Click here to contact Altair

Composite Optimisation of a Formula One Front Wing

David Mylett, Lewis Butler, Dr. Simon Gardner
Force India Formula One Team Ltd
Dadford Road, Silverstone, Northamptonshire, NN12 8TJ, UK
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Abstract
This paper will show the application of a 3-stage approach to designing the optimum
composite structure for a front wing on a Formula One car using Altair OptiStruct 9.0
Continual development of aerodynamic components is normal practice in the world of
Formula One and the time taken to respond is paramount if a team is to be competitive.
The design must:
• Be completed in a highly compressed time frame
• Meet stiffness targets set by the regulations
• Withstand the aerodynamic loads
• Be as light as possible
• Be easy to manufacture

The objective is to minimise mass whilst adhering to all constraints.

This is achieved through the use of Opitstruct 9.0 and follows this procedure:
• Identification of efficient ply boundaries / fibre orientation / material.
• Number of each ply
• Optimise stacking sequence to minimise peak composite failure indices / ensure
efficient ply distribution.

The result of this optimisation should yield a minimum mass design, whilst meeting all
criteria in a significantly reduced timeframe relative to traditional methods.
Keywords: Composite Optimisation, Discrete, Free Size, OptiStruct, Shuffle

1.0 Introduction
Formula One is one of the fastest industries in the world, not only in terms of speed on the
track but also behind the scenes in the design offices and manufacturing facilities.
Throughout a season a Formula One car is constantly being developed and can typically
improve in speed by as much as 1-2 secs/lap. As a result, designs are constantly evolving
with new designs implemented. For a team to be competitive it must be able to react and
produce components which are not only lightweight & robust but also designed in a highly
compressed timeframe.

Carbon composites are widely used on a Formula One car, and traditionally the process of
defining a robust yet lightweight composite component is a very complex, time consuming
and generally difficult task. Not only must you consider many variables such as material, ply
angles, ply sequence, number of plies etc., but you must also restrict many of these
variables to discrete values.

© Altair Engineering 2009 17-1

Within Force India Formula One Team CAE tools are widely used during the design &
development process and Optimisation software such as OptiStruct can be a useful tool to
assist in reducing the number of design iterations and time taken to design a lightweight
robust component.

This paper provides an overview of a 3-stage approach used for composite optimisation of a
front wing using OptiStruct, ensuring all strength & stiffness targets are met, with the
objective of minimising mass.

2.0 Background
The primary role of a front wing assembly on a Formula One car is to generate front axle
downforce (balancing the downforce generated at the rear of the car). Typically around 30%
total downforce is generated over the front wing assembly and can be in excess of 6kN total
force. The front wing stiffness plays a significant role in maintaining the aerodynamic profile
and as such the bending and torsional stiffness can be tailored to meet specific
aerodynamic requirements.

This means that the design of the front wing must be able to withstand large aerodynamic
forces generated by airflow at high speed, whilst ensuring deflections are managed.
Coupled to the aerodynamic constraints, the front wing assembly must pass stringent
regulatory deflection tests, (FIA Formula One Technical Regulations, 3.17.1, excerpt
below)[1]; while at the same time ensuring the mass of the assembly is at a minimum.

FIA Technical Regulation 3.17.1 (2008)

Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically
to it 700mm forward of the front wheel centre line and 625mm from the car centre line. The
load will be applied in a downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram and an adapter
300mm long and 150mm wide.

In order to achieve these requirements the front wing is generally constructed from carbon
composite, and comprises a wide selection of construction materials and methods. Typically
multiple layers of uni-directional and woven fibres, and lightweight core materials are used.

3.0 Baseline Assessment

The objective of this study was to design a new front wing for the 2008 VJM1 Formula One
car which exceeded the structural performance of its predecessor. As the aerodynamic
shape of the wings change from season to season, it is necessary to assess the geometric
differences between the wings. This is done as a preliminary analysis and simplified
isotropic models are built which represent the shapes of the 2007 and proposed 2008 wing
being considered.

Figure 1: 2007 vs. 2008 Geometry Super-imposed

To assess the geometric stiffness of the two wings it is necessary to find the position of the
neutral axis at the end of the wings and apply loads at this location. In order to discover the
© Altair Engineering 2009 Composite Optimisation of a Formula One Front Wing 17-2
geometric stiffness of interest (vertical bending and rotational twisting) both wings are
subjected to two load cases
1. A point load is applied in a vertical direction (-Z) – Vertical stiffness
2. A torque is applied in Y (across car) – Torsional stiffness.

The results of this preliminary analysis can be seen in Figure 2, and show that the
proposed 2008 wing is significantly less stiff in bending (-48%) whilst torsion is not
significantly affected.

