2002-01-3308 Design of Formula SAE Suspension Components Copyright © 2002 SAE International ABSTRACT ‘This paper is an introduction to the design of suspension components for a Formula SAE car. Formula SAE is @ student competition where college students conceive, design, fabricate, and compete with a small formula-style ‘open wheel racing car. The suspension components covered in this paper include control arms, uprights, spindles, hubs, pullrods, and rockers. Key parameters in the design of these suspension components are safety, durability and weight. The 2001 Lawrence Technological University Formula SAE car will be used 8 an example throughout this paper. OVERVIEW In designing suspension components for the 2001 Lawrence Technological University Formula SAE vehicle, safety and durabilty were the top priorities. In order to ensure the safety of the suspension system, the loads acting on every component were extensively studied by utlizing strength of material calculations and Finite Element Analysis. Another measure used to ensure the safely of the suspension system was that every suspension fastener was put into double shear and was either safety wired or secured with a locknut. Weight was another important consideration while designing and manufacturing the suspension system on the 2001 Lawrence Technological University Formula SAE car. In order to achieve a weight reduction ‘over previous Lawrence Technological University Formula SAE vehicles, Finite Element Analysis was utilized to remove the maximum amount of material from every suspension component while maintaining a critical safety factor of two. Also, chrome moly or 7075