Performance Evaluation of F1 Car Chassis Frame using Finite Element Analysis

Abstract

This research evaluates the structural performance of the front part of a Formula One (F1) car chassis using Finite Element Analysis (FEA). A comparative study is conducted using four advanced materials: Carbon Fiber (Epoxy), Aluminum 7075-T6, Titanium Alloy (Ti-6Al-4V), and AISI 4130 Chromoly Steel. CATIA is employed for accurate 3D modeling, while ANSYS Workbench is used for static structural simulations. The study applies a 15,000 N frontal load to replicate crash conditions and examines key output parameters such as directional deformation, total deformation, and von Mises stress. The results indicate that Carbon Fiber offers the best balance of stiffness and low deformation, making it ideal for F1 chassis design. Titanium Alloy demonstrates excellent strength and ductility, while AISI 4130 provides superior rigidity at the cost of higher weight. Aluminum, though light, exhibits excessive deformation under load. The findings guide optimal material selection to improve safety and performance in high-speed automotive applications.

Introduction

In Formula One (F1) motorsport, the chassis is the core structural component responsible for supporting major systems (engine, suspension, steering, aerodynamics) and ensuring safety during collisions. The front chassis is particularly important as it must absorb frontal crash energy and maintain driver protection.

Modern F1 chassis design must balance:

• Lightweight construction

• High stiffness

• Crashworthiness

• Aerodynamic and mechanical integration

2. Simulation-Driven Engineering

Due to high cost and time demands of physical prototypes, simulation-based design is now critical. Engineers use:

• CATIA V5: CAD modeling

• ANSYS Workbench: Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

FEA allows for detailed stress, strain, and deformation analysis under various load conditions, enabling faster, more precise chassis development.

3. Research Focus

The study evaluates the front chassis section of an F1 car under a 15,000 N frontal load, comparing four high-performance materials:

1. Carbon Fiber (Epoxy)

2. Aluminum 7075-T6

3. Titanium Alloy (Ti-6Al-4V)

4. AISI 4130 Chromoly Steel

The goal is to identify the material with the best balance of:

• Crash energy absorption

• Yield strength

• Deformation control

• Structural stiffness

4. Material Characteristics

• Carbon Fiber (Epoxy):

  • Very high strength-to-weight ratio

  • Excellent stiffness

  • High cost, brittle failure

• Titanium Alloy (Ti-6Al-4V):

  • Excellent ductility and strength

  • Corrosion-resistant

  • Expensive and difficult to machine

• Aluminum 7075-T6:

  • Lightweight and easily machinable

  • Moderate strength

  • Less impact resistance

• AISI 4130 Chromoly Steel:

  • High strength and fatigue resistance

  • Heaviest among tested materials

  • Best for crash-critical zones

5. Review of Literature

Key trends in F1 chassis research:

• Emphasis on integrated control systems (AFS, DYC, suspension) that demand a rigid and stable chassis.

• FEM simulations (CATIA + ANSYS) are widely used to optimize material layouts and identify weak points.

• Shift from traditional steel/aluminum to carbon fiber, titanium, and hybrid composites.

• Monocoque chassis design dominates F1 for its superior load distribution and aerodynamics.

• Independent suspension systems and digital twin technologies improve ride performance and simulation accuracy.

• Increasing attention to sustainability and recyclability in material selection.

6. Research Methodology

The simulation process followed three phases:

• A. CAD Modeling:
  The front chassis was modeled in CATIA, focused on geometry relevant for impact absorption and load-bearing.

• B. Meshing:
  Imported into ANSYS Workbench, the mesh used tetrahedral elements, with finer mesh near stress-concentrated areas.

• C. Simulation & Analysis:
  Each material was tested under the same frontal impact load. Outputs measured:

  • Directional deformation

  • Total deformation

  • Von Mises stress

7. Key Takeaways

• Carbon fiber showed lowest deformation and highest stiffness, but is brittle and costly.

• Titanium offered a strong balance of strength and ductility.

• Steel (Chromoly) delivered excellent crash integrity but increased weight.

• Aluminum, while lightweight and cheap, deformed excessively, making it less ideal for front-impact zones.

The study underscores the need for application-specific material selection and highlights the value of simulation tools in refining chassis designs.

