This page will document the work and progress involved in selecting and validating an adhesive option for aero-chassis integration.

Document used to compile all the work is here:

Things to look for when selecting adhesives

When deciding on what adhesive to use, one of the first things that should come to mind is identifying what substrates need to be bonded together. Most adhesives are engineered for a certain application or a limited set of materials, e.g. only wood or only steels.

For this project, the main substrates involve 4130 chromoly steel and carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP). One can begin researching adhesive suppliers that have these types of adhesives and compiling a list of potential options. It is also very useful to contact adhesive suppliers directly to seek their technical expertise on what options they recommend, which can greatly reduce your research time. Some companies may not be in a position to sponsor large quantities of adhesives for free, but they may still try to offer their technical expertise as a substitute for qualifying for our sponsorship rewards.

There are many types of categories of adhesives that are meant for larger or smaller applications. By researching adhesives for your specific application, you will naturally find a common adhesive category that often shows up. Research can also be done on the adhesive categories if one is obliged to specialize in this area.

Our specific application includes large loading and large impact which calls for a stronger adhesive category. Research has found that structural epoxy adhesive are the primary options for this application.

Afterwards, there are many other adhesive factors such as working time, curing time, etc. that will be factored into the final adhesive choice. The primary focus for this project was to find an adhesive that was appropriately specified based on its adhesive strength.

How the adhesive strength required was calculated

The adhesive must sustain all appropriate loading that individual components of the car are expected to withstand. For example, aerobody panels are not expected to be structural as per regulation therefore it only needs to withstand its own weight. The bonding between the chassis and the bottom panel is expected to be structural as per our design requirements for the car to function safely therefore it needs to withstand a 2G bump and vehicle collisions (based on regulation).

The analysis for adhesive strength focused on the larger loading scenarios. If an adhesive was selected based on the strength requirement of a larger load scenario, then applications with lesser load conditions will also be accounted for.

The approach for calculating adhesive strength involved hand calculations of simplified force models and simulations using Ansys Static Structural. A simplified force model involves creating a more simplified and worst case scenario. This was to be done because there exists multiple adhesive joints between the bonding of two components, each at different angles. This made it difficult to accurately calculate the force distribution using solely hand calculations. Simulations were used to get a better approximation of the expected force the adhesive would endure. Figure 1 shows how the bonding in MS XIV can become more complex when more adhesive joints are involved which brings the need for simulations.

Figure 1: Images to show complex bonding in MS XIV compared to more basic bonding scenarios

should probably divide this into the scenarios looked at: 2G bump and Crash Scenarios
Make tips for creating simplified model; worst case scenario
go from hand calc approach to simulation set up (features used)
display hand calc results and sim results in an organized table + should show formulas used as equations
lastly talk about design safety factor for adhesives -

There are two main loading scenarios that the vehicle should be designed towards:

2G bump (ASC2020, Appendix F, F.2)
- This basically features a loading scenario consisting of twice the weight of the car’s mass
Vehicle collision scenarios. (ASC2020, Appendix F, F.3)
- There are a total of 12 loading scenarios featuring a 5G impact at different directions and angles
- Not all carbon fibre parts are expected to be structural therefore selected crash scenarios are placed at higher priority for analysis

Figure 2: Vehicle Collision Scenarios (ASC 2020, Appendix F, F.3.3)

Bonding scenarios in MS XIV that were considered in this analysis

The bonding between the Chassis and the Bottom Panel must be structural.
- This structure contributes to the foundation of the car.
The bonding between the bulkheads and the Chassis.
- Bulkheads A and C cover the front and back of the Chassis.
- They are used for cover and may be used for mounting.
- They are not designed to be structural; the Chassis is primarily responsible for withstanding vehicle impacts


Figure 3: Shows the bonding area and force diagram for the bonding between the Chassis and Bottom Panel. Bulkhead A can be seen at the front (to the left) and Bulkhead C can be seen at the back (to the right).	Figure 4: Bonding areas for Bulkhead A	Figure 5: Bonding areas for Bulkhead C

Table #1: Shows the bonding scenarios to be analyzed and the related design and stress elements associated with each bonding scenario.

Bonding Scenario	Design Requirement	Loading Scenario	Expected Stress	Notes
Chassis and Bottom Panel	Structural	2G Bump	Tensile	This analysis laid the foundation for adhesive selection
Chassis and Bottom Panel	Structural	Vehicle Crash Scenarios	Shear	This analysis laid the foundation for adhesive selection
Bulkheads to Chassis	Strong enough to allow mounting of potential dynamic assembly parts	2G Bump	Shear	Later in the analysis, bulkheads were concluded to not be structural which led to ceasing its analysis. Documentation is still written for educational purposes.
Bulkheads to Chassis		Vehicle Crash Scenarios	Tensile

Tips for Creating a Simplified Model or Worst Case Scenario

The importance of creating a simplified model is to create a more feasible way of understanding the problem so that basic hand calculations can be performed. It is strongly preferred that the physics model is modified in a way that makes it weaker meaning it will result in larger stresses hence the name worst case scenario. It is better to design towards an approximated higher standard than an approximated lower standard for safety reasons.

In terms of the analysis of the adhesives, creating a worst case scenario involves assuming all stresses in tensile (since adhesives are weaker in tensile and stronger in shear) and reducing bonding area (decreasing area increases stress).

Hand calculations are required to compare with simulation results. If the simulation results are far from your hand calculations, it strongly suggests that a miscalculation or a misinterpretation of the physics model has occurred. It is important to revisit the assumptions made.

Hand Calculations and Simulations for Finding Adhesive Strength Requirement for Bonding the Chassis and the Bottom Panel

Loading Scenario: 2G Bump

Finding Sum of Forces:

Finding Bonding Area:

Bonding Area was found by reviewing the SolidWorks Assembly and using the measuring tool. The bonding area is where two parts are expected to interface with each other and have adhesives applied.

Initial bonding area was determined to be all flat tubes at that touch the bottom flaps of the Bottom Panel. After multiple analysis reviews, the bonding area has been reduced to create a new worst case scenario.

The analysis consisted of finding the force reactions in the Chassis tubes that interfaced with the Bottom Panel. If all tubes were selected, then an average value of the forces would be given. This is easily calculated by hand. Simulations allow for more in-depth analysis by allowing probes to measure specific tubes. This means we can know the approximate force reaction of each tube. Contact probes were used to remove the need to add unnecessary fixed boundaries that may invalidate the physics model.