Dissertation

Development of an Electric Motor
Mount for a Formula Student

Vehicle
Michael Page
Supervisor: Dr Tugrul Comlekci
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements of the Meng Aero-
Mechanical Engineering Degree.
2021
Word count: 8797

Abstract
This project aims to explore the design process and analysis of a mounting
structure to be used to support an Emrax 228 electric motor within the
University of Strathclyde Motorsport team’s new electric vehicle. The project
will investigate the feasibility of different materials and the loading conditions
that will be experienced through general usage. The project focuses on the
evolution of the mount, and how each design reacts when the boundary
conditions are applied. The primary parameter for analysis were the
maximum Von Mises stress present within the structure, and the resulting
fatigue safety factor of the structure after strenuous use. The project will
investigate topology optimisation and how it can be utilised to validate the
proposed design.
The optimal material for manufacturing the mounting structure was found to
be Aluminium 6061 T6, as it has an excellent yield strength to density ratio
and fatigue capabilities. After multiple designs iterations, a final design was
produced which consisted of an amalgamation of different iterations. This led
to a mounting structure which weighed only 547 grams while have a safety
factor of nearly 3 after one million load cycles.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Comlekci for the support throughout
the project, and advice on problems which were faced during the analysis of
the project.
I would also like to thank my co-supervisor Jill Miscandlon for her help,
technical insight, and guidance throughout the project.
I am extremely grateful for the continued support from Quianne Reijnen, who
helped empower me and keep my spirits up all through the duration of the
project.
A special thanks to USM team for the moral and technical support during the
project.
Student No. 201715851

Contents
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................... 1
1.1 Formula Student ............................................................................... 1
1.2 University of Strathclyde Motorsport ................................................. 2
1.3 Aims .................................................................................................. 4
1.4 Goals ................................................................................................ 5
2.0 Background Research.......................................................................... 6
2.1 Current Solutions .............................................................................. 6
2.2 Manufacturing Methods .................................................................... 8
2.2.1 CNC Machining .......................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Additive Manufacturing ............................................................... 9
2.3 Material Selection ............................................................................. 9
2.3.1 Steel ........................................................................................... 9
2.3.2 Aluminium Alloy ........................................................................ 10
2.3.3 Magnesium Alloy ...................................................................... 10
2.3.4 Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) ............................... 11
2.3.5 Comparison .............................................................................. 11
2.4 Boundary Conditions....................................................................... 12
2.4.1 Traction Model.......................................................................... 13
2.4.2 Forces of Acceleration.............................................................. 14
2.4.3 Regenerative Braking ............................................................... 14
3.0 Analysis .............................................................................................. 16
3.1 Setting the Analysis ........................................................................ 16
3.2 Finite Element Analysis................................................................... 16
3.3 Fatigue Analysis ............................................................................. 17
4.0 Concepts ............................................................................................ 19
4.1 Initial Concept Generation .............................................................. 19
4.1.1 Concept 1 ................................................................................. 19
4.1.2 Concept 2 ................................................................................. 20
4.2 Main Designs .................................................................................. 21
4.2.1 Concept 3 ................................................................................. 22
4.2.2 Concept 4 ................................................................................. 24
4.2.3 Concept 5 ................................................................................. 24
4.3 Variations ........................................................................................ 25
4.3.1 Concept 6 ................................................................................. 25
4.3.2 Concept 8 ................................................................................. 27

4.4 Finalised Concept ........................................................................... 28
5.0 Topology ............................................................................................ 31
6.0 Conclusions ....................................................................................... 32
7.0 Future Work ....................................................................................... 33
8.0 References ......................................................................................... 34
9.0 Appendix 1 – Finding the components forces at the sprocket ............ 36
10.0 Appendix 2 – Concept Evolution ..................................................... 38
Technical Paper ...............................................................................................

Table of Figures
Figure 1 - Skidpad Track Layout .................................................................... 1
Figure 2 - FSUK 2020 Endurance Course made in OptimumLap .................. 2
Figure 3 - USM-15 at FSUK ........................................................................... 3
Figure 4 - USM-17 competing at the Endurance event in Formula Student
Netherlands.................................................................................................... 3
Figure 5 - CAD representation of USM-21 ..................................................... 4
Figure 6 - Emrax 228 Mounting Plate ............................................................ 6
Figure 7 - Phoenix Racing Emrax Mount ....................................................... 7
Figure 8 - Monash Racing Drivetrain Mount .................................................. 8
Figure 9 - Co-ordinate system of the vehicle ............................................... 12
Figure 10 - Total points for varying FDR ...................................................... 13
Figure 11 - Traction Model of USM-21 ......................................................... 14
Figure 12 - Motor torque throughout FSUK 2020 Endurance ...................... 14
Figure 13 - S/N curves for unnotched wrought aluminium 6061-T6 ............. 18
Figure 14 - Concept 1 .................................................................................. 19
Figure 15 - Concept 1 Von Mises Stress Distribution while under Acceleration
Load ............................................................................................................. 20
Figure 16 - Concept 2 .................................................................................. 21
Figure 17 - Drivetrain system for USM-21 .................................................... 22
Figure 18 - Concept 3 .................................................................................. 22
Figure 19 - Concept 3 Von Mises Stress Distribution under Acceleration Load
..................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 20 - Emrax 228 with the overlooked hole circled in red .................... 23
Figure 21 - Concept 4 .................................................................................. 24
Figure 22 - Concept 5 .................................................................................. 25
Figure 23 - Concept 6 .................................................................................. 26
Figure 24 - Concept 6 Von Mises Stress Distribution with Acceleration Load
..................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 25 - Concept 8 with the Emrax 228 ................................................... 27
Figure 26 - Concept 8 Von Mises Stress Distribution with Accelerative Loads
..................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 27 - Concept 10 ................................................................................ 29
Figure 28 - Concept 10 Von Mises Stress Distribution while under
Acceleration Load ........................................................................................ 29
Figure 29 - Complete Drivetrain system for USM-21 ................................... 30
Figure 30 - Blank Plate used for Topology Optimisation .............................. 31
Figure 31 - Topology Optimised Mount from TU Munich ............................. 31
Figure 32 - Topology Optimised Design for: 60%, 40% and 20% Mass
Retention ..................................................................................................... 32
Figure 33 - New Drivetrain Concept ............................................................. 33
Figure 34 - Concept Evolution...................................................................... 38

Table of Tables
Table 1 - Composition of Aluminium 6061 T6 .............................................. 10
Table 2 - Material Selection Matrix............................................................... 11
Table 3 - Concept 1 FEA results .................................................................. 20
Table 4 - Concept 2 FEA results .................................................................. 21
Table 5 - Concept 3 FEA Results................................................................. 23
Table 10 - Concept 10 FEA Results............................................................. 29
Table 11 - FEA Result Comparison for all Concepts.................................... 30
Table 12 - Topology Optimised design masses ........................................... 32
Nomenclature
Symbol Description Units
𝐹 Force N
𝐹𝑥 Force component in x-axis N
𝐹𝑧 Force component in z-axis N
𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 Gear reduction N/A
𝑘 Stress magnitude MPa
𝑁𝑖 Number of cycles till failure Cycles
𝑛𝑖 Number of cycles at the specific Cycles
stress magnitude
𝑟𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑡 Radius of the sprocket M
𝑟𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑠 Radius of the wheel m
𝜏 Torque N/m
𝜏𝐴 Torque at the axle N/m
𝜏𝑚 Torque N/m
𝜈 Velocity of the vehicle m/s
𝜔𝐴 Angular velocity of the axle rad/s
𝜔𝑚 Angular velocity of the motor rad/s
𝑥 Component of x mm
𝑧 Component of z mm
Acronym Description
AFRC Advanced Forming Research Centre
CAD Computer Aided Design
CFRP Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer
CNC Computer Numerical Control
FDR Final Drive Ratio
FEA Finite Element Analysis
FSUK Formula Student United Kingdom
HV High Voltage
IMechE Institution of Mechanical Engineer
LMD Liquid Metal Deposition
TU Technical University
USM University of Strathclyde Motorsport
1.0 Introduction
Throughout the automotive industry the mounting of components is vital,
most notably the mounting solution which is used for securing the powertrain
to the rest of the vehicle. In the racing sector, the implementation of a highly
optimised mounting structure is crucial in helping improve the vehicles
performance. In a sector where the vehicles weight is approximately 800 kgs
[1], every kilogram counts. The philosophy which Formula One teams
implement to achieve the best performance is through generating the most
effective and lightweight mounting structures that can withstand the extreme
conditions of the races [2]. This design philosophy has been implemented
into the designing phase of the new mounting structure for the electric
powertrain for the University of Strathclyde Formula Student team’s first ever
electric vehicle.
1.1 Formula Student

Formula Student is an international competition held by the IMechE and sees
more than 100 university teams from throughout the world competing in
series of static and dynamic events [3]. To enter the competition each team
builds a racing car within the technical specifications laid out within the FSUK
rules. The teams compete through four dynamics events: Skidpad,
Acceleration, Autocross and Endurance.
Skidpad is an event in which the vehicles are raced through a figure of eight
and try to achieve the fasted time possible. The layout for the Skidpad at
FSUK 2021 can be seen in Figure 1, with a trackwidth of 3m [4].
Figure 1 - Skidpad Track Layout [4]
The Acceleration event concentrated on completing a 75m straight stretch in

the quickest time. During the FSUK 2019 event the fastest time to complete
Student No. 201715851 1

the Acceleration event was by University of Applied Sciences Zwickau with a
time of 4.01 seconds [5].
The Autocross event is the time required to complete one lap of a complex
circuit. This circuit can contain [4]:
• Straights: No longer than 80m
• Constant turns: up to 50m diameter
• Hairpin turns: Minimum if 9m outside diameter (of the turn)
• Slaloms: Cones in a straight line with 7.5m to 12m spacing
• Miscellaneous: Chicanes, multiple turns, decreasing radius turns, etc.
• Minimum track width of 3m
• Overall length less than 1.5km
The endurance event is about completing 22 laps on a similar laid out course
to the Autocross event. The main difference being the endurance course is
approximately 1km long, therefore the event distance is approximately 22km
long. In this event the priority is completing the 22 laps in the fastest time,
while utilising the smallest amount of energy. The layout of the endurance
course from FSUK 2020 can be seen in Figure 2. [6]
Figure 2 - FSUK 2020 Endurance Course made in