Bending

Rotation

Figure 2: 2007 vs. 2008 Geometric Stiffness Results

Once the geometric differences were known, it was apparent that the vertical bending would
be the limiting factor to ensure the 2008 geometry out-performed the 2007 wing.

As a further comparison, a more detailed model of the 2008 wing was built, which contained
all elements from the front wing assembly, an up-to-date mapped pressure profile and a
representative composite lay-up (Laminate Stack) was applied, based on the 2007 wing.
This model was subsequently analysed considering an aerodynamic load case and FIA
regulatory load case and again compared to the 2007 baseline model.

As expected the 2008 wing performed significantly worse compared to the baseline,
however the total deficit was not as severe with a maximum difference of ~26% seen, and a
considerable increase in composite failure index was observed around the centre transition
section.

© Altair Engineering 2009 Composite Optimisation of a Formula One Front Wing 17-3
4.0 Optimisation Process
The traditional method of defining a laminate stack can be generally split into three discrete
stages:

• Define Ply Boundary (including ply orientations & differing materials)

• Vary numbers of individual plies
• Organise the stack to ensure structural integrity is achieved

Even with this simplified process, the number of design variables and required manual
iterations would be significant and very time consuming to perform. Particularly at the first
stage where for each individual ply, different materials and orientations must also be
considered.

The use of OptiStruct can simplify this process, and uses the same 3-stage approach

4.1 Free Sizing

In order to yield the best results for composite lay-up optimisation it is necessary to first
define the individual ply boundaries. Free sizing is used to size each ply of each individual
element allowing the designer to see the best distribution of material, thus aiding in the
definition of the ply boundaries. A global laminate is defined using a variety of materials and
orientations with various thicknesses’ ranging from 0 to tmax. The free size optimisation can
aid in screening out in-efficient materials and orientations.

4.2 Discrete Sizing

Once the ply boundaries have been defined (by the previous step), the number of each
individual ply is optimised. Move limits (TMANUF) can be set according to individual
manufacturable ply thicknesses and force the optimiser to reach discrete values for
thickness, highlighting the total number of plies required.

4.3 Stacking

The position of each individual ply in the stack sequence is optimised to ensure all design
and manufacturing requirements are met and in some cases exceeded.

This process using Altair products can be summarised in the flow chart below in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Process Flow Chart for Composite Optimisation Using Altair Products

© Altair Engineering 2009 Composite Optimisation of a Formula One Front Wing 17-4
5.0 Stage 1: Free Size – Definition & Results
As previously mentioned the first stage to a composite optimisation problem is the Free Size
stage. With the results from the geometric study showing the significant requirement for
extra stiffness, the study was limited to the use of one material as this would significantly
decrease the problem size and yield a result in a much shorter timeframe. Therefore the
composite stack was modelled with two cloths at 45o (orientation set from previous
experience) covering uni-directional material set at 4 different orientations; 0o,15o,30o and
45o. Each ply orientation was also given a maximum total thickness which results in
1,317,184 design variables (equivalent to the number of free size elements multiplied by
number of composite layers).

Manufacturing constraints can also be set at this stage, so to avoid small patches and aid
final manufacture, a minimum member size was utilised. It is also pertinent to note that
SMEAR was used in order to remove any effect of stacking sequence, as this first stage is
used to define efficient ply boundaries.

The use of new laminate cards within OptiStruct [2] were also tested as opposed to the
traditional PCOMP/PCOMPG. With these new cards the complete process can be
automated to provide an easy transition from each optimisation stage. See Figure 4.

ID MID T [THETA] [SOUT] [TMANUF] [DRAPE_ID]

PLY 101 5 2.8 45 YES 0.2
ESID
1

PID Z0 NSM SB FT TREF GE

PCOMPP 101 0 200 STRN

ID LAM PLYID(1) PLYID(2) PLYID(3) PLYID(4) PLYID(5) PLYID(6)

STACK 1000 SMEAR 101 102 103 104 105 106
PLYID(7) PLYID(8) PLYID(9) PLYID(10) PLYID(11) PLYID(12) PLYID(13) PLYID(14)
201 202 203 204 205 206 300 301

Figure 4: Ply & Stack Card Used for Free Size Optimisation

OptiStruct now has the ability to automatically generate ply boundaries based on the results
from stage 1, and the OUTPUT card FSTOSZ was utilised. This is an output request that
automatically writes out an input deck for use in stage 2, which comprises
PCOMPP(replaces traditional PCOMPG), STACK, PLY and Element Set cards which
describe the resulting optimised ply-based composite model, and define efficient ply
boundaries.

For the front wing, two load cases were considered and Optimisation responses defined
such that displacements due to the FIA load and aerodynamic loads were constrained, with
the objective to minimise mass.

