Final Presentation to Engineering Panel

Seth Beckley, Kevin Gygrynuk, Josh Hilferty, Mike Teri

FSAE
The Formula SAE Series competitions challenge

teams of university undergraduate and graduate students to conceive, design, fabricate and compete with small, formula style, autocross racing cars Over the course of three days, the cars are judged in a series of static and dynamic events including: technical inspection, cost, presentation, and engineering design, solo performance trials, and high performance track endurance.1

1 http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/west/eventguide.pdf

Sponsor
Mike Hawley Employed by W. L. Gore Former UD FSAE member, designed the suspension system for two consecutive years Resource of much valuable information on suspension

Suspension: How it Works

Key Parts:
upright Spindle/ rotor upper a-arm red = points fixed to chassis

lower a-arm

Key Parts Continued

rocker (bell crank) shock red = points fixed to chassis

pushrod

Key Parts: Sway Bars and Tie Rod

sway bar arm and linkage to rocker

Sway Bar

tie rod to Steering rack

Suspension: How it Works

Key Terms: Camber: The angle of the wheel with respect to vertical. Kingpin Angle: The angle measured between the steering axis and vertical. Scrub Radius: The distance between the steering axis and the wheels contact patch.

Image taken from: www.mgf.ultimatemg.com/

Suspension: How it works

Roll Center: Defined by intersection of lines between the tire contact patch and instant centers of wheel travel. Defines the instantaneous point about which the chassis rolls

Suspension: How it Works

Key Terms:
Anti-Dive: A suspension geometry setup that resists the diving action of the nose of the

car from diving during braking Anti-Squat: A suspension geometry setup that resists the diving action of the tail of the car from diving during acceleration

Center of Gravity

Image taken from Competition Car Suspension, Allan Staniforth

A-arms

The closer the convergence points are to the height of the center of gravity, the more anti-

dive or anti-squat characteristic is present

Project Scope
Determination of most efficient suspension configuration and

geometry Determination of spring and damper requirements Determination of anti-dive/anti-squat requirements Determination of optimal values for camber, caster, and kingpin angles as well as scrub radius Determination of attachment points at wheel, brake, steering rack, axle, and chassis interfaces Design based off of existing wheels and tires Design synthesis and real-time simulation of complete and functional suspension system Output a working, useable suspension system for the 2010-2011 UD FSAE car Maintain a high level of easy adjustability for further tuning of the suspension system

FSAE Rules Applicable to Suspension

Minimum wheelbase of 60 If front and rear track are of different lengths, smaller

track must be at least 75% of larger track Minimum of 2 useable wheel travel Minimum of 1 jounce Minimum of 1 rebound

Additional Constraints
Budget of $1000 Constraints imposed by other teams Drivetrain axles and rear hubs Driver controls - steering rack location Chassis construction of chassis Cooperative brake rotor and caliper selection

Metrics and Target Values

Wheelbase: 61 Front Track: 50 Rear Track: 2 less than front Adjustable Anti-Dive and Anti-Dive: 1 vertically on specific pickup points Roll Center: Stable, < 1 vertical movement over 1.5 deflection in roll, < 1 horizontal movement Scrub Radius: < 1 Camber: -2 static camber, maintained over deflection in roll Kingpin Angle: 0-5 Caster Angle: 0-5 # Tools to Adjust and Tune Suspension: 3 tools Adjustments easy to access: Yes Camber and toe adjustment without disconnection of parts: Yes Material Strength: Factor of safety for range of normal operation: > 2 Material Machinability: Maximize Material Weight: Minimize

Suspension Style Choice

Unequal A-arms Most commonly used for racing suspension, almost exclusively used in FSAE Style most suited for stiff racing independent suspension Reliable, with predictable and calculable motions and forces throughout travel.

A-arm Length Adjustability

Threaded Chassis Mount
spherical rod end mounts to chassis

Locknut Threaded A-arm To adjust, bolt is removed, Locknut loosened, and rod end turned

Typical and reliable method, maximize strength and rigidity

Camber Adjustability
Shims at upright Particular shim thicknesses can be correlated to specific camber changes
Easily adjustable: loosen bolts

shim

and drop shim into place

upright

a-arm clevis

Reliable and successful concept,

Anti-Squat and Anti-Dive Adjustability

Anti-Squat and Anti-Dive Adjustability

bushing

bushing

Adjustment is achieved by switching out different sets of bushings. Bushings are cheap and easy to manufacture.

Kinematic Design
Body Roll Simulation
30 25 20 15

Extensive use was made of

Excel spreadsheets and dynamic CAD models to simulate suspension and achieve desired performance characteristics. Two Dimensional Simulation of Suspension in Roll
Neutral

10
Y (in) 5 0 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 -5 -10 -15 -20 X (in) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

1.5" Deflection Right Roll

1.5" Deflection Left Roll

Lower A-arms
Dimensions determined by kinematic and force

analyses. Design based on vehicle dynamics theory and research of previously successful designs.