OptimumLap [6]
1.2 University of Strathclyde Motorsport

The University of Strathclyde Motorsport team has been competing in
Formula Student for the past 20 years and has seen success throughout the
years. In 2015 the team was rated as the top formula student team within the
UK. At Formula Student Netherlands in 2017 the team was the second
lightest weighing in at 175kg without a driver.
Student No. 201715851 2

Figure 3 - USM-15 at FSUK
Figure 4 - USM-17 competing at the Endurance event at Formula Student

Netherlands
The team is split into subgroups called systems, each tackling a certain
parameter of the car. These are groups are Low Voltage, Tractive System,
Tractive System Energy Storage, Aerodynamics, Chassis, Suspension,
Vehicle Dynamics, Wheel Assembly, Drivetrain and Mounting. Each of these
groups takes on certain aspects of the car and work alongside each other to
help create a deliverable product.
For the design period of 2020-2021 it was decided that for the first time in the
history of USM, an electric vehicle would be designed and built. This was to
follow the trend in the adoption of electric vehicles within public and racing
sectors, with the goal to make a more carbon neutral competition. It poses
new challenges which has never been faced by the team such as a new style
of powertrain and a tractive system energy storage. The new iteration of
vehicle has followed the traditional naming method; thus, it has been named
USM-21 and a CAD representation can be seen in Figure 5.
Student No. 201715851 3

Figure 5 - CAD representation of USM-21
To propel the new vehicle an Emrax 228 electric motor was chosen as it
proved to be the most efficient, and best value for the budget that we had
received. Utilising this motor poses a new problem in the mounting of the
tractive system as it is capable of outputting high values of torque directly
onto the mount. Therefore, to combat this an optimised design for a new
mounting solution must be created. To aid in developing a robust system
some aims, and goals were set to help direct the development of the project.
1.3 Aims
The aims are overarching objectives that are derived from the demands of
the structure. The aims which were set for this project are:
• To create a structure which secures the motor to the chassis
• To provide a mounting point for the differential mount
• To be compliant with the FSUK rules and regulations
• For the mount to be able to resist deflection
The primary reasons for having a mounting structure are to securely mount
the motor to the chassis. An insufficient mount can cause significant damage
to the motor and the components in the surrounding area. If the mount is
designed to minimise deflection, then it can help increase the lifespan of the
part, while allowing for tighter tolerances throughout the surrounding
systems. To increase rigidity, a mounting point between the motor and
differential mounting structures was chosen and would be implemented into
Student No. 201715851 4
the designs. Most importantly if the structure is not compliant with the rules
for FSUK then there would be inefficient to continue that design any further.
1.4 Goals
The goals are metrics that are used to define the performance of the design
concepts. This allows for the concepts to be weighted up against each other.
However, these goals are only markers, and can be dismissed in favours of
others. The goals that are most important are to:
• Maximise the reliability
• Minimise the footprint within the chassis of the design
• Create a simplistic design
• Maximise rigidity
• Allow for the system to be easily removed
Through maximising the reliability, it reduces the need for
maintenance/replacement of the mounting structure. This was stated as a
goal as it was the first year that the mount would be designed and utilised, so
until sufficient practical testing could be carried out it could only be
computationally verified. Due to the premium on the space within the rear
cage of the chassis, it was decided that a reduced size of the mounting
solution would be beneficial, thus a decreased footprint size would be
preferable. Constructing a simplistic design would be preferred due to it being
less complex to manufacture. By increasing the rigidity of the mount, it helps
reduce the deflection and provides a stable mounting point for the differential
mount. Finally, the mount would need to be removed from USM-21 from time
to time, so having a structure which is capable of being removed easily would
be beneficial.
Student No. 201715851 5

2.0 Background Research
To help within the design phase, research was done in multiple areas to
allow an informed design period. Firstly, a search was done into some of the
mounting solutions which were implemented for Emrax motors ranging from
the original supplied mounting plate to other Formula Students’ teams.
Research into varying types of available manufacturing techniques was
carried out, this was done to reduce the creation of geometry which is too
complex to be manufactured. Another area of research is material selection,
as the material the structure is made of may cause the performance to vary.
Finally, the boundary conditions are calculated for torque values the motor
would be expected to experience throughout the racing season.
2.1 Current Solutions

A variety of different mounting solutions can be utilised for securing the motor
to the chassis; however, it primarily depends on the style of drivetrain. There
are many ways of transferring the power from the motor to the differential,
most notably a chain/belt drive or a gear train system. The drivetrain system
that is being utilised into USM-21 will be a chain drive, for the notable
benefits such as simplicity, lightness and how inexpensive the method is.
However, there are downsides to this system like an increase footprint due to
the sprocket required to achieve an ideal gearing ratio of the motor to the
differential. [7]
Figure 6 - Emrax 228 Mounting Plate [7]
Student No. 201715851 6

The first mount is the version which is sold as an accessory alongside the
Emrax 228 motor. This is very simplistic plate style mount as seen in Figure
6. This structure is effective in the mounting of the motor, would be a cost
effective design and would be more than adequate in securing the motor.
However, this design leaves much to be desired as it would require a
mounting structure to secure it to the chassis. This can be costly and
ineffective; thus a single mounting solution would be required.
One formula student team which have utilised an Emrax motor is Phoenix
Racing from Coventry University. They have utilised a mounting bracket
which is mounted to a bulkhead (Figure 7). By mounting the structure to a
bulkhead, it simplifies the method for connecting the motor mount to the
chassis, while creating a secure mounting point. However, it can be heavy if
the bulkhead is not optimised correctly, which is problematic as vehicle
weight is important [2]. Thus, a bulkhead was ruled out of consideration of
the structure of the rear cage of the chassis. Instead a pair of steels tubes
would be utilised as a mounting point for the motor mount. [8]
Figure 7 - Phoenix Racing Emrax Mount [8]
Monash Motorsport is an Australian Formula Student team who has built an

electric vehicle in 2017, which was also powered by an Emrax motor. The
method which they used was to implement the differential and motor mount
into a single structure. This can be seen in Figure 8. This solution has a mass
of 1.9kg. This design also utilises a bulkhead for mounting the structure but
only on one side, while the other is mounted to tabs which in turn are welded
to the chassis. This allows for a more rigid and secure mounting solution.
[9]
Student No. 201715851 7

Figure 8 - Monash Racing Drivetrain Mount [9]
These designs give a good starting position for initial concept generation of
the motor mount. This helps save time allowing for a more streamlined
workflow towards the goal of an optimised motor mount.
2.2 Manufacturing Methods

There are many different manufacturing methods which can be utilised when
creating the motor mount. Some methods are more profound than others, like
CNC machining. This is a commonly found practise which can be utilised
within the university or outsourced to a local company. Another
manufacturing technique that is being considered is additive manufacturing
more specifically laser sintering and liquid deposition manufacturing. This
manufacturing method is more exotic and can be found at the AFRC.
2.2.1 CNC Machining
A traditional machining mill works through spinning a spindle at high speeds
and then running it along tracks in the x,y,z axes to remove material from a
bulk part. This method has been done for many years by skilled technicians.
This method can be time consuming as it requires trained technicians to
accomplish complex parts. To alleviate this problem machining can be done
through a CNC mill. These mills work by utilising a computer program to plot
the tool paths, set the speeds required to traverse in all three axes, and the
spindle speed. This can then be sent to a CNC machine for further
processing turning them into real life values [10]. After these values are
calculated the machine is capable of using them to maneuverer the spindle
into position and start cutting the bulk piece into the desired part. Some of
these machines have the capabilities of working 5 axes thus allowing very
complex geometry to be created. However, they suffer from an
inability/difficulty when generating geometry with inaccessible parts.
Student No. 201715851 8

2.2.2 Additive Manufacturing
Additive manufacturing is a relatively new manufacturing method when
compared to CNC Machining. There are multiple different forms of additive
manufacturing. The team has access to a retrofitted CNC machine with LMD
capabilities through a connection within the Advanced Forming Research
Centre (AFRC). This style of machine works by pushing powder through a
nozzle while heating it until it melts, and then applying this liquid onto the
part. This is the exact same method which is used in commercial 3D plastic
printers. Through doing this it allows for metal to be bonded to a damaged
structure (e.g. a tooth on a gear that has sheared off) or onto an initial
starting plate. The problem with LMD is that it requires a starting part to build
upon and is not fully capable of supporting itself. Thus, a new style of
manufacturing is being sought after in the AFRC, this method is called
Powder Bed Laser Sintering. This effectively works through placing a layer of
metallic powder and melting sections of it with a high powered laser. Once
the layer of material has been melted and fused together the powder is
reapplied on top of the previous layer. These steps are then repeated by the
machine layer by layer. Overtime by reapplying the layer and bonding it, a 3D
complex geometry structure is created, which unlike through LMD, is
supported by the unused powder. It has the additional benefit that no excess
material is wasted as the unused powder is collected and reused.
While additive manufacturing is a good method to utilise for complex
geometry, the required capital to manufacture a part would be too high in
comparison to a CNC part. Thus, for the designing of the concepts it will be
taken into consideration that the part will need to be manufactured through
CNC machining. This limits the designs to 2D plate designs to reduce
complexity and material cost.
2.3 Material Selection

