such as electric motors and battery arrays. Material selection will also be considered. Utilizing SolidWorks 3-D modeling software, several design iterations are run in order to determine the best compromise between vehicle mass, component packaging, and weight distribution while still ensuring driver safety. Finally, Finite Element Analysis is implemented using the ANSYS design software. A loading model is examined in order to determine the efficiency of the structure in resisting torsional loads, as these are most critical in determining overall vehicle performance.

abilities, team management, and practical application skills and prove themselves against teams from other major universities from across the world. The design objectives of the Formula Hybrid competition are to design, fabricate, and demonstrate a prototype design that a manufacturing firm may consider implementing as a production item targeted at the amateur, weekend autocross racer. This paper first covers the numerous loading conditions imparted upon the chassis during high speed, dynamic events. Moreover, the proper design methodology that should be considered when developing any high performance chassis will be explored. Next, the proper means of transferring these loads through the chassis structure will be discussed. Finally, a loading model will be developed in order to determine the best compromise between vehicle weight, torsional rigidity, and dynamic vehicle performance.

THE CHASSIS
The idea of a chassis carries several different connotations, depending upon the referenced source. For the purpose of this paper, the chassis will be thought of in its racing context as a structure which carries and connects all of the major components including the engine, driver, drive train, and other vehicle systems. The chassis structure must safely support the weight of the vehicle components and transmit loads that result from longitudinal, lateral, and vertical accelerations that are experienced in a racing environment without failure. There are many aspects to consider when designing a chassis, including component packaging (including the driver), material selection, strength, stiffness and weight.

INTRODUCTION
Formula Hybrid SAE is a competition amongst university level undergraduate and graduate students in which participants design, analyze, construct, and compete with an open wheel, formula style race car with either a parallel or series hybrid drive train. Sponsored by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), the event provides engineering students with the opportunity to demonstrate their engineering creativity, research

DO NOT TYPE IN THIS FOOTER SECTION ON PAGE 1. TEXT WILL BE INSERTED INTO THIS AREA BY SAE STAFF UPON RECEIPT OF THE FINAL APPROVED MANUSCRIPT AT SAE INTERNATIONAL.

The primary objective of the chassis is to provide a structure that connects the front and rear suspension without excessive deflection. When considering a race car chassis, a frame that is easily twisted will result in significant handling problems. Suspension setup is based upon the assumption that all four corners of the vehicle are connected by an infinitely rigid body. If the chassis is not sufficiently stiff, the structure is merely another variable in the system as it acts as a torsional spring. This variability within the chassis structure makes it very difficult to dial in a suspension setup that will generate the necessary levels of lateral grip to be competitive. Generally speaking, a frame that is able to resist torsional loads resulting from inertial accelerations of components experienced during cornering or from applied loads acting on one or opposite corners of the vehicle will almost always be sufficiently strong.