• The analysis converged in 14

iterations (see Figure 5)
• Analysis time: 22mins on a
standard windows desktop.
• Memory used 1.4Gb(in core)
• Mass reduced by 57% compared
to 2007 wing
• all Displacement constraints were
met

Figure 5: Normalised Convergence Curves

A sample of the optimised thicknesses for each of the orientations can be seen below:
© Altair Engineering 2009 Composite Optimisation of a Formula One Front Wing 17-5
 o o o
Cloth @ 45 UD @ 0 UD @ 15

o o o
UD @ 30 UD @ 45 Cloth @ 45

Figure 6: Element Thickness Results from Free Size Optimisation

The free sizing results show that the cloth at 45o, UD at 0o and 15o are working hardest.
This is not surprising as these orientations are directed along the load path and would help
prevent bending for the FIA load case and resist twisting due to the aerodynamic loads.

As expected the UD at 30o and 45o are not being worked and as such require very little in
the way of thickness. This result is also present on the lower wing surfaces.

6.0 Stage 2: Discrete Ply Thickness – Definition & Results

With the inclusion of the output card FSTOSZ, an input deck for stage 2 is automatically
generated by OptiStruct and contains a base set-up for stage 2. All of the previous
manufacturing and optimisation constraints are automatically preserved and transferred into
the stage 2 deck. At this point it is also possible to introduce additional performance
constraints and for this analysis composite failure index was included.

The first stage in setting up the discrete ply optimisation deck was to interrogate the
automatically generated boundaries, and modify them into rationalised easy to manufacture
domains. Below is a selection of automatically generated plies showing the element sets for
3 separate plies.

Discrete Ply boundary - No Material

Figure 7: Automatically Generated Element Sets Showing Ply Boundaries

As can be seen above the automatically generated ply boundaries would require some
rationalisation, and so the element sets are simply edited to reflect rationalised
manufacturable plies (see Figure 8)

Discrete Ply boundary - No Material

Figure 8: Updated Element Sets Showing Rationalised Ply Boundaries

© Altair Engineering 2009 Composite Optimisation of a Formula One Front Wing 17-6
With the ply boundaries updated & defined it was necessary to update the design variables
for the discrete plies ensuring the TMANUF flag, reflected the discrete values for ply
thickness and updated the total number of allowable plies through modifying the lower and
upper bound thicknesses on the DESVAR card. Additional manufacturing constraints were
also added via the DCOMP card and the output card SZTOSH was implemented to
automatically generate an input deck for stage 3.

Interpretation and visualisation of results for discrete ply optimisation can sometimes be
complicated and as such an easy way to review the results is to produce a chart illustrating
the number of required individual plies [Figure 9].
1010100MP_UPR_TW@45
1010200MP_UPR_TW@45
1010300MP_UPR_TW@45
1020100MP_UPR_UD@0
1020200MP_UPR_UD@0
1020300MP_UPR_UD@0
1030100MP_UPR_UD@15
1030200MP_UPR_UD@15
1030300MP_UPR_UD@15
1040100MP_UPR_UD@30
1040200MP_UPR_UD@30
1040300MP_UPR_UD@30
1060100MP_UPR_TW@45
1060200MP_UPR_TW@45
1060300MP_UPR_TW@45
2010100MP_LWR_TW@45
2010200MP_LWR_TW@45
PLY ID

2010300MP_LWR_TW@45
2010400MP_LWR_TW@45
2020100MP_LWR_UD@0
2020200MP_LWR_UD@0
2020300MP_LWR_UD@0
2020400MP_LWR_UD@0
2030100MP_LWR_UD@15
2030200MP_LWR_UD@15
2030300MP_LWR_UD@15
2030400MP_LWR_UD@15
2040100MP_LWR_UD@30
2040200MP_LWR_UD@30
2040300MP_LWR_UD@30
2040400MP_LWR_UD@30
2060100MP_LWR_TW@45
2060200MP_LWR_TW@45
2060300MP_LWR_TW@45
2060400MP_LWR_TW@45

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of Discrete Plies

Figure 9: Graphical representation of number of discrete plies required

As can be seen from the above chart, the most influential plies are the 0o & 15o Uni-
directional plies, which is not surprising as these directions lie on the load path, and will
provide the majority of the support for vertical bending and torsion.

• The analysis converged in 18

iterations (see Figure 10)
• Analysis time : 40mins
• Memory used 1.4Gb(in core)
• Mass reduced by 1%
compared to 2007 wing
• Composite Failure Index and
all Displacement constraints
were met.

Figure 10: Normalised Convergence Curves

7.0 Stage 3: Stacking Sequence – Definition & Results

At this stage, a basic lay-up has been defined, which comprises all the optimum ply
boundaries, and optimum number of discrete plies. However it is now possible to further
optimise the laminate by re-ordering the stacking sequence of the lay-up whilst considering
manufacturing details, to further improve the structural performance of the wing.
© Altair Engineering 2009 Composite Optimisation of a Formula One Front Wing 17-7
As the output card SZTOSH was requested during the last stage of optimisation, OptiStruct
automatically generates an input deck for the shuffle stage of optimisation. Manufacturing
constraints are set by using the DSHUFFLE card [Figure 11] and for this analysis no more
than 3 successive plies of uni-directional materials of the same orientation were allowed. It
was also possible to define closing plies and so a single cloth ply at 45 was selected.