Throughout engineering the selection of material is vital in the designing
phase and during the analysis of the design. Some materials have properties
which are more or less favourable for certain tasks. In the general automotive
sector, the construction of structural pieces is dominated by steel and
aluminium alloys [11]. They can be found within parts like the chassis, and
body shells of cars. These primarily are utilised for the material properties
and due to the abundance and relative affordability of the materials [12].
For some higher performance parts such as in sports cars or even in the
racing sector, magnesium alloy, and carbon fibre reinforce polymer (CFRP)
are used. These materials have extraordinary properties however are both
known for being expensive. They can be used in high performance sections
such as hubs within wheels and the suspension uprights. CFRP can also be
used in creating a monocoque that would replace a heavy traditional space
frame. These are used within F1 and even Formula Student by numerous
teams such as Monash Racing.
2.3.1 Steel
Steel is a common alloy consisting of a combination of iron and varying
amounts of carbon. These can be found in many different structures ranging
Student No. 201715851 9
from bridges, to boats, and the automotive industry. It has a variety of
purposes as it can be alloyed with different elements to achieve different
properties. These properties can increase the corrosion resistance,
toughness and hardenability, and the yield strength of the materials. A benefit
of steel is that after a certain number of cycles the yield strength would not
decrease further, thus if the design is within this parameter, then fatigue life
would not need to be considered. The addition of these elements can
increase the cost of the manufacturing and can even limit the methods that
the material can be used for manufacturing [13]. For material consideration a
pure steel will be used, designated by AISI 1010, with a carbon weight
percentage of 0.1%. This is primarily due to the steel being readily available
and having good machinability.
2.3.2 Aluminium Alloy
Aluminium alloy is a light material in comparison to steel with the density
being a roughly third of that of steel. This means that aluminium alloy is used
where lightness of the material is of utmost priority. It is currently utilised
heavily in the aerospace industry for the ratio of density to yield strength, but
also is seen within the automotive industry [12]. Here it is used for sections
which do not require the structural properties of steel or if weight is a major
factor. Much like steel, aluminium alloy properties differ depending on the
elements that aluminium is alloyed with. The alloy that will be utilised for
comparison is Aluminium 6061 T6 which has a composition as seen in Table
1. [13]
Table 1 - Composition of Aluminium 6061 T6 [13]
Element Weight
Percentage (%)
Aluminium (Al) 98.6
Chromium (Cr) 0.35
Copper (Ci) 0.4
Iron (Fe) 0.7
Magnesium (Mg) 1.2
Manganese (Mn) 0.15
Silicon (Si) 0.8
Titanium (Ti) 0.15
Zinc (Zn) 0.25
Other 0.15
2.3.3 Magnesium Alloy

Magnesium alloy is used in high performance components within automotive
vehicles such as the drivetrain, body and chassis [14]. This alloy is slightly
lighter than aluminium alloys. It does however have a higher cost and a lower
yield strength. This parameter can be compensated for by increasing the
thickness of structural members. If implemented correctly then this could
yield a lightweight structure while still being fully functional [15]. The material
for consideration is a Magnesium Lithium alloy as it is the lightest of
magnesium alloys and has exceptional properties for its density.
Student No. 201715851 10

2.3.4 Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)
CFRP is a universal material which if utilised correctly can exceed most
materials, however, improper implementation can lead to catastrophic failure.
CFRP boasts a lower density than all other materials specified, while also
containing a potential for the yield strength to surpass steel [16]. This
material can be utilised in panelling for either aerodynamic or structural,
brake disks, and the rims wheels [16]. CFRP is reliant on the orientation of
the fibres used within -unlike a homogenous material like steel- meaning that
performance can vary drastically. Thus, for material comparison it is
assumed that the material is a prepreg material, meaning that it has
implemented fibres that go in multiple direction and when moulded helps
distribute the material properties evenly.
2.3.5 Comparison
A comparison table was created to show the difference in properties that the
four materials can exhibit. These values were found through Granta Edupack
and can be found within Table 2 [13]. The properties which are compared
are:
• Yield strength – This parameter is found through the utilisation of the
0.2% offset method. This is the stress which when applied would
cause the stress strain curve to be offset by 0.2% of the strain length.
For polymers it is the tensile stress at yield [13].
• Material density -The mass per unit volume of the material.
• Yield strength after one million cycles – this vital for learning how the
material yield strength will react through use.
• The machinability of the material – How easily the material can be
machined into the desired design (e.g. 1 = In-house, 4 = outsourced).
• Availability – How easily the material could be procured.
Table 2 - Material Selection Matrix [13]
Steel Magnesium Carbon Fibre

Material/ Aluminium
1000 Alloy (Mg- Reinforced Polymer
Properties Alloy 6061 T6
Series 12Li) (Woven Prepreg)
Yield Strength
280 315 75 910
(MPa)
Density (kg/m3) 2730 7900 1800 1610
Fatigue Life at
10e6 cycles 202 270 72 650
(MPa)
Machinability (1 =
1 2 3 4
Best)
Availability
2 1 4 3
(1=Best)
Cost (GBP/kg) 5.95 0.699 16.1 45.8
Ranking 1 2 4 3
Student No. 201715851 11

Although magnesium alloy is the lightest metallic material it also has the
lowest yield strength, but as stated previously this can be corrected for
through increasing the size of the members within the structure. The of
density vs yield strength ratio alongside the availability of the material means
that it will not be considered further.
While CFRP is a revolutionary material that is used throughout the industry,
the complexity in the manufacturing of a suitable structure would be hugely
time consuming. This material can be used in a future design, but a better
understanding would be required to allow for the security that the structure
would be suitable for the working loads.
Steel and aluminium both are easily available and machinable. The main
difference is the density and the cost per kg. While steel is a valid contender
as it is cheaper and hosts a better fatigue yield strength, it was decided that
aluminium would be utilised primarily due to the reduction in weight that
utilising this material would produce.
2.4 Boundary Conditions

The boundary conditions are the parameters which will be utilised in the
analysis in generating an accurate and robust model. There are a number of
parameters which will affect how the models are generated. The motor with
the current configuration of the accumulator is capable of exerting 200Nm of
torque. This value is purely derived from the motor and accumulator and will
be affected by several factors, most notably the final drive ratio (gearing ratio
between the motor and differential), the traction model of the vehicle, and the
effects caused by regenerative braking.
x y
Figure 9 - Co-ordinate system of the vehicle
The co-ordinate system for the car can be seen in Figure 9. This is a
common system used within motorsport.
Student No. 201715851 12

2.4.1 Traction Model
The Final Drive Ratio for USM-21 was found using a program called
Optimum Lap [6]. This was done through inputting the motor torque values at
varying speeds, the drag coefficient of the tyres and the drag coefficient of
the aerodynamics of the car. Once these were put in, sweeps were done at
varying FDR for each event for FSUK 2020. These values were then put into
an Excel sheet and using the scoring equations that are in the FSUK rules a
point system was noted for each FDR [4, 17]. The total points for each FDR
can be seen in Figure 10. It noticable that values that give the most points sit
atop a relatively gradual curve, thus a 1% decrease in points was taken to
decrease the size of the sprokect used with the differential. This gave a FDR
ratio of 3.83. The decision was made to reduce the sprocket size to help
reduce the overall size of the drivetrain system in the rear cage, to align with
the goals previously set.
Figure 10 - Total points for varying FDR
Once the Final Drive Ratio has been calulcated utilising Optimumlap, the
traction model can be found for USM-21 [6]. This can be seen in Figure 11.
This graph shows what traction is capable of being applied through the tyres
of the vehicle at varying speeds. It is notable that as USM-21 is an aero-
driven design that the traction limit increases with the velocity. The traction
force of the wheels decreases around 60 km/h as it follows the trend of the
motor losing power at higher angular velocites.
Student No. 201715851 13

Figure 11 - Traction Model of USM-21 [6]
Using the point at which the tractive force at the wheels and the traction limit
intercept, the traction limit of the car is calculated to be approximatly 3000N
at 74km/h. This value is the maximum force which is capable of being applied
to the wheels with the current configuration when the motor is outputting
roughly 156.65Nm at 3760RPM (calculated in Appendix 1).
2.4.2 Forces of Acceleration
The maximum acceleration force that is capable of being applied by the
motor is when the vehicle is at the traction limit. This value can be broken
down into component reaction forces from the chain, giving 4623N and
2168N in the x and z axis respectively. The calculations used to find these
values can be seen in Appendix 1.
Through Optimumlap a graph can be created to show the torque values
which would be experienced throughout an endurance lap. These values can
be implemented into the fatigue analysis of the concepts to aid in finding the
maximum number of laps the design can survive. This graph can be seen in
Figure 12.
Figure 12 - Motor torque throughout FSUK 2020 Endurance
2.4.3 Regenerative Braking

Throughout the endurance event it is crucial to be functioning at the highest
efficiency possible. One method to increase the efficiency of USM-21 which
can be used as it is an electric vehicle, is regenerative braking. This works by
swapping the dipoles on the motor so that it is functioning as a generator
Student No. 201715851 14
instead. This method is used in Formula 1 to power their hybrid system, and
can also be seen within the London underground to reduce the impact on the
environment [18]. USM-21 is capable of consuming 80Nm of torque at the
wheels. Thus, utilising the same equations used previously, the torque at the
motor will be 20.9Nm and forces in the x and z direction are 617N and -289N
during braking.
Student No. 201715851 15

3.0 Analysis
The method used to check the validity of the concepts was Finite Element
Analysis and Fatigue Analysis within ANSYS [19]. Through doing this it can
give some computational answers on what the maximum stress, and
deformation may look like when the design is manufactured. This can help
reduce wasted material and manufacturing time. This allows for a quicker
design process and a design that can be optimised with confidence, knowing
it will be sufficient for the task.
3.1 Setting the Analysis

The settings for the analysis are a crucial part in making sure that the
simulation is as accurate as possible. Thus, each parameter must be applied
correctly. To simulate the attachment to the chassis, the mounting holes were
assumed to be a fixed support. This very similar to how it mounted in USM-
21 as the structure will be secured in between two steel tabs. The connection
point between the differential mount and motor mount is assumed to be a
fixed support as well, as the differential mount will not be experiencing
multiple forces but only the reaction force from the chain.
Due to the complexity of the Emrax 228, shaft and sprocket, a replica part
was created to simulate the response they will experience. This part was
given the material properties of structural steel so that deflection is minimal
within the part and that all the forces will be translated correctly. This part will
be in contact with both mounting plates. The mounting bolts will be assumed
to be bonded, simulating the motor being secured, while the other side of the
replica shaft will be mounted through the plate as a frictionless support. This
is to simulate the bearing that would be supporting the shaft.
To simulate the motor torque a negative moment of 156.65Nm was applied in
the y axis (counter-clockwise) at the mounting holes. This is to simulate the
reaction force applied to the structure from the motor. A remote force was
applied onto the replica shaft at the position in which the chain would leave
the motor sprocket. The chain that would wrap around the motor sprocket
was approximately 129.75 degrees. Hence, the components were calculated
as the following -13.022mm, 27.766mm in the x and z axis from the centre of
the sprocket.
Utilising the same method used to find the driving force, the reaction forces
for regenerative braking were found. The forces will be applied as a remote
force at -13.022mm in the x direction and -27.766mm in the z direction from
the centre of the sprocket. These forces were applied separately to the
acceleration load and the results were compared to see which would be of
larger concern.
3.2 Finite Element Analysis