VERTICAL BENDING Perhaps the second most important group of loads that must be distributed throughout the chassis structure are the vertical loads presented by masses including the driver, internal combustion engine, electric generator, motors, battery arrays, motor controllers, and fuel tank. In a static position, the sum weight of all these components, about 600 lbs, must be supported by the chassis. However, the dynamic loads of the vehicle must also be considered. As a moving vehicle passes over a vertical bump, the components of the vehicle will be accelerated upwards. This vertical acceleration will magnify the load experienced by the chassis structure. For instance, at rest a battery array represents a load of 50 lbs that must be transmitted from the battery mounts to the spring mounts through the tubular frame. However, when the vehicle experiences a 1 g bump, an inertial load of 100 lbs must be carried from the battery pack mounts to the spring mounting points. Vertical accelerations of vehicle components tend to stretch the lower members of the chassis, loading them in pure tension, while the upper rails are compressed. Due to the fact that members loaded in tension are far less likely to fail than members experiencing compressive forces, which can lead to buckling, the lower rails of a chassis are often constructed of smaller outer diameter tubing or tubing with a thinner side wall. LONGITUDINAL TORSION The greatest loads that a chassis must resist are those that are torsional in nature. Torsional loads attempt to twist one end of the structure in relation to the other. As was stated previously, the goal of the suspension is to keep all four tires flat on the ground in order to maximize tire contact surface area and subsequently vehicle performance. In addition to poor vehicle handling, a chassis that constantly experiences twisting may fatigue over time and subsequently fail over repeated loading cycles. Torsional loads arise from a variety of situations. The most simplistic form of torsional loading is the single wheel bump model, where one wheel passes over a bump and the other three remain at their original vertical orientation. This applied load from the upward movement of one wheel applies a torque to the chassis structure. The torsional stiffness of the structure can be defined by how much a frame will flex or distort when loaded in pure torsion, measured in foot-pounds per degree of rotation. This is not to be confused with the strength of the structure, which is a measure of how much load the structure can handle before experiencing failure. Generally speaking, a chassis that is stiff enough to provide a stable platform for competition will not yield to applied stresses, given that all components are properly attached at triangulated junctions.

VEHICLE LOADING
Before the chassis can be developed, it is first important to fully understand the primary loads that the vehicle structure must be capable of withstanding. These loads must be efficiently transferred through the structure so that the chassis will not be prone to mechanical failure. Typically, four forms of vehicle deformation are recognized as being fundamental in chassis design: Lateral Bending, Horizontal Lozenging, Vertical Bending, and Longitudinal Torsion. LATERAL BENDING Lateral bending loads are often the result of centrifugal or inertial forces that are imparted on the vehicle as it attempts to navigate a corner at high speeds. The magnitude of this force is dependent upon vehicle speed, corner radius, and banking. Lateral bending may also result from strong winds acting on the side of the vehicle. Lateral bending loads act along the length of the vehicle and thus deformation will be greater with increased vehicle length, all other things being equal. Lateral bending loads are resisted by the tires, but generally are not of primary concern as the following deformation modes lead to structural deflections of greater severity. HORIZONTAL LOZENGING In some instances, one side of a moving vehicle may have greater traction than the other. For instance, under heavy braking one tire may lock up and skid while the other continues rolling. This will impart an unequal horizontal force to the left and right sides of the vehicle, causing the structure to distort from a rectangular to diamond shape when viewed from above. In comparison to vertical bending and longitudinal torsion, however, lozenging is viewed as being of only minor concern based upon modern construction practices.

DESIGN METHODOLOGY
During the initial design stages of a SAE Formula Hybrid chassis, it is first important to consider what components must be included in the final vehicle system. The general layout of the vehicle systems should first be established, and then structural members of the chassis should be designed to connect the components at their mounting points. Therefore, the chassis conforms to the shape and location of the components, including the engine mounts, drive train, seat, suspension links, and so on. If the chassis is designed the other way around, that is the components are placed according to the chassis design, then the structure will have many inherent engineering flaws. It is essential that the components are connected in the most efficient manner possible, which means developing a structure that is capable of withstanding the loads imparted upon it while using the least amount of material possible and thus reducing vehicle mass. For any team designing a chassis for the first time, as was the case for the NCSUFH.09, an excellent starting point is to reference the work of successful entrants from the past. Our team was able to benefit from the 2008 chassis, which was purchased from Clemson University. After examining the 2008 NCSU chassis, much knowledge was gained in reference to many basic design considerations. Proper structural engineering practices were better appreciated from this study, including the importance of tubular triangulation and component packaging. However, it was our general feeling that the 2008 entry was far too cumbersome and included an excess of material. This excess material led to a very high overall vehicle weight of about 75 lbs for the chassis frame itself and close to 700 lbs for the entire vehicle. It was our firm belief that through proper research, design, analysis, and fabrication, a sufficient frame could be built weighing no more than 60 lbs, a reduction in weight of 20 percent. Furthermore, by applying weight optimization throughout the entire vehicle through the use of lightweight components and composite materials, we established a goal for the total vehicle build weight of 450 lbs. This extreme reduction in mass would hopefully lead to improved acceleration, braking, and handling characteristics. COMPONENT PACKAGING As a basis for chassis design, the track width and wheelbase must first be determined. Track width is defined as the lateral distance between the right and left wheel centerlines for the vehicle. Increasing track width helps resist the rolling moment of the vehicle caused by the inertial forces of vehicle components at the vehicles center of gravity. However, too wide a track will make it difficult to navigate the narrow courses that will be encountered during the competition. For 2009, a front track of 124.4 cm and a rear track of 117.5 cm were chosen. The rear track was made slightly narrower in