Conclusion

This research aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of four materials Carbon Fiber (Epoxy), Aluminum 7075-T6, Titanium Alloy (Ti-6Al-4V), and AISI 4130 Chromoly Steel used in the front chassis section of a Formula One car. Through simulation using Finite Element Analysis (FEA) in ANSYS Workbench, the study analyzed each material\'s directional deformation, total deformation, and von Mises stress under a simulated frontal impact load of 15,000 N. The simulation was grounded in high-precision CAD modeling performed in CATIA to ensure that real-world geometry and boundary conditions were accurately represented. The results clearly show that Carbon Fiber (Epoxy) offers an outstanding balance of low deformation and stress absorption within safety limits, validating its extensive application in F1 monocoque structures. While its brittle failure nature requires consideration, particularly in physical crash scenarios, the material\'s high stiffness-to-weight ratio makes it the leading candidate for performance-sensitive applications. Aluminum 7075-T6, on the other hand, presented the highest deformation values, indicating low stiffness and reduced suitability for high-impact applications. Despite staying within stress limits, the amount of bending could jeopardize structural alignment during a crash, confining its use to secondary or non-critical parts. Titanium Alloy offered a well-balanced performance with moderate deformation and superior ductility, making it an ideal backup for zones requiring high damage tolerance. However, its high cost and machining complexity remain practical limitations. AISI 4130 Steel proved the most rigid among all materials tested, with the lowest deformation under load, but its high density and resulting weight make it less suitable for F1 where every gram matters. Nevertheless, it remains valuable for safety-critical components where structural integrity takes precedence over weight reduction. Overall, this comparative study reinforces the importance of simulation-driven material evaluation in modern motorsport design. It highlights that no single material is universally superior; instead, each has context-specific strengths and trade-offs. Carbon Fiber stands out for weight-sensitive, performance-critical areas; Titanium Alloy serves as a reliable choice for durable yet expensive applications; Aluminum offers affordability where flexibility is acceptable; and Steel is best reserved for robust structural applications with minimal weight sensitivity. The insights gained through this research offer a valuable foundation for engineers seeking to optimize chassis design in Formula One and beyond, using digital tools to enhance both safety and performance in high-speed vehicle structures.

References

[1] Özgüner, Ü., Redmill, K. A., & Broggi, A. (2011). Autonomous ground vehicles. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, 83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19681-3 [2] Berntorp, K., Yuan, K., Di Cairano, S., & Kolmanovsky, I. V. (2019). Integrated estimation and control of vehicle dynamics using tire-force measurements. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 27(4), 1435–1448. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2018.2848600 [3] Scattolini, R., Scattolini, G., & Sorniotti, A. (2015). Vehicle dynamics integrated control using MPC-based active front steering and direct yaw moment control. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 23(2), 829–841. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2014.2338713 [4] Tseng, H. E., & Lu, J. (2007). Integrated control of active steering and differential braking for vehicle dynamics. International Journal of Vehicle Autonomous Systems, 5(1), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJVAS.2007.015048 [5] Viñuela, R., Barreto, D., & López-Boada, M. J. (2020). Experimental validation of integrated control of AFS and DYC for electric vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 67(5), 3834–3845. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2019.2922808 [6] Borro, D., Solana, J., Garcia, J., Gurtler, F., & Castillo, E. (2019). Integrated vehicle dynamics control for autonomous driving applications. Sensors, 19(13), 2999. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19132999 [7] Ohata, R., & Yamamoto, H. (2018). Dynamic modeling and control of the integrated chassis system for vehicle stability enhancement. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 67(4), 2748–2760. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2017.2776495 [8] Yi, K., Jang, J., Choi, S. B., & Lee, H. S. (2012). Integrated control of active steering and suspension systems for enhanced vehicle stability. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, 226(7), 898–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954407011430934 [9] Choi, S. B., & Yi, K. (2005). The design of an integrated chassis controller to improve vehicle performance. Vehicle System Dynamics, 43(6), 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00423110412331325582 [10] Wang, J., & Fu, Z. (2017). Model predictive control for vehicle lateral dynamics stabilization based on integrated chassis system. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 25(1), 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2016.2573762 [11] Ishihara, S., & Hori, Y. (2014). Development of integrated chassis control for full electric vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 63(9), 4049–4058. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2014.2325667 [12] Matsushita, Y., Koseki, T., & Nakamura, T. (2009). A novel approach to integrated control of active front steering and rear differential for improved vehicle stability. Control Engineering Practice, 17(11), 1318–1327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2009.06.002 [13] Guo, K., Zhu, L., & Yao, X. (2019). A robust integrated control of steering and traction systems for vehicle stability. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, 233(3), 629–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954407018757708 [14] Schubert, R., Richter, G., & Wünsch, O. (2009). Integrated vehicle dynamics control for safe handling and road holding. International Journal of Vehicle Systems Modelling and Testing, 5(1), 90–107. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJVSMT.2009.027810 [15] Kikuchi, S., & Yamauchi, K. (2011). Integration of active front steering and traction control for enhanced vehicle stability. Vehicle System Dynamics, 49(2), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/00423111003649820 [16] Inagaki, S., Doi, S., & Yamazaki, M. (1999). Development of vehicle dynamics control for driver assistance systems. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, 213(5), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1243/0954407991526407

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Atif Ali Hashmi, B. G. Shukla. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.