This type of analysis is used to help validate the structure and make sure that
it does not exceed the yield strength of the material used. Through utilising
FEA it allows for computational analysis of a complex structure without the
need for physical testing. By running multiple iterations, select aspects of a
Student No. 201715851 16

structure can optimised without compromising the strength of the entire
structure.
It must be noted that while FEA can be accurate it is not a replacement for
physical testing and should be used to bring a design maximum stress into a
range of acceptable safety factors. This value will be determined by the
fatigue analysis of the concepts.
3.3 Fatigue Analysis

A structure should be built such that the loads it experiences do not exceed
the yield strength of the material. However, as the material experiences a
load which oscillates, there is the possibility of failure even when the load
case is drastically smaller than the materials yield strength. This is known as
a fatigue failure. Within some materials if the oscillating stress is small
enough, no matter how long this stress is applied the material will not fail.
Fatigue analysis is essential in generating a lightweight structure. If the
expected lifetime of the structure is known, then it can be developed to
survive and function for a limited time before fatigue failure occurs. An
example of this is within F1, only three engines are allowed per car per
season, thus each engine is required to last just over seven races. This
means that the engines can be optimised so that they perform reliably until
after the seventh/eighth race at which point they may have reached the
fatigue life of many parts within it [20].
One method used to calculate the predicted fatigue life of a part subjected to
varying oscillating stresses is Miner’s rule. The method involves collating the
number of times different stresses occur throughout the lifetime of a part.
Then using the following formula the number of cycles until failure (𝑁𝑖 ) can
be calculated [21]:
𝑘
𝑛𝑖
∑ =𝐶 (1)
𝑁𝑖
𝑖=1
C is a value derived experimentally and normally falls between 0.7 and 2.2.
However, Miner’s rule is highly unconservative method and the experimental
values can fluctuate significantly. Thus, an approximation method will be
used in the form of the S/N tables [22]. These tables show the maximum
oscillating stress against the number of cycles until failure. The S/N curve for
wrought aluminium 6061-T6 was applied to the fatigue analysis within
ANSYS. To validate the material property as stated by ANSYS, the S/N curve
was also found in the military handbook [23].The curves can be seen in
Figure 13. These curves coincide with the values pre-determined by ANSYS.
For the analysis that will be run a zero based load case will be utilised, this is
when forces acting upon the system vary from a ratio of 0 to 1 in a sin wave.
This acts as an oscillating load case and fatigues the material. For a deeper
analysis, the historic data can be utilised as the forces which are experienced
differ throughout the race. However, to simplify the computational time this
historic data will not be used.
Student No. 201715851 17

When fatigue analysis is utilised correctly, the safety factor of the overall
structure and design life should be uniform, allowing for sections to be
thinned to allow for some mass to be saved. When looking at Figure 13 on
the line for a stress ratio of 0.0, at one million cycles the maximum stress
amplitude is roughly 30 ksi (207 MPa), thus at the maximum stress value of
100 MPa then a safety factor of 2 would be expected. This safety factor is a
conservative value, however as this is the first year USM has utilised an
electric motor and to align with the set goals, a high reliability of the design is
necessary, so a higher safety factor was applied.
Figure 13 - S/N curves for unnotched wrought aluminium 6061-T6 [23]
Student No. 201715851 18

4.0 Concepts
The methodology which was used for designing the motor mount was an
interactive based approach. This means that most concepts are a
descendant of another and build upon the previous design. The path of the
designing followed:
1. Whiteboard session – Drawing out the concept and seeing the shape
of the design
2. Initial CAD – The design constructed in Inventor [24]
3. FEA – Running CAD through a static structural and fatigue analysis
using ANSYS [19]
4. Review – A meeting concerning any design problems or future
considerations.
5. Optimisation – Running the design through CAD and FEA to reduce
member sizes within the structure
It should be noted that the shaft of the replica is placed directly onto the
motor mount in the CAD, when this would in practice be placed within a
bearing placed into the mount. This decision was made to simplify the
analysis, as due to the complexity of the part the computational power was
rather high, and a prolonged period of time was required to run the analysis.
4.1 Initial Concept Generation

These concepts were designed as a method for gauging the positions of the
motor within the vehicle and solving how the mounting of the motor to the
mount would be utilised. Through doing this a template was made using the
important components for the motor such as mounting holes, HV cables, and
cooling pipes.
4.1.1 Concept 1
This was initially created without some parameters being fully specified. This
design followed a similar construction to a one sided Emrax mount, and a
double shear mount used by Phoenix racing. The assembly of this mount
with the replica shaft can be seen in Figure 14.
Figure 14 - Concept 1
Student No. 201715851 19
This concept was imported into ANSYS workbench and finite element
analysis was carried out. The results for both an accelerating load and
braking load can be found in Table 3. Figure 15 shows the Von Mises Stress
distribution. It is noticeable that the forces due to acceleration cause a
significantly larger maximum stress than the braking force. It is also shown
that the structure is more likely to fail while under the acceleration load.
Table 3 - Concept 1 FEA results
Acceleration Braking
Maximum Stress
62.97 2.4901
(MPa)
Maximum
0.0413 0.0018
Deformation (mm)
Safety Factor at 15 (Maximum
3.0819
one million cycles in ANSYS)
Figure 15 - Concept 1 Von Mises Stress Distribution while under Acceleration Load
The total mass of this design mass is around 1885 grams. This very heavy
for a design for the motor mount, however this concept was only a
placeholder for lighter designs. Another issue is the position of the motor as
the HV connectors and cooling pipes are in a position which it not very
helpful with the implementation of the powertrain. Thus, for future designs the
motor will be oriented such that the mounting structure will be in the positive
y-axis and the motor shaft and sprocket on the negative y-axis.
4.1.2 Concept 2
Figure 16 shows a design more similar to what was initially expected. The
connection point between the differential and motor mount had not been
finalised thus the straight connection point as a placeholder.
Student No. 201715851 20

While this design was light weight at only 719 grams, the connection to the
differential was problematic because it was in close proximity to multiple
rotating parts. The decision was made to have a single large diameter rod
running between the plates that would be used to bolt together the differential
and motor mount. This will be reflected in future concepts. As this was a
placeholder, the fatigue life was not calculated, however the static structural
results as seen in Table 4 showed that the maximum stress and deformation
in this design was similar to those found in concept 1. The stress in
acceleration has decreased as the design is more optimised to the mounting
direction, while braking forces are slightly higher but still insignificant.
Table 4 - Concept 2 FEA results
Maximum Stress
62.553 7.412
(MPa)
Maximum
0.0595 0.009
Deformation (mm)
It is noticeable that this design is more optimised than concept 1 in handling

the stresses caused by acceleration while being significantly lighter. Thus,
this design template was used in further concepts.
4.2 Main Designs

These concepts were generated through the design choices found from
concepts 1 and 2. Primarily a mounting point between the differential and
motor mount had been specified. This was decided as a single bolt which
would be mounted in an area of free space between the motor and
differential. As seen in Figure 17, there is an area of free space in the upper
section and lower section. Due to the fact most of the force is acting towards
the upper section, a higher connection point was chosen.
Student No. 201715851 21

Figure 17 - Drivetrain system for USM-21
4.2.1 Concept 3
This concept utilised the basics method of construction that was found within
concept 2 and integrated a connection point to the differential. The concept
assembly can be seen in Figure 18.
This concept also included a structural member between the mounting points
for the chassis, to help increase the rigidity of the structure. Overall, this
structure weighs 827 grams which is a slight increase from concept 2. The
analysis of the structure can be seen in Table 5 and the distribution of stress
while under the acceleration load is visible in Figure 19.
Student No. 201715851 22

Table 5 - Concept 3 FEA Results
Maximum Stress
67.85 11.703
(MPa)
Maximum
0.0478 0.0129
Deformation (mm)
Safety Factor at one
2.6817 15
million cycles
Figure 19 - Concept 3 Von Mises Stress Distribution under Acceleration Load
Analysis showed that while the maximum stress is slightly above what has
been found in concept 2, the overall deflection has decreased. Within the
braking load the maximum stress has increased but is still too low to warrant
any concern.
Figure 20 - Emrax 228 with the overlooked hole circled in

red
During an evaluation of this design, it was found that one of the structural
members that had been added was causing a problem with the motor. It
covered a port that holds vital cables. The overlooked hole can be seen
Student No. 201715851 23
between the lower and middle HV connectors in Figure 20. To solve this,
these two further designs were created using varying methods to resolve this
problem. These will be discussed within concepts 4 and 5.
4.2.2 Concept 4
This concept is a modified version of concept 3 that allows for the cables
from the overlooked hole to run through easily (Figure 21). This was simply
done through removing the structural member. This was a simplistic fix and
would be a possible design choice. This concept weighs around about 760
grams.
Analysis shows the maximum stress while under has significant decreased,
however this could be from the inaccuracy of the model or the mesh quality.
These values can be seen in Table 6.
Maximum Stress
41.303 8.4393
(MPa)
Maximum
0.0542 0.0115
Deformation (mm)
Safety Factor at
4.1741 15
one million cycles
4.2.3 Concept 5
An alternative method was to add in a structural member between the upper
and middle HV connector. This design method would require a better
tolerance as there is small amount of extra space between the HV
connectors for the extra member. However, if implemented correctly it could
be highly beneficial in reacting the torque. This design can be seen in Figure
22 and weighs 741 grams.
Student No. 201715851 24

Much like concept 4 the values found from the FEA (Table 7) shows that this
concept can potentially be a better design, however it most likely is due to an
inaccuracy within the analysis. It is notable that the forces under braking are
significantly larger but still within an acceptable range. This proves that it is a
worthwhile design and for a final design a combination of concepts 4 and 5
could be the most optimal design.
Maximum Stress
55.49 23.402
(MPa)
Maximum
0.0672 0.0138
Deformation (mm)
Safety Factor at
4.1723 15
one million cycles
4.3 Variations
The conventional method of having the motor mounted such that the cooling
pipes were accessible from the top has been explored. However, with this
configuration having the HV connectors on the right side of the mounting
holes has caused problems. Thus, an alternative approach to concept 4 and
5 would be through rotating the motor 120 degrees anti-clockwise. The
following concepts examine this motor orientation.
4.3.1 Concept 6
Within the initial rotated motor, the mounting point between the motor and
differential mounts was lowered into the lower section, as it provided a
cleaner design. This can be seen in Figure 23. This design weights 757
grams which is comparable to that found in concept 3. This was to be
expected as concept 6 is a relatively similar design, with the difference being
that it was rotated to accommodate the motor.
Student No. 201715851 25
Maximum Stress (MPa) 98.767 11.135
Maximum Deformation
0.0825 0.0097
(mm)
2.009 14.209
million cycles
It can be seen in Table 8 the forces while under acceleration are significantly
larger than in all other previous concepts. This mostly due to the mounting
point being orientated in a position which would not be beneficial in counter
acting the acceleration load. The distribution of stress can be seen in Figure
24.
Figure 24 - Concept 6 Von Mises Stress Distribution with