order to reduce the risk of incurring time penalties due to cones being knocked over. One final determining factor of our track width was the specifications of a laser alignment tool that we had access to. We viewed the use of this tool to be critical as it would help us accurately dial in our suspension specifications during testing. Similar to the track width, the wheelbase of the vehicle is also important to vehicle dynamics. Wheelbase is defined as the longitudinal distance between the contact patches of the front and rear tires. The wheelbase determines the weight transfer in the longitudinal direction during periods of hard braking and acceleration. The wheelbase is also critical in terms of the packaging of vehicle components. For the NCSFH.09, a wheelbase of 1597 mm was selected, meeting the design requirement of 1525 mm specified by the SAE. This wheelbase was mainly selected based on packaging constraints of the specified vehicle components. Once the wheelbase and track widths were determined, dimensions of major components including the internal combustion engine, generator, electric motors, suspension apparatus, battery arrays, drivetrain, and most importantly the driver were considered. Several sketches and model mockups were developed in order to estimate overall vehicle weight distribution and center of gravity placement, as these factors are key in vehicle handling and performance. VEHICLE PLATFORM Perhaps one of the most critical decisions to be made by any team is what type of structure to develop. Due to cost considerations imposed by the Formula Hybrid Rules and ease of fabrication, it was decided that a tubular space frame chassis would be built instead of a composite monocoque employing composite sandwich construction. A space frame is a 3-dimensional structure that is assembled such that its members are only subjected to loads that act along the lengthwise axis of the tube, meaning the tubular members are theoretically free from bending loads. This design is highly efficient as thin-walled, tubular pipe exhibits high strength in compression and tension, but performs very poorly when subjected to bending loads. Although it is often difficult to ensure that all members will be free from bending loads, a chassis that approximates the ideal as closely as possible will yield the most desirable results. TRIANGULATION With the application of space frame construction, it is desirable that all loads enter the structure at points of intersection of at least three tubular members. These loads may arise from components being accelerated in a given direction or from forces transmitted through the front and rear independent suspension components. In

order to ensure that members are loaded purely in compression or tension, proper triangulation is essential. Triangulation serves as the simplest method to isolate loads experienced by chassis members to compression and tension. When a load is applied to a triangular structure, two of the members stretch the third, loading it in pure tension. Thin-walled tubing functions best when loaded in tension the material is not susceptible to the risk of buckling, as is the case when the tube is loaded in compression. Proper engineering practices dictate that all major components be attached to the structure at triangulated nodes. This is especially important at suspension pickup points and engine mounting tabs where some of the greatest loads are transferred throughout the structure. LOAD PATH Once a general component layout is established and structural members are being added, it is important to consider that loads within a chassis are not merely absorbed by the structure, as is commonly thought. Although loads may be more concentrated in certain areas than others, such as spring mounting points, the main purpose of the chassis structure is to transmit a load from one point to another while all members are loaded in pure tension or compression. This notion of the structure conveying loads from one point to another is commonly referred to as the structures load path. The load path is the route through which forces are fed through the chassis structure. Load paths should be as direct as possible while still providing adequate structural stiffness, to be explained shortly. All reactions from these loads are generally taking up at the tire contact patch if the structure is designed with good practice. SOLID MODELING After determining basic design requirements, including preliminary suspension geometries, a 3-dimensional computer model can be generated in order to better visualize how the structure will come together. Once again, the structure must conform to the placement of the components, and not the other way around. For 2009, NC State Formula Hybrid chose to use the SolidWorks 3-D Modeling Software. This software was chosen as it very user friendly and allows material parameters to be specified, which is helpful in predicting vehicle mass, weight distribution, and center of gravity location. After having previously determined a general requirement for track and wheelbase parameters, suspension control arm mounting points can be entered into the software as a basis of construction. From here, lines were drawn based upon the location of vehicle components and the specifications of the 2009 Formula

