DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF LOW-

COST CFRP WHEEL RIMS FOR A

FORMULA STUDENT RACE CAR

AUTHOR: PABLO APARICIO ALONSO

ACADEMIC ADVISOR: FRANCISCO JAVIER VELASCO LÓPEZ
I. Index
INTRODUCTION.

OBJECTIVES.

FORMULA STUDENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.

STATE OF THE ART.

VIABILITY ANALYSIS. BUDGET.

DESIGN PROCESS AND FEA MODEL DEVELOPMENT

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF COMPRESSION MOULDED CFRP.

FINAL DESIGN.

CONCLUSIONS.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS.

PAGE 2
2. Introduction.
MAD Formula Team is the Formula Student team for the
Carlos III University of Madrid.

Founded in 2011 and rebranded in 2020

Many different developments every year within the project.

Supported by students, faculty and sponsors.

Bottom 10% in terms of budget.

International competitions all over Europe.

Highly successful team – 2 victories and 2 podiums over the

last two seasons.

Some peculiarities of competitive race car engineering.

PAGE 3
3. Objectives.
• Understand how the weight of the rim affects the dynamic capabilities of the car, its handling and on-track
performance on all Formula Student dynamic events.

• Understand the loads that the rims will have to withstand in order to be safe, usable and efficient.

• Characterize the mechanical properties of short-strand Compression Molded Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(CMCFRP).

• Design and perform Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of a functional lightweight rim using pre-
impregnated Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer and short-strand CMCFRP, compatible with the 2022
Formula Student prototype developed by MAD Formula Team.

• Adapt the design to facilitate low-budget manufacturing within the capabilities of MAD Formula
Team.

PAGE 4
 4. Formula Student: Regulatory Framework.
Specific rules affect only the mechanical fasteners between the rim and the hub – There are no design restrictions.

Covered under general rules:

• Must show good engineering practice.

• Must be presented at Technical Inspection in good condition.

Scored on design, manufacturing, on-track capabilities and fuel efficiency.

PAGE 5
5. State of the Art.

Commercially available options vs. Student developed alternatives

Other commercial alternatives destined for road-going cars

unsuitable for Formula Student

PAGE 6
6. Viability Analysis. Budget.
Race car design objective: maximize WIN CONDITION - in this case, maximize overall score in competitions: points.

Limited budget – find balance: maximum points scored per unit of money.

At what point is it better to dedicate resources to other areas of the car?

Use of lap-time simulation software (OptimumLap) and internal metric tools (Key Efficiency Metric) to obtain a
maximum budget.

Sweep between two parameters (car mass and powertrain efficiency) and three target variables: overall laptime,
average speed, fuel consumption.

PAGE 7
6. Viability Analysis. Budget.

PAGE 8
 6. Viability Analysis. Budget.
Maximum budget before points break-even: €4281 - Difficult to achieve without help from sponsors.

PAGE 9
7. Design Process and FEA Model development.

• Begin with simplified rim model and different spoke

designs to find best performing.
• Thin aluminium shell and exaggerated loads to
obtain large differences.
• Develop FEA model with mechanical properties for
CMCFRP.
• Iterate designs: use feedback from model to alter
designs, repeat until obtaining a suitable design.

With a suitable design, moulds and tooling for

manufacturing can be designed.

PAGE 10
7. Design Process and FEA Model development.

Design variables:
• Number of spokes
• One-part vs. Two-part rim

Loads:
• Dynamic Load (over a tyre-equivalent 1D element)
• Lateral load: 2.5g cornering acceleration.
• Longitudinal load: 2g braking acceleration.
• Static Load
• Overpressure: Over rim bucket surface.
• Mounting tool: Over bucket lips (local effects).

PAGE 11
7. Design Process and FEA Model development.

4-spoke configuration has the best results. However, considering overall car aesthetics, 8-spoke rim is preferable.

PAGE 12
7. Design Process and FEA Model development.
Single-part rim offers slightly better results, but is beyond the available budget.

Two-part rim is the only viable option for low cost manufacturing.

Considered the bonding process between spokes and bucket: use of structural adhesives and rivets.

Hard to accurately model without real-world testing.

PAGE 13
8. Mechanical Properties of Compression Moulded CFRP.
• Simple, cheap and effective manufacturing process for CFRP – Can be done anywhere, with very
minimal tools.
• Good linear behavior with E = 71.99 GPa, density around 35% lower than aerospace aluminium
alloys.

Fatigue was not considered:

• No time or resources for full fatigue model of CMCFRP
or prepreg laminate
• Very little use (less than 500km/year of driving)
• Race car philosophy considers failure within hours
acceptable if the performance gains are sufficient.

PAGE 14
 Laminate plies [0/90, 45/-45,
9. Final Design. (Prepreg) 0/90, 45/-45]s
Spoke thickness 3.2
Two part rim, bonded and riveted, using 3D printed moulds. (CMCFRP), mm
Max VM Stress, 170.9
MPa, Lat. Load
Max Displacement, 0.489
mm, Lat. Load
Max VM Stress, 167.5
MPa, Long. Load
Max Displacement, 0.717
mm, Long Load
Composite Ply 0.408
Failure index, worst
Rim Weight, g 964.9
Minimum Safety >1.65
Factor

PAGE 15
9. Final Design.
Low-cost manufacturing on consumer grade, widely available
3D printing hardware.

PAGE 16
10. Conclusions.
• Lightweight, stiff rim capable of withstanding dynamic and mounting loads.
• Weight: 954g – Within 1.25kg target.
• Displacements: well below expected tyre displacement on dynamic conditions.
• Stress: Within 1.65 safety factor.

• Low cost manufacturing viable.

• Use of consumer-grade 3D printing greatly reduces cost.
• CMCFRP shows promise as a lightweight, cheap substitute for aluminium.
• Still requires sponsors.

• Reduces environmental impact.

• Use of recycled CFRP material lowers carbon footprint.
• Better fuel efficiency for the racecar.

PAGE 17
 11. Future Developments.
• Build scale model to assess dynamic loads, mounting loads and rim bonding process.

• Manufacture full-scale rims to perform testing on the car.

• Parametrize model so other teams can use it – part of the Formula Student philosophy.

• Use lessons learned and know-how for other projects using CMCFRP:
• Developed parts for structural load on primary structure – Shoulder Harness Attachment Brackets. Part
withstood required 13kN force, load at panel failure 13529.5N, part undamaged.
• Engine supports.

PAGE 18
  ALUMINIUM CMCFRP
MAX 0.1252 0.1256
DISPLACEMENT
(mm)
MAX STRESSES, Von 174.30 229.10
Mises (MPa)

PAGE 19
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

PAGE 20
PAGE 21
PAGE 22
PAGE 23
PAGE 24
PAGE 25
PAGE 26
PAGE 27
PAGE 28
MATERIAL YOUNG’S POISSON RATIO SHEAR MODULUS DENSITY (g/cc) YIELD STRENGTH
MODULUS(GPa) (GPa) (MPa)
AL6061-T6 68.9 0.33 26 2.70 276
CMCFRP 71.99 0.093 32.90 1.45 286

PAGE 29