Acceleration Load
Student No. 201715851 26
This design allows a cleaner structure with better clearances to the HV
connectors due to the orientation of the motor, but it has a significantly higher
stress than previous concepts. Thus, a higher connection point between the
differential and motor would be desirable.
4.3.2 Concept 8
This concept was a continuation of concept 6 and implemented an upper
mounting point between the motor and differential. To achieve this a member
has been placed between the left most and upper most HV connector as
seen in Figure 25. This added member is like the added member within
concept 5 and requires accurate tolerances. This design weighs 736 grams
which is comparable to the other concept designs.
Figure 25 - Concept 8 with the Emrax 228
Maximum Stress
56.401 13.207
(MPa)
Maximum
0.0394 0.0108
Deformation (mm)
Safety Factor at
2.021 15
one million cycles
As seen within Table 9 the maximum stress is significantly lower than within
concept 6 which proves that the rotation of the motor is a feasible design
choice. However, there is added complexity of routing the cooling pipes as
with this orientation the pipes used for cooling the motor would not be able to
connect easily with the motor controller cooling. Instead, an independent loop
would need to be included for the motor which would be inefficient for the
Student No. 201715851 27

footprint of the system. Thus, the added complexity of the cooling as well as
requiring a similar tolerance to other designs, led to the idea of rotating of the
motor being dismissed.
As seen in Figure 26 the maximum stress is found at the small member
connecting the structure which stretches between the lower chassis mounting
point and the connection point for the differential. A future design can
implement a member such that it curves and meets tangentially with the
section that surrounds the area which would hold the bearing. This would
alleviate the small structural part and reduce the overall stress in this section.
Figure 26 - Concept 8 Von Mises Stress Distribution with Accelerative Loads
4.4 Finalised Concept

Through the development of many different concepts, it was established
which design ideas are beneficial and which are not. The orientation of the
motor was decided as being orientated such the cooling pipes are vertical
and positioned at the top of the mount. A combination of concepts 4 and 5
would be integrated such that there is not a connection between the chassis
mounting points but instead leading straight to the centre of the structure.
The assembly of the concept can be seen in Figure 27. Utilising what was
found within concept 8, the structural member connecting the lower chassis
mounting point to the differential connection, it was applied tangentially to
reduce excess materials. A flow chart of how each concept influenced each
other can be seen in Appendix 2. Through using all the different methods, the
overall weight of the final structure is only 547 grams. This is a significant
improvement over all the previous designs as it is nearly a fourth of the initial
concept 1 and on average 200 grams lighter than most other concepts.
Student No. 201715851 28

After the concept had been analysed (Table 10) the maximum Von Mises
stress were calculated. They are comparable many of the other concepts
while being approximately two thirds of the weight.
Maximum Stress (MPa) 59.635 9.2623
Maximum Deformation
0.0968 0.0132
(mm)
2.9051 15
million cycles
Figure 28 - Concept 10 Von Mises Stress Distribution while under

Acceleration Load
Student No. 201715851 29

The Von Mises stress distribution can be seen in Figure 28. The distribution
throughout the mounting structure is quite evenly distributed meaning that all
members are optimised for this load case. Table 11 shows, the mass of the
concepts, the results of the highest stress, maximum deformation, and
smallest safety factor for each concept for comparison.
Table 11 - FEA Result Comparison for all Concepts
Maximum Von Maximum

Minimum
Concepts Mass (g) Mises Stress Deformation
Safety Factor
(MPa) (mm)
1 1885 67.97 0.0413 3.0819
2 719 62.553 0.0595 N/A
4 760 41.303 0.0542 4.1741
5 741 55.49 0.0672 4.1723
6 757 98.767 0.0825 2.009
8 736 56.401 0.0394 2.021
10 547 59.635 0.0968 2.9051
It is noticeable that Concept 10 is significantly lighter while boasting a

relatively low maximum stress. Thus, it can be seen that applying structural
members tangentially can allow for a similar result with less material being
utilised. The stress is not the lowest but within acceptable parameters for the
selection of Aluminium 6061 T6 that will be used for the construction of the
structure. While the maximum deformation for concept 10 is the highest
throughout all the designs, it should be noted that the overall deformation is
less than 0.1 of a millimetre and can be dismissed as it is insignificant in
comparison to the size of the structure. The safety factor after one million
cycles is to be roughly 2.9 which is higher than the set 2, showing that this
design could potentially be optimised further. The final design can be seen in
Figure 29 with the complete drivetrain system.
Figure 29 - Complete Drivetrain system for USM-21
Student No. 201715851 30

5.0 Topology
All current designs have been reliant on utilising traditional methods of
machining such as manual or CNC. A concept which can help utilise additive
manufacturing would a topology optimised design. These designs are hard to
generate through manual construction and instead utilise a computational
method, which places material in an optimal position to help minimise the
mass of the structure and the stress throughout the structure [25].
Stemming from the manufacturing method utilised these structures are
capable of being significantly more complex than the concepts that have
been developed. An example of a topology optimised part is the motor
mounting solution that the formula student team TUfast from the Technical
University of Munich, has implemented into their four wheel drive vehicle.
The mount can be seen in Figure 30 [26]. These designs can give a
substantial reduction in overall mass while maintain an acceptable maximum
stress, deformation, and safety factor.
Figure 30 - Topology Optimised Mount from TU Munich [22]
Figure 31 - Blank Plate used for Topology Optimisation
To generate a topology optimised structure a simplified a blank plate was

inputted into ANSYS and utilising the inbuilt function a mass reduction
percentage can be set. This blank plate can be seen in Figure 31. This blank
Student No. 201715851 31
plate is primarily an unoptimised variant of concept 10. Through using the
blank plate, vital areas can be specifically excluded optimisation for example
the HV connectors.
Within ANSYS the percentage of mass reduction was set as 60%, 40% and
20% mass retention. These values were chosen as it shows the areas of
lower importance being removed initially. A manufacturing constraint was
applied such that the smallest structural member could only be as small as
5mm in any direction. The plates were optimised to being able to sustain the
acceleration loads as this force would be significantly larger than the force
applied through braking. The outputs for each for each mass retention can be
seen in Figure 32 while the masses for each part can be seen in Table 12.
Table 12 - Topology Optimised design masses
Mass Retention
Mass (g)
Percentage (%)
60 702
40 478
20 257
Figure 32 - Topology Optimised Design for: 60%, 40% and 20% Mass Retention
These designs were not feasible for simulation due to conflicting geometry,
and that it was only optimised for one load case. It would be highly beneficial
for the analysis to be carried out with other working load cases such as
braking. However, it shows that when the mass retention was set to 40% the
plate in which the motor mounts on has a resemblance to the design of
Concept 10. This shows that while concept 10 is not fully optimised, the
design is roughly what is expected of an optimised part.
6.0 Conclusions
To conclude, the task of the project was to design and analyse a structure
which would be capable of mounting an Emrax 228 motor within the newest
iteration of the University of Strathclyde Motorsport teams racing vehicle
(USM-21). This was carried out through an iteration based design procedure,
which entails, designing the structure, analysing the design through ANSYS
for both stress and fatigue life, review of the design, and optimisation within
the next concept. Through doing this, multiple iterations of the structure were
generated, compared and the mass of the parts were reduced significantly.
The final structure weighing only 547 grams in comparison to the initial
design weighing 1885 grams. With this light weight design the maximum Von
Student No. 201715851 32
Mises stress found within the structure was only around 60 MPa which is
significantly lower than the yield strength of Aluminium 6061 T6 which is 280
MPa. The fatigue safety factor at one million cycles of this structure is 2.9
which is above the set safety factor of 2, thus some more optimisation is
possible with the design. While the topology optimised designs were not
feasible for structural testing, it was shown that the geometry of the finalised
structure was following a similar pattern. Thus, validating that the structure is
trending towards the optimal design.
7.0 Future Work

Within the project there have been areas which have opened possibilities for
further optimisation of the design of the motor mount. One method could to
test the Emrax to find real life values that can then be fed back into the
design process. Thus, once the physical maximum value has been found the
safety factor can be reduced to allow for further weight reductions to be
carried out.
Another possibility is the implementation of topology optimisation into the
design process and achieving a structural test of the generated design.
Through doing this it would increase the knowledge on how topology
optimisation works and how to implement it correctly. This can be vital for
when USM swaps to a four wheel drive design for the vehicle. It would allow
for a head start in designing motor mounts in a similar fashion to TU Munich.
Figure 33 - New Drivetrain Concept
Topology optimisation can also help in the designing phases, of the concept
sub-team’s new drivetrain method within USM. This team is currently
developing a new method to replace a chain drive. The design iteration has a
compound gear train being utilised, the design for the entire system can be
seen in Figure 33. Through using a gear train, the force acting upon the
motor can be distributed between the bearings supporting the motor shaft, so
Student No. 201715851 33
there is a lower force acting upon the motor mount. The mass of this
structure is substantially greater than the current design, and utilising
topology optimisation and techniques used in this project could be beneficial.
For fatigue analysis the implementation of the historic data would be highly
beneficial in finding an accurate safety factor for the structure. This would be
useful in finding the run time for the car throughout a certain circuit but would
be limited due to each endurance event being different every year. However,
it can still provide a better estimate than a zero based applied load.
8.0 References
[1] V. Vora. "How much does a Formula 1 car weigh?" Sportskeeda.
https://www.sportskeeda.com/f1/how-much-formula-1-car-weigh
(accessed 14 April, 2021).
[2] M. Jenkins, "Technological Discontinuities and Competitive
Advantage: A Historical Perspective on Formula 1 Motor Racing
1950–2006," Journal of management studies, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 884-
910, 2010, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00928.x.
[3] "Formula Student." Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
https://www.imeche.org/events/formula-student (accessed 06 April,
2021).
[4] "FSUK 2020 Rules." Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
https://www.imeche.org/events/formula-student/team-information/rules
(accessed 30 August, 2020).
[5] "FSUK 2019 Class 1 Acceleration Event Results."
https://www.imeche.org/events/formula-student/previous-events
[6] OptimumLap, Vehicle Dynamics Simulation, Version 1.5.5.
[7] "EMRAX 228 Mount." https://emrax.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/emrax_228_ip21_02-1024x1024.jpg
[8] P. Racing.
https://www.facebook.com/304895469551013/photos/pb.1000634700
25258.-2207520000../971602716213615/?type=3 (accessed 08 April,
2021).
[9] P. Graham, "The Path to Monash Motorsport’s First Electric Race
Car," ATZextra worldwide, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 46-49, 2018/12/01 2018,
doi: 10.1007/s40111-018-0022-3.
[10] H. Zhou, M. Lang, P. Hu, Z. Su, and J. Chen, "The modeling, analysis,
and application of the in-process machining data for CNC machining,"
Int J Adv Manuf Technol, vol. 102, no. 5, pp. 1051-1066, 2019, doi:
10.1007/s00170-018-2963-0.
[11] G. Mastinu, Optimal design of complex mechanical systems : with
applications to vehicle engineering / [internet resource], 1st ed. 2006..
ed. Berlin ; New York: Berlin ; New York : Springer, 2006.
[12] D. C. Barton, Automotive Chassis Engineering [internet resource], 1st
ed. 2018.. ed. Cham : Springer International Publishing, 2018.
[13] ANSYS, Granta Edupack, Release 20.1.
[14] H. Friedrich and S. Schumann, "Research for a “new age of
magnesium” in the automotive industry," Journal of materials
Student No. 201715851 34