Hybrid rules. These rules specify outer tubing diameters and sidewall thicknesses of safety critical components such as the roll hoops (main and front), side impact structures, and roll hoops supports. During the modeling process, it is important to keep in mind essential engineering practices such as triangulating tubular members at all nodes and optimizing load paths. Solid models of main components such as the engine, electric motors, battery arrays, and rear CVTs must be incorporated when designing the structure to ensure proper clearance and mechanical function. It is also important that an adequate level of clearance is provided between the top of the drivers head and the main roll hoop for safety concerns. The rules specify that at least two inches of clearance must be maintained between the top of the head of the 95th percentile male (measured by template) and a line drawn between the top of the front and main roll hoops.

Figure 1: Driver Clearance Requirements It is essential that driver ergonomics be considered when designing the frame. If the driver is not situated properly and does not have easy access to vehicle system controls, then he/she will not be able to operate the vehicle to the limit of its capability. After all lines are drawn for the frame connecting the different systems of the vehicle, the Structural Members feature of the SolidWorks software can be utilized to input individual member parameters, including material properties, tubing outer diameter and sidewall thickness. The initial design iteration for the 2009 NCSU Formula Hybrid entry can be seen below in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Initial Frame Design Analyzing the initial frame design, the extensive use of triangulation at all suspension pickup points is clearly visible. This is especially evident at the front of the chassis, where the use of tetrahedral structures was used in order to transfer lateral loads from the upper control arms to the chassis more efficiently. The suspension bell cranks were mounted at extensively triangulated nodes about which they will rotate. A central node was incorporated in the frame above where the drivers legs are positioned. This node will serve as a strong central loading point where the spring/damper coilover units of the suspension will mount. This first design was modified after a mockup chassis was constructed with 1 outer diameter PVC tubing showed an inherent design flaw in the cockpit section of the chassis. This central section of the chassis was too small to allow for a driver to exit quickly in case of an emergency, and was thus extended by 100 mm. Also, the height of the main roll hoop was increased to 970 mm above the lower most plane of the vehicle to provide more adequate clearance between the top of the drivers helmet and the main roll hoop. Finally, the main roll hoop supports came under scrutiny. We felt that the two extended, continuous members that compromised the main roll hoop support were prone to buckling and lacked proper triangulation. This would severely hamper vehicle performance by limiting torsional stiffness. A design solution was created in which the main roll hoop support was divided up into several members, allowing for more extensive use of tetrahedral structures, the stiffest 3-D element. These structures would greatly increase the torsional stiffness of the rear of the chassis and subsequently improve vehicle performance. Moreover, the new design allowed for a central loading point for the rear suspension coilovers. The final design iteration for the NCSUFH.09 can be viewed below in Figure 3. By inputting material parameters for the tubular members, we were able to estimate the total build weight of the 2009 chassis. For this years structure, we chose to use SAE 4130 Chromoloy (chromium and molybdenum) steel normalized at 870 degrees Celsius. This material was chosen due to its slight increase in specific strength when compared to traditional 1018 mild low carbon steel. This increase in strength comes at the cost of a loss in ductility, which could prove troublesome during construction with brittleness issues at the welded joints. SAE 4130 steel has a .30% carbon content which places it within the weldable range. Moreover, 4130 steel has a higher yield strength than 1018 steel, 435 MPa compared to 365 MPa, respectively. However, the ratio between the yield and ultimate strengths is much smaller for 4130 steel, meaning that there will be less indication if a failure were about to occur. By utilizing the increased strength properties of 4130 steel, we able to reduce the sidewall thicknesses of many structural members in the rear of the chassis. In order to ensure driver safety, however, main roll hoops were built with 1 OD, 0.095 sidewall tubing as is specified by the 2009 Formula Hybrid rules. The total estimated build weight was calculated to be 26.5 kg, or about 58 pounds. This represented a nearly 21% reduction in mass in comparison to the 70 pound 2008 chassis. With this reduction in mass, vehicle handling would be dramatically improved as less mass would have to be accelerated in any given direction. We felt that this design would provide an excellent platform on which to develop a successful hybrid vehicle.