ID ETYPE EID1 EID2 EID3 EID4 EID5 EID6

DSHUFFLE 1000 STACK 1000
MAXSUCC MANGLE MSUCC VSUCC
+ MAXSUCC 0 3 1
+ MAXSUCC 15 3 1
+ MAXSUCC 30 3 1
COVER VREP VANG1
+ COVER 1 45

Figure 11: DSHUFFLE Card Used for the Shuffle Optimisation

Due to the process of element free size and discrete optimisation, by definition the laminate
stack must already satisfy all constraints previously set in the earlier stages of optimisation.
As such the shuffle only applies desired manufacturing constraints, and should improve on
the previous stages. Therefore optimisation responses and objectives for the final
optimisation stage were altered slightly such that the minimum mass which had already
been achieved during stage 2 was no longer required. Instead, it was decided to constrain
the composite failure indices only and the objective was altered to minimise a weighted
compliance.

The optimisation converged in 2 iterations taking 18mins using 1.5Gb to run in core.

The images below show the displacement results for the fully optimised shuffled lay-up vs.
the baseline 2007 model for both the aerodynamic and FIA loading regimes.

As can be seen from the displacement results, the optimisation process has produced a
fully finished wing structure which meets and exceeds all design criteria set at the start of
the analysis. The composite failure indices were not violated, and the largest improvement
was achieved for the FIA loading showing a reduction in displacement of 47%. The
aerodynamic results also showed a marked improvement and exhibited deflections ~30%
lower than the 2007 baseline.

Despite the mass reduction being less than originally anticipated, the significant increase in
stiffness compared to the baseline 2007 model justifies the optimisation given the large
geometric differences between the two wings.

AERODYNAMIC LOADING

© Altair Engineering 2009 Composite Optimisation of a Formula One Front Wing 17-8
 FIA LOADING

Figure 12: 2007 vs. Optimised 2008 Wing Displacements

The images in Figure 13 illustrate how the optimiser

treats each stage of the optimisation process.
Far-left shows the laminate stack used for the element
free size stage showing the simple laminate with each
orientation defined (symmetric about mid ply). The middle
image shows the optimised stack where the number of
each individual ply has been altered, but its position
within the laminate stack has not. The final image shows
the result from the shuffled stage, which now satisfies all
manufacturing and design constraints.

Figure 13: Stacking Sequence During the 3-Stages of Optimisation

8.0 Discussion of Results

The original objective of this optimisation study was to produce a lightweight wing structure
which performed as well if not better than the baseline 2007 wing. However even before any
optimisation was started the pre-optimisation geometry studies showed that the structural
differences between the two wings were large and the ability to generate a lighter stiffer
solution for the 2008 wing was likely to be a difficult task.

Stage 1 was able to demonstrate the effectiveness of free size optimisation in order to
screen out inefficient plies and orientations, whilst automatically identifying efficient ply
boundaries, all within a minimal time frame compared to traditional analysis methods.

Stage 2 demonstrated the ability of OptiStruct to vary the number of discrete plies whilst
ensuring deign constraints were met. It is worthy of note that this stage significantly
increased the mass of the model compared to stage 1, as SMEAR was removed in order to
consider composite failure indices within the design domain. The large difference in
geometric stiffness compared to the baseline would mean larger displacements of the wing
and hence larger strains in the laminate skins. As a result the composite failure index
became the significant factor in this optimisation stage. Therefore in order to ensure the
failure index constraints were not violated, additional material would be added and
displacements reduced as a direct consequence.

Stage 3 further improved the laminate stack, by ensuring the stack would be easy to
manufacture, complied with manufacturing constraints and also improved the stiffness of
the model further.

© Altair Engineering 2009 Composite Optimisation of a Formula One Front Wing 17-9
9.0 Conclusions
This paper has shown the successful use of OptiStruct for the design and optimisation of a
composite front wing using a 3-stage approach, whilst ensuring all strength & stiffness targets are
met and with an objective to minimise mass.

The final design was able to meet both internal and FIA regulation displacement limits, improve min
safety reserve factors (minimise composite failure index), meet manufacturing demands and
minimise mass, whilst all being achieved in a significantly reduced time frame.

Click here to contact Altair

10.0 References
[1] FIA Formula One Technical Regulations (2008)

[2] Altair OptiStruct 9.0

© Altair Engineering 2009 Composite Optimisation of a Formula One Front Wing 17-10