processing technology, vol. 117, no. 3, pp. 276-281, 2001, doi:
10.1016/S0924-0136(01)00780-4.
[15] R. Wu et al., "Recent progress in magnesium-lithium alloys,"
International materials reviews, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 65-100, 2015, doi:
10.1179/1743280414Y.0000000044.
[16] A. A. Gokhale, N. E. Prasad, and B. Basu, Light Weighting for
Defense, Aerospace, and Transportation [internet resource], 1st ed.
2019.. ed. Singapore : Springer Singapore, 2019.
[17] Microsoft Excel. (2021). Microsoft.
[18] M. Peña-Alcaraz, A. Fernández, A. P. Cucala, A. Ramos, and R. R.
Pecharromán, "Optimal underground timetable design based on
power flow for maximizing the use of regenerative-braking energy,"
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part F, Journal
of rail and rapid transit, vol. 226, no. 4, pp. 397-408, 2012, doi:
10.1177/0954409711429411.
[19] Ansys® Academic Research Mechanical, Release 20.1.
[20] J. Partridge. "How Long Do F1 Engines Last?" F1Chronicle.
https://f1chronicle.com/how-long-do-f1-engines-last/#What-are-the-
2022-Formula-1-engine-changes (accessed 10 April, 2021).
[21] S. Akbarzadeh and M. M. Khonsari, "On the Applicability of Miner’s
Rule to Adhesive Wear," Tribol Lett, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 1-10, 2016, doi:
10.1007/s11249-016-0717-4.
[22] A. Sarkar, A. Nagesha, P. Parameswaran, R. Sandhya, K. Laha, and
M. Okazaki, "Investigation of Cumulative Fatigue Damage Through
Sequential Low Cycle Fatigue and High Cycle Fatigue Cycling at High
Temperature for a Type 316LN Stainless Steel: Life-Prediction
Techniques and Associated Mechanisms," Metall and Mat Trans A,
vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 953-964, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s11661-016-3909-5.
[23] Metallic Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle Structures
(Military Handbook). Department of Defences, 1998, p. 577.
[24] Autodesk, Inventor Professional 2021.
[25] O. Sigmund and K. Maute, "Topology optimization approaches: A
comparative review," Struct Multidisc Optim, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1031-
1055, 2013, doi: 10.1007/s00158-013-0978-6.
[26] D. Hatton. "Formula Student TU Munich Tech Analsyis."
https://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/formula-student-tu-
munich-tech-analysis/2/ (accessed 18 March, 2021).
Student No. 201715851 35

9.0 Appendix 1 – Finding the components forces at
the sprocket
Force at the axle
𝜏 = 𝐹 × 𝑟𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑠 (2)
= 3000 × 𝑟𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑠
𝜏 = 600𝑁𝑚
Reduction of axle to motor

12: 46
1: 3.833 …
1: 3.83
Torque at the motor

𝜏𝑚 = 𝜏𝐴 × 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (3)
1
𝜏𝑚 = 600 ×
3 ⋅ 83
𝜏𝑚 = 156.65𝑁𝑚
Radians at the axle

74 𝑘𝑚/ℎ ≈ 20.68 𝑚/𝑠
𝜈
𝜔𝐴 = (4)
𝑟𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑠
20.69
𝜔𝐴 =
0⋅2
𝜔𝐴 = 103. 45𝑟𝑎𝑑 ⁄𝑠
Radians at the motor

1
𝜔𝑚 = 𝜔𝐴 × (5)
𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
3 ⋅ 83
𝜔𝑚 = 103.45 ×
1
𝜔𝑚 = 394. 1445𝑟𝑎𝑑 ⁄𝑠
Student No. 201715851 36

RPM of the motor
394.1445
𝑅𝑃𝑀 = × 60 (6)
2𝜋
𝑅𝑃𝑀 = 3763.802
𝑅𝑃𝑀 ≈ 3760𝑅𝑃𝑀
Force of the Chain

𝜏
𝐹= (7)
𝑟𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑡
156.65
𝐹=
30.66814 × 10−3
𝐹 = 5107.906772𝑁
𝐹 ≈ 5107𝑁
Finding the component forces

𝐹𝑥 = cos(25.125) × 5107 (8)
𝐹𝑥 = 4623.794 …
𝐹𝑥 ≈ 4623𝑁
𝐹𝑧 = sin(25.125) × 5107 (9)
𝐹𝑧 = 2168.404 …
𝐹𝑧 ≈ 2168𝑁
Finding the component locations

𝑥 = cos(64.875) × 30.66814 (10)
𝑥 = 13.0215 …
𝑥 ≈ 13.022𝑚𝑚
𝑧 = sin(64.875) × 30.66814 (11)
𝑧 = 27.7664 …
𝑧 ≈ 27.766𝑚𝑚
Student No. 201715851 37

10.0 Appendix 2 – Concept Evolution
Concept 1 Concept 2
Concept 3
Concept 4 Concept 5 Concept 6
Concept 8
Concept 10
Figure 34 - Concept Evolution
Student No. 201715851 38

Technical Paper
Class Code/ Title: ME409, ME420, ME421: Individual Project
Technical paper title: Investigating the design of a mounting structure for
use in a formula student car through Finite
Element Analysis, Fatigue Analysis and Topology
Optimisation
Student Name/ Number: Michael Page 201715851
Supervisor: Dr Tugrul Comlekci
Date: 23/03/2021
Word count: 2694 Words
Abstract
The project aims to design and analyse the structure used in mounting an
electric motor into the current iterations of the University of Strathclyde
Motorsport teams (USM) electric formula student vehicle. The project will
investigate the structures through the utilisation of FEA and fatigue analysis
within ANSYS. For analysis to be carried out the boundary conditions which
the vehicle will experience during its operation were calculated and applied for
analysis. Alongside this, material selection is investigated to allow for the
correct material assignment for analysis. During the projects duration
numerous concepts were designed, analysed, and then reviewed internally
against set goals. Topology optimisation was generated and utilised to show
the geometry of an optimal solution which can be implanted or used for further
design consideration. The design which has been chosen is concept 10 as it
boasts a reasonable maximum stress, great fatigue safety factor and had the
lowest mass (excluding topology optimised).
Contents
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................... 1
1.1 Aim.................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Goals ................................................................................................ 2
2.0 Motor Mounting .................................................................................... 2
2.1 Design Parameters ........................................................................... 3
2.2 Boundary Conditions......................................................................... 4
2.3 Material Selection ............................................................................. 5
3.0 Analysis ................................................................................................ 6
3.1 Finite Element Analysis..................................................................... 6
3.2 Fatigue Analysis ............................................................................... 6
3.3 Topology Optimisation ...................................................................... 6
3.4 Settings for analysis .......................................................................... 7
4.0 Discussion and Results ........................................................................ 8
4.1 Concepts........................................................................................... 8
4.2 FEA ................................................................................................. 11
4.3 Fatigue Analysis ............................................................................. 12
4.4 Finalised Concept ........................................................................... 12
4.5 Notable Concepts ........................................................................... 13
5.0 Conclusions ....................................................................................... 13
6.0 References ......................................................................................... 14
7.0 Appendix A – Finding the components forces at the sprocket ............... 15

Table of Figures
Figure 1 – Assembly of USM-21 in Inventor .................................................. 1
Figure 2 - Drivetrain system for USM-21 modelled in Inventor....................... 3
Figure 3 – Co-ordinate system of the vehicle ................................................. 3
Figure 4 - Traction Model of USM-21 ............................................................. 4
Figure 5 - Topology Optimised Mount from TU Munich ................................ 7
Figure 6 - Concept evolution .......................................................................... 9
Figure 7 - Evolution of Topology Optimisation ............................................. 10
Figure 8 - FEA of concept 10 ....................................................................... 11
Figure 9 - Concept 6 .................................................................................... 13
Figure 10 - Concept 8 .................................................................................. 13
Table of Tables
Table 1 - Material Selection Matrix................................................................. 5
Table 2 - Concept Masses ........................................................................... 10
Table 3 - FEA results ................................................................................... 11
Table 4 - Fatigue Analysis Results............................................................... 12
Table 5 - Ranking of Concepts..................................................................... 12
Nomenclature
Symbol Description SI Units
𝐹 Force N
𝐹𝑥 Force component in x-axis N
𝐹𝑧 Force component in z-axis N
𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛Gear reduction N/A
𝑟𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑡Radius of the sprocket m
𝑟𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑠 Radius of the wheel m
𝜏 Torque N/m
𝜏𝐴 Torque at the axle N/m
𝜏𝑚 Torque N/m
𝜈 Velocity of the vehicle m/s
𝜔𝐴 Angular velocity of the axle rad/s
𝜔𝑚 Angular velocity of the motor rad/s
𝑥 Component of x mm
𝑧 Component of z mm
Description
Abbreviation
CAD Computer Aided Graphics
CFRP Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer
FEA Finite Element Analysis
FSAE Formula Student of Automotive Engineers
FSUK Formula Student United Kingdom
HV High Voltage
RPM Revolutions per minute
USM University of Strathclyde Motorsport Team