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

After completing the modeling of the 2009 chassis, it was important to verify that the structure we had developed would provide a sufficiently rigid structure capable of connecting the four corners of the vehicle with minimal torsional twisting behavior. If the vehicle proved adequate in resisting torsional loads, then it was our belief that it would also be strong enough to cope with other loading scenarios. In general, torsional loads subject the chassis to the greatest stresses. GOALS FOR TORSIONAL STIFFNESS The importance of maintaining a rigid connection between the front and rear suspension mounting points has already been explained. However, to what degree should the chassis be stiffened, and how can these goals be accomplished? In an ideal situation, the vehicle will only respond to changes in the spring/damper coilovers, including their setup in relation to each other front and rear. Referencing successful Formula SAE cars from past competitions, a chassis having a torsional stiffness of at least 1500 lb*ft/degree is usually considered more than

Figure 3: NCSUFH.09 Final Design

adequate. In general, a chassis having been designed for sufficient torsional stiffness will also have satisfactory bending stiffness. For 2009, it is our goal to achieve a torsional stiffness of at least 1600 lb*ft/degree of rotation. This of course could be somewhat easy to achieve with the addition of excess material. However, this would dramatically increase the vehicle weight and hamper vehicle performance. Therefore, it is important to not only look at structural stiffness, but also structural efficiency. Structural efficiency is a measure of a vehicle frames torsional stiffness normalized to its weight. LOADING MODEL Referencing many SAE documents, we discovered that the manner in which the vehicle structure is analyzed can yield dramatically varying results on identical structures. In order to get accurate and meaningful data in terms of the torsional stiffness of the chassis, we needed to consider how the chassis would react in a racing environment. As a vehicle enters the corner, an instantaneous weight transfer will occur to the front, outside tire. If the chassis is examined at this instant of corner entry, a torsional load is being applied to the front of the vehicle at the front suspension pickup points and the rear of the vehicle can be approximated as remaining fixed. For our application, we felt that a model where the rearmost section of the chassis was constrained and equal and opposite vertical loads were applied to the front suspension pickup points would generate values for torsional stiffness that were very representative of real world operation. It is important to note, however, that this model does not take into consideration compliance within the suspension and is a measure of the torsional stiffness of the frame structure itself. IMPLEMENTING THE MODEL Finite Element Analysis of structures can prove to be very complicated and it is therefore important to develop a simple model that will accurately predict the behavior of the structure. Typically, the model is created by first creating nodes or key points at each intersection of the tubular members within the structure. For our application, we chose to use the ANSYS 11 platform. In total, the 2009 chassis was comprised of 45 nodes and the coordinates of these nodes were generated from the solid model design. Next, lines were used to connect the proper nodes to develop the chassis structure. The completed Finite Element Model can be viewed in Figure 4 in the adjacent column.