Upper A-arms
Dimensions determined by kinematic and force

analyses. Design based on vehicle dynamics theory and research of previously successful designs.

Push Rod Design

Transfers bump force to shocks Supports weight of car in neutral stance

Rocker Design
Determines ratio of pushrod motion to spring

compression. Linkage point for sway bar

Sway Bar Design

Individual project

assigned to Seth Beckley Typical FSAE design style Stiffness adjustability achieved by changing lever arm length

Force Analysis
The force analysis on the final design centered around

maximum cornering and braking forces estimated during competition. The team decided upon a goal of structural integrity through a 5g vertical impact. The estimated braking and turning values were conservative, and surpassed the benchmarked 1.4 g expected in competition. The rockers were designed to optimize the travel of the shock absorbers.

Force Analysis
Factor of Safety The factor of safety for the suspension components under normal turning and breaking is over 5. Failure of Components The rod ends are the weakest members of the suspension structure, and have an estimated failure rating of 4500 lbf. Rod ends are expensive and not as easy to replace as other hardware so the mounting bolts have been undersized to provide a factor of safety less than the components themselves. Finite Element Analysis A finite element analysis was conducted using solid modeling tools as well as manual calculations to ensure each components performance

Ride and Roll Rates

Using vehicle dynamics theory, shock travel limits, and

bump and cornering conditions, desired ride and roll rates were determined:
Ride Rate: Front: 148.4 lb/in Rear: 146 lb/in Roll Rate: Front: 18750 lbft/rad total, 15483 lbft/rad contributed by springs, 3267 lbft/rad contributed by sway bars Rear: 20875 lbft/rad total, 14016 lbft/rad contributed by springs, 6859 lbft/rad contributed by sway bars

Spring Stiffness and Damping

Spring Stiffness was determined by desired ride and

roll rate, and the ratio between pushrod movement and spring compression. Damping can be guessed at, but not dialed in until car is driven and tested. From spring stiffness calculations, the target suspension frequency was estimated to be 3 3.5 Hz which can be achieved through shock adjustability.

Final Product
To determine the achievement of the geometric target

values the suspension was assembled onto the partially completed frame and measured. Assembly will continue throughout the final week of Phase 4. The final assembly of the suspension will then be presented to the sponsor on December 17th 2010.

Performance Evaluation/Validation
Chromoly tubing and welded connections will be tested to

failure and compared to force analysis during the final week of the Fall 2010 semester. The car will not be completed until the very end of senior design, and thus testing of the effectiveness of the system will have to be postponed until winter session. A test plan has been developed to analyze the performance under driving conditions. Once the car is built, the UD FSAE club will take over testing and tuning of the suspension using methods outlined by Team Suspension

Performance Evaluation Measures

Camber Effectiveness: Tire temperature analysis

after test runs Load Transfer: G force measurements from onboard data acquisition Jounce, Body Roll & Anti Squat/Anti-Dive: onboard measurement and tuning All evaluated performance measurements can be adjusted through adjustability in the suspension and will be tuned to optimal properties.

Camber Effectiveness
The efficiency of the camber, ride, and roll rates can be

measured by analyzing tire temperature distribution after 5-10 laps around the track. Each tires temperature will be measured at three locations on the tire
1 from the outside shoulder

1 from the inside shoulder

Center of the tire

Possible results of the tests and their solutions have

been outlined in the test plans given to the UD FSAE club.

Load Transfer
G-force analysis will be completed through the cars

onboard computer. Acceleration measurements will be recorded at every point along the line the car travels around the track. The data extracted from the computer will enable the team to calculate resultant G-forces.

Jounce, Body Roll & Anti Squat/Anti-Dive

These performance targets will be evaluated by

directly measuring them as the car is put through testing on the track. Under maximum braking, accelerating, and cornering conditions, these properties will be measured. From this analysis the car will be finely tuned to achieve the set target values.

Budget
Materials Cost = $322 Aluminum, Steel, Chromoly Tubing Parts Cost = $550 Bearings, Rod Ends, Spherical Joints, hardware Miscellaneous Costs = $100

Manufacturing Cost = ~$0.00 All fabricating was done by team in FSAE shop and student shop at no charge Total Cost = $972

Project Management
The design of each component in the suspension

assembly have been completed and optimized. All geometrical target values have been met. The suspension will be tuned after testing is completed in order to satisfy performance metrics. Budget has been reduced and falls within the constraint. Team is on schedule to finish project and present results to the sponsor on December 17th 2010.

Questions?