1.0 Introduction
Almost every moving part within a vehicle requires being mounted, this is done
using mounting structures. Within a normal vehicle the optimisation of a mount
would not be of a high priority, however within the performance sector it is one
of the highest. Formula Student very much favours the highest performing
parts and thus most teams adopt a similar design philosophy as Formula One
teams. The philosophy entails trying to find the most effective, lightweight
structure to accomplish the job within given boundaries (e.g. Part Life) [1].
Within USM the current car which is being constructed is a first in its history,
being an all-electric vehicle. It has been given the callsign USM-21 (seen in
Figure 1 featuring a sophisticated aerodynamic package). To power the
vehicle an Emrax 228 is being utilised, and with this comes the problem of
optimisation of the required supporting mount. [2]
Figure 1 – Assembly of USM-21 in Inventor [2]
Student No. 201715851 1

Throughout the duration of the project numerous concept and iterations of
mounting structures were designed and analysed. This was done using FEA
and fatigue analysis within ANSYS [3]. Topology optimised concepts was also
generated to compare the designed concepts with, as it shows a rough outline
on an optimal design.
1.1 Aim
The aims are overarching objectives that are derived from the demands of the
structure. The aims which were set are:
• To create a structure which secures the motor to the chassis

• To resist lateral deflection
• To provide a mounting point for the differential mount
• To be compliant with the FSUK rules and regulations [4]
1.2 Goals
The goals are metrics that are used to define the performance of the concepts.
This allows for the concepts to be weighted up against each other. However,
these goals are only markers, and some can be dismissed in favour of others.
The goals which were set as:
• Maximise the reliability

• Minimise the footprint within the chassis of the design
• Create a simplistic design
• Maximise rigidity
• Allow for the system to be easily removed
• Minimise weight
2.0 Motor Mounting

The mounting solution that is required within the car must be capable of
supporting an Emrax 228 through the duration of the racing season. This will
be mounted in conjunction with the rest of the drivetrain system (differential, a
Student No. 201715851 2

chain drive connecting the two, and prop shafts to deliver power to the wheels.
Refer to Figure 2).
Figure 2 - Drivetrain system for USM-21 modelled in Inventor [2]
2.1 Design Parameters

The motor mount would be connected to two chassis tubes which run in
parallel to the motor mounting positions. A third connection point was decided
upon running between the motor mount and the differential mount. This was
chosen as a point between the two components with an adequate amount of
free space to minimise contact during operation. It should also be noted that
the co-ordinate system of the car is seen within Figure 3.
z
v
x y
v
Figure 3 – Co-ordinate system of the vehicle
Student No. 201715851 3

2.2 Boundary Conditions
The boundary conditions which the motor will experience are derived from the
forces which it capable of generating, and the tractive limits it will experience
during operation.
The first factor is the torque that the motor is capable of outputting. This is
primarily derived from the configuration of the accumulator (i.e. the maximum
voltage and the amperage it can output). It is assumed that the motor can apply
200Nm of torque [5].
However, the vehicle would not be fully capable of applying 200Nm of torque
due to the traction limit. Therefore, the force will be dictated by the traction limit
of USM-21. This value varies depending on the speed due to USM-21 being
an aero driven design, thus a simulation was run to find the maximum torque
that is capable of being applied by the wheels. This was done through a
program called OptimumLap [6].
Figure 4 - Traction Model of USM-21
As seen in Figure 4 the maximum tractive limit of the car is found to be around
3000N at 74km/h. This value is the maximum force which can be applied at
the wheels. As seen in 7.0 Appendix A – Finding the components forces at the
sprocket the traction limit of the motor is found to be 156.65Nm at 3760RPM.
The specifics of the chain drive means that the wrap of the chain around the
motor sprocket is found to be 129.75 degrees. Using this the components
where the force acts in relation to the sprocket can be calculated, at an x-
Student No. 201715851 4

direction of approximately 13.022mm and 27.766mm in the z direction.
Alongside this the component forces which are applied upon the chain are
calculated to be 4623N, 2168N for the x axis and z axis, respectively.
The Emrax 228 is capable of utilising regenerative braking, which would allow
for some of the kinetic energy of the vehicle to be recovered. This would be
highly beneficial during the endurance competition. However, the forces for
regenerative braking are significantly smaller than those while accelerating
thus it will be disregarded.
2.3 Material Selection

To generate useful data from FEA and fatigue analysis, material properties
must be considered. The most common materials used for mounting solutions
found throughout the world of racing are a mixture of metal alloys and carbon
fibre. They are utilised in a concoction to maximise on properties such as
stiffness and minimising density [7].
Table 1 shows the material properties and rating of some materials which were
considered for the manufacturing of the motor mount.
Table 1 - Material Selection Matrix [8]
Carbon Fibre
Aluminium Steel Magnesium Reinforced
Properties/Materials Alloy 6061 1000 Alloy (Mg- Polymer
T6 Series 12Li) (Woven
Prepreg)
Yield Strength (MPa) 280 315 75 910
Density (kg/m3) 2730 7900 1800 1610
Fatigue Life at 10e6
202 270 72 650
cycles (MPa)
Machinability (1 =
1 2 3 4
Best)
Availability (1=Best) 2 1 3 2
Cost (GBP/kg) 5.95 0.699 16.1 45.8
CFRP was not chosen as the mount for numerous reasons, the largest being
that the machinability of the material would be incredibly difficult for a complex
geometry. Magnesium is a high ranking material but due to availability, cost,
Student No. 201715851 5
and the machinability it was also not chosen. Aluminium was ultimately
selected as the material of choice due to the marginal reduction in mass which
can be achieved through an optimised design.
3.0 Analysis
The motor mount concepts were created within Autodesk Inventor then
imported to ANSYS for analysis [2, 3]. The utilisation of ANSYS allows for
comprehensive results within FEA, and fatigue analysis.
3.1 Finite Element Analysis

This style of analysis was used as a way of validating that the structure would
not exceed the yield strength of the aluminium. Through utilising FEA it allows
for computational analysis of the desired structure without having to do any
physical testing. It allows for the narrowing of members of the structure to
within a reasonable safety factor. However, FEA is not a replacement for
testing the structure physically and should only be used to reduce the designs
to within an acceptable safety factor. The yield strength value of 100 MPa will
be used as the upper boundary for analysis as it will yield a safety factor of 2
for the design.

Fatigue analysis is crucial when generating a lightweight structure. If the
expected lifetime of the structure is known, then it can be developed to survive
and function for a limited time. The operational cycle of the motor was exerted
to a zero-based load of up to one million cycles. This simulates the motor going
from resting to full spins numerous times, potentially more than feasible during
a race season. When fatigue analysis is utilised correctly, the safety factor of
the overall structure and design life should be uniform, allowing for sections to
be thinned to allow for some mass to be saved.
3.3 Topology Optimisation

Topology optimisation is a computational method used to help reduce the
mass of a structure, through placing material to obtain the best structure for
performance [9]. This is a complex method, however if utilised correctly can
create outstanding structures which are too complex to generate by hand.
Student No. 201715851 6

One problem with generating a topology optimised part is the manufacturing
of it. This can be most noticeable if a structure is developed to be 3D and
wrapping around the parts being mounted. This can be seen in Figure 5. These
structures can be difficult to manufacture by a conventional method (such as
machining out of a single piece of material) so instead they utilise a method
called Additive Manufacturing. Topology optimisation will be utilised as a
method of validating the concepts through a visual comparison on structural
members. So, it will be generated through the designing of the two supporting
plates on either side of the motor. [10]
Figure 5 - Topology Optimised Mount from TU Munich [10]
3.4 Settings for analysis

To help alleviate the computational time a replacement of the motor, shaft and
sprocket was implemented. This was achieved by create a mock part with a
stiffness higher than what would be expected.
To simulate how the structure would be mounted to the chassis, fixed supports
were used. These were also utilised in acting as the connection point between
the motor mount and the differential.
The force as stated was applied through a remote force acting upon the
sprocket. Alongside this a moment was applied at the mounting holes for the
Emrax. This was done to simulate the reaction moment which the motor will
be exerting.
The correct assumptions for the connections between touching parts are
crucial in the finding an accurate value. Thus, between the motor mounting
Student No. 201715851 7

plates and the connecting rod it is assumed to be a bonded connection. For
the motor it varies depending upon the side, for mounting to the plate it is
assumed a bonded connection at the bolt holes, while the side in which the
shaft will be protruding from would be a frictionless boundary (simulating a
bearing).
4.0 Discussion and Results

Throughout the design period numerous concepts were considered. The
process for development would follow a similar pattern of:
1. Sketching/whiteboard session
2. Initial CAD
3. FEA and Fatigue Analysis
4. Design Review
5. Optimisation or new concept
This design process is reliant on time as multiple iterations needs to be

completed to reach an acceptable solution.
4.1 Concepts
Within Figure 6 the evolution of the concepts is prevalent. Initially concept 1
(top left) was designed as a volume to allow for a nice visualisation of the
mounting structure. Using this structure, a design decision with respects of the
motor orientation was changed, this was to have all the connection and cooling
pipe available on the right hand side (negative y-axis). This was chosen as it
allows for a cleaner and shorter connection for the HV connectors to the motor
controller.
Student No. 201715851 8

Figure 6 - Concept evolution, From top left clockwise: Concept 1,
Concept 3, Concept 4, Concept 10
After concept 1 a points file was utilised to allow for an adaptive CAD. This cut
down on time needed to redesign a concept to fit to any new dimensions (e.g
new motor position in respect to the chassis mounting points).
It was brought to our attention that concept 3 was not feasible as it blocked a
component for valuable information, so this design was disregarded.
Using the same boundary conditions, a blank plate was uploaded to ANSYS
to create a topology optimised design [3]. Through utilising the blank plate
sections, important components can be implemented so that the design is
compatible with the Emrax. The mass retention percentage used in the
optimisation were 60%, 40% and 20% mass retention. Through utilising
topology optimisation, it shows what shape would be most optimal, potentially
giving new ideas for future concepts. The variance in the mounts can be seen
in Figure 7.
Student No. 201715851 9