Figure 4: Finite Element Model After establishing the coordinates of the structure, it was necessary to establish the element type for the lines joining the structural nodes. After consulting Dr. Gracious Ngaile, it was determined that the 3D elastic straight pipe element would be implemented. Within the ANSYS 11 domain, this element is the PIPE 16 element. This element implements thin walled tubing from node to node and are welded at the joints. Next, the geometric properties of the elements had to be specified. In order to simplify the model, all members were modeled as having the same outer diameter and side wall thickness, although in reality the wall thickness varied from member to member depending upon its application. Each element was specified as having an outer diameter of 25.4 mm (1 inch) with a side wall thickness of 1.25 mm (0.049 inches). This size tubing was used most prevalently throughout the structure, and we felt that accurate values for torsional rigidity could still be generated with this practice. The material properties of 4130 steel were also entered. We specified values of 205 GPa for the modulus of elasticity and 0.29 for Poissons ratio. The mesh size for the Pipe elements was specified at 1 cm. This size was used in order to avoid going over the maximum allotted number of elements in the student version of ANSYS 11. After meshing the model, the loading constraints were placed on the system. First, the static analysis type was selected. The four rearmost nodes of the chassis structure were constrained as discussed previously with all DOFs set equal to zero. Next, torsional loads were applied to the front of the vehicle and the foremost suspension pickup points. Equal and opposite 500 N loads were applied in the vertical direction at these key points. A visual representation of this loading model can be viewed below in Figure 5.

Figure 7: Torsion Model From this model, we can interpret the chassis to be in its simplified form little more than a torsion spring. In order to determine the stiffness or rigidity (k) of this spring (the frame), the applied torque (T) is divided by the angle of rotation of the structure.

Figure 5: Chassis Loading Model INTERPRETING THE RESULTS After allowing ANSYS to solve the solution, the following deformation shape was generated (outlined in blue). It can be easily seen that the greatest distortion occurs at the application points of the load near the front of the vehicle structure. The importance of a rigid connection between the front and rear suspension systems should now be readily understood. It is important to note that the magnitude of this distortion has been increased for clarification.

In the case of our loading model, the magnitude of the applied torque can be calculated my multiplying the vertical load by the lateral distance from the suspension pickup point to the central, longitudinal axis of the structure. In our model, both sides of the structure were loaded with equal and opposite vertical forces as shown before. This was done in order to generate a value for the deflection on both sides of the structure which could then be averaged to determine a more accurate angular deflection of the structure. The torsional rigidity of our model was calculated as follows, where L represents the distance from the central axis of the vehicle to the loading key point and F is the magnitude of the applied load. The resulting deflections at the loading points on the left and right side forward suspension mounting points are denoted by y1 and y2, respectively.

Figure 6: Deformation due to Torsional Loading In order to fully understand the results of the study, a simple model can be created to represent the chassis in which a hollow tube is fixed at one end and subjected to a torsional load at the other. This model can be seen in the adjacent column.

In Figure 8 below, it can be seen that maximum displacement values occurred at the points of load application at the front suspension mounting points, as would be expected. By substituting these displacement values into the above equation, we calculate the NCSFH.09 chassis to have a theoretical torsional stiffness of 2240 N*m/degree, or about 1650 ft*lbs/degree. This theoretical value for torsional rigidity meets our pre-established goal of 1600 ft*lbs/degree. Factoring in a predicted chassis mass of 57 lbs, a theoretical structural efficiency in resisting torsional loads would be 28.94 ft*lbs/deg/lb.

Tegris was used for shear panels due to its reduced cost in comparison to carbon fiber. An improvement in torsional rigidity of up to 20% can be expected with the addition of properly mounted stressed skins. Orientation of these skins can be viewed below in Figure 9.