Figure 7 - Evolution of Topology Optimisation, From top left clockwise: No optimisation, Mass
Retention 60%, Mass Retention 40%, Mass Retention 20%
The masses of the different concepts can be seen within Table 2. Here it is
noticeable that concept 4 and 10 are considerable lighter than 1. It also worth
noting that the topology optimised mounts are significantly lighter but a mass
retention factor of 40% and 20% would most likely not be feasible for
manufacturing.
Table 2 - Concept Masses
Volume of Mass
Concept
mounts (m3) (g)
1 7.033*10-4 1885
4 2.814*10-4 760
10 2.028*10-4 547
Topology (60%) 2.621*10-4 702
Topology (40%) 1.784*10-4 478
Topology (20%) 9.578*10-5 257
Student No. 201715851 10

4.2 FEA
The concepts were imported into ANSYS from Autodesk Inventor using a
STEP file. Once within ANSYS the geometry was confirmed within
Spaceclaim, then using Static Structural the boundary conditions were applied.
The mesh was refined by utilising a 2mm grain size, but changing the transition
speed to slow, and the span angle centre to medium. Through doing this it
slows the rate in which the elements sizes change around stress
concentrations (e.g. corners, fillets. This can be seen in Figure 8).
Figure 8 - FEA of concept 10
Table 3 - FEA results
Concept Maximum Von Number of Maximum Error

Mises Stress Nodes and in Mesh
(MPa) Elements
1 67.97 1286668 0.007281
4 41.303 680237 0.00641
10 60.636 890221 0.012068
As seen in Table 3, the maximum Von-Mises Stress decreases between

concept 1 and 4/10. This is mostly due to the more optimised design and the
supporting structures being connected in a more optimal way. The error seen
Student No. 201715851 11

within the mesh of concept 10 is significantly higher than the other concepts
but can be reduced by running a higher quality mesh.

To allow for the lightest mount feasible, the lifetime that the mount would be
required to function for would be minimal. Through the boundary conditions set
of one million cycles the results can be seen in Table 4. Concept 10 has the
highest Safety Factor and could potentially be optimised further to decrease
the safety factor.
Table 4 - Fatigue Analysis Results
Concept Minimum
Number Safety Factor
1 3.0819
4 4.1741
10 2.9051
4.4 Finalised Concept

A ranking system can be created for the three concepts as shown in Table 5.
It is noticeable that concepts 4 and 10 are more suitable for consideration than
concept 1. To help alleviate biases the design goals are used to help decide
on the best concept.
Table 5 - Ranking of Concepts (Lower the Better)
Concept 1 4 10
Mass 3 2 1
FEA Maximum Von Mises Stress 3 1 2
Fatigue Minimum Safety Factor 2 1 3
Total 8 4 6
While concept 4 has the best ranking, it was decided that concept 10 would be
utilised. This was due to the mass difference between concept 4 and 10 being
significant, so the final design fulfils the set goals. This means that concept 10
will be manufactured and then implemented into USM-21 with the hopes of
competing at numerous competitions throughout Europe and at FSUK 2022.
Student No. 201715851 12

However, topology optimisation can be implemented in the design
consideration of a newer iteration of concept 10, as the structure still has areas
that are suitable for improvement.
4.5 Notable Concepts

Within concept 6 the idea of rotating the motor allowed for a cleaner connection
towards the right side as seen in Figure 9. However due to the HV connectors
it imposes a potential problem with having a lower connection point towards
the differential.
Figure 9 - Concept 6 Figure 10 - Concept 8
Concept 8 (Figure 10) has the ability of including a high mounting point towards
the differential. However, within these designs it became very clear that the
adaptability of this design was not as desirable as having the motor upright, as
one of the supports requires going between HV connectors. This poses a
problem because if the tolerances of the mount during manufacturing are not
accurate then the motor may not fit within the mount.
5.0 Conclusions
In summary the task and scope of the project was to design a structure capable
of mounting an Emrax 228 motor within the newest iteration of the USM racing
vehicles (USM-21). This was carried out through a design cycle of creating a
concept and running it through various forms of analysis such as FEA and
fatigue analysis. Through the many iterations it was decided upon utilising
concept 10 as it boasted the lightest mass out of all the concepts while
maintaining a reasonable maximum stress value which fell within the yield
strength of Aluminium 6061 T6. There are suitable areas of further
Student No. 201715851 13

development for future years of USM such as a potential change in orientation
of the motor, or even a fully topology optimised design which can be
manufactured through additive manufacturing.
6.0 References
[1] M. Jenkins, "Technological Discontinuities and Competitive
Advantage: A Historical Perspective on Formula 1 Motor Racing
1950–2006," Journal of management studies, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 884-
910, 2010, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00928.x.
[2] Autodesk, Inventor Professional 2021.
[3] Ansys® Academic Research Mechanical, Release 20.1.
[4] "FSUK 2021 Rules." IMechE. https://www.imeche.org/events/formula-
student/team-information/rules (accessed 19 February, 2021).
[5] "EMRAX 228 Manual." https://emrax.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/03/manual_for_emrax_motors_version_5.4.pdf
(accessed 19 September, 2020).
[6] OptimumLap, Vehicle Dynamics Simulation, Version 1.5.5.
[7] G. Mastinu, Optimal design of complex mechanical systems : with
applications to vehicle engineering / [internet resource], 1st ed. 2006..
ed. Berlin ; New York: Berlin ; New York : Springer, 2006.
[8] ANSYS, Granta Edupack, Release 20.1.
[9] O. Sigmund and K. Maute, "Topology optimization approaches: A
comparative review," Struct Multidisc Optim, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1031-
1055, 2013, doi: 10.1007/s00158-013-0978-6.
[10] D. Hatton. "Formula Student TU Munich Tech Analsyis."
https://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/formula-student-tu-
munich-tech-analysis/2/ (accessed 18 March, 2021).
Student No. 201715851 14

7.0 Appendix A – Finding the components forces at the
sprocket
RPM of the motor
Force at the axle 394.1445
𝑅𝑃𝑀 = × 60
𝜏 = 𝐹 × 𝑟𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑠 2𝜋
𝑅𝑃𝑀 = 3763.802
𝜏 = 3000 × 𝑟𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑠
𝑅𝑃𝑀 ≈ 3760𝑅𝑃𝑀
𝜏 = 600𝑁𝑚
Force of the Chain

Reduction of axle to motor
𝜏
12: 46 𝐹=
𝑟𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑡
1: 3.833 …
1: 3.83 156.65
𝐹=
30.66814 × 10−3
𝐹 = 5107.906772𝑁
Torque at the motor 𝐹 ≈ 5107𝑁
𝜏𝑚 = 𝜏𝐴 × 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
1 Finding the component forces
𝜏𝑚 = 600 ×
3 ⋅ 83 𝐹𝑥 = 𝑐𝑜𝑠(25.125) × 5107
𝜏𝑚 = 156.65𝑁𝑚 𝐹𝑥 = 4623.794 …
𝐹𝑥 ≈ 4623𝑁
Radians at the axle

𝐹𝑧 = 𝑠𝑖𝑛(25.125) × 5107
74 𝑘𝑚/ℎ ≈ 20.68 𝑚/𝑠
𝐹𝑥 = 2168.404 …
𝜈 𝐹𝑥 ≈ 2168𝑁
𝜔𝐴 =
𝑟𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑠
20.69
𝜔𝐴 =
0⋅2 Finding the component
𝜔𝐴 = 103. 45𝑟𝑎𝑑 ⁄𝑠 locations
𝑥 = 𝑐𝑜𝑠(64.875) × 30.66814
𝑥 = 13.0215 …
Radians at the motor
𝑥 ≈ 13.022𝑚𝑚
1
𝜔𝑚 = 𝜔𝐴 ×
𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
3 ⋅ 83 𝑧 = 𝑠𝑖𝑛(64.875) × 30.66814
𝜔𝑚 = 103.45 × 𝑧 = 27.7664 …
1
𝜔𝑚 = 394. 1445𝑟𝑎𝑑 ⁄𝑠 𝑧 ≈ 27.766𝑚𝑚
Student No. 201715851 15

Dissertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Dissertation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development of an Electric Motor

Mount for a Formula Student

Supervisor: Dr Tugrul Comlekci

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of

Word count: 8797

Student No. 201715851

Student No. 201715851

Student No. 201715851

Student No. 201715851

1.1 Formula Student

Figure 1 - Skidpad Track Layout [4]

The Acceleration event concentrated on completing a 75m straight stretch in

Student No. 201715851 1

Figure 2 - FSUK 2020 Endurance Course made in

1.2 University of Strathclyde Motorsport

Student No. 201715851 2

Figure 4 - USM-17 competing at the Endurance event at Formula Student

Student No. 201715851 3

Student No. 201715851 5

2.1 Current Solutions

Figure 6 - Emrax 228 Mounting Plate [7]

Student No. 201715851 6

Figure 7 - Phoenix Racing Emrax Mount [8]

Monash Motorsport is an Australian Formula Student team who has built an

Student No. 201715851 7

2.2 Manufacturing Methods

Student No. 201715851 8

2.3 Material Selection

2.3.3 Magnesium Alloy

Student No. 201715851 10

Steel Magnesium Carbon Fibre

Cost (GBP/kg) 5.95 0.699 16.1 45.8

Student No. 201715851 11

2.4 Boundary Conditions

Figure 9 - Co-ordinate system of the vehicle

Student No. 201715851 12

Figure 10 - Total points for varying FDR

Student No. 201715851 13

Figure 12 - Motor torque throughout FSUK 2020 Endurance

2.4.3 Regenerative Braking

Student No. 201715851 15

3.1 Setting the Analysis

3.2 Finite Element Analysis

Student No. 201715851 16

3.3 Fatigue Analysis

Student No. 201715851 17

Figure 13 - S/N curves for unnotched wrought aluminium 6061-T6 [23]

Student No. 201715851 18

4.1 Initial Concept Generation

Student No. 201715851 20

It is noticeable that this design is more optimised than concept 1 in handling

4.2 Main Designs

Student No. 201715851 21

Student No. 201715851 22

Figure 19 - Concept 3 Von Mises Stress Distribution under Acceleration Load

Figure 20 - Emrax 228 with the overlooked hole circled in

Student No. 201715851 24

Table 8 - Concept 6 FEA Results