Figure 8: Vertical Displacement Under Loading Changing the design of the rear of the chassis with the additional triangulation increased the torsional rigidity of the structure over 25 percent, up from an initial value of only 1300 ft*lbs/degree. It is important to note that for this model stiffness contributions of rigid bodies such as the engine block were not considered in the analysis. However, good engineering practice dictates that structural members should be fed into major components which can serve as a structural feature so long as the component can withstand the associated stresses. As long as distortion of the block does not lead to clearance issues within the cylinders or rotating bearings, then the engine block can be utilized as a major load carrying structure. By utilizing the motor block as a stressed component, structural members can be eliminated and vehicle mass can thus be reduced. STRESSED SKIN CONSTRUCTION Although we had met out stiffness goals, we felt that there was still an excessive amount of compliance in the structure between the main and front roll hoops where the driver is positioned. This is primarily due to the lack of triangulation within this area as there must be room for the driver to enter and exit the vehicle with relative ease for safety concerns. Instead of tubular triangulation, a flat sheet of stiff material may also be added to increase chassis stiffness. The forces that attempt to distort or lozenge the openings in the frame will induce sheering forces into the flat sheet of material. Not only do these sheets improve torsional rigidity, but they can also serve as body work. Generally, these panels are constructed of aluminum or a lightweight composite with either an aluminum or Nomex core. These stressed skins traditionally are fastened to the structure through a method of riveting and/or adhesive bonding. This form of construction represents a blend between pure space frame and composite monocoque structure. For the NCSFH.09 chassis, a lightweight composite called

Figure 9: Orientation of Composite Skins

POST-BUILD IMPRESSIONS
Construction of the 2009 chassis, from early design to completion of fabrication, took approximately 5 months. The 4130 steel proved to be a very versatile material and was easily weldable, with no indications of brittleness. The final vehicle build weight was 56.5 lbs, just as predicted. Unfortunately, with the competition quickly approaching at the beginning of May, and work still to be done on the car, there is little time to verify our theoretical stiffness calculations for the chassis. It is our firm belief, however, that the chassis we have built will serve as an excellent platform on which to develop a successful, series-drive hybrid race vehicle. Through our research, we have determined that through proper fabrication techniques a structure with 90% of the theoretical torsional stiffness can be created. That being said, we believe that we have successfully developed a rigid connection between the front and rear suspension systems as was our primary goal. Moreover, it is our hope that the chassis will communicate well to the driver and will not experience excessive compliance. Full experimental testing will be carried out after the competition early next month in order to verify our theoretical results. Further development of the structure will be carried out over the summer so that improvements can be made for the planned 2010 entry from NCSU Formula Hybrid.

CONCLUSION
Using the 2009 NCSU entry into the Formula Hybrid competition as a case study, this paper has presented the considerations that must be made when developing a vehicle chassis for racing applications. A suggested design methodology for developing a Formula Hybrid chassis has been presented. Moreover, the general loading scenarios that a hybrid vehicle frame must handle have been analyzed. In addition, a model has been developed for determining and maximizing the efficiency of a structure in resisting torsional loads. This model has shown the importance of compromise between increasing torsional rigidity while minimizing overall vehicle mass. After establishing stiffness goals, ANSYS was used to constrain and load the structure and determine the efficiency of our design. Through several design iterations, a highly capable and rigid structure was developed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research would not have been possible without the support of the NCSU Formula Hybrid Team advisor, Terry Gilbert. Dr. Gracious Ngaile was also critical in developing and executing the FEA model with ANSYS.

REFERENCES
1. Aird, Forbes. The Race Car Chassis. New York, New York: The Penguin Group, 2008. 2. Gaffney, Edmund F., and Anthony R. Salinas. "Introduction to Formula SAE Suspension and Frame Design." SAE Technical Paper Series, 1997 3. Riley, William B., and Albert R. George. "Design, Analysis, and Testing of a Formula SAE Chassis." SAE Technical Paper Series 01.3300, 2002 4. Milliken, William F., and Douglas L. Milliken. Race Car Vehicle Dynamics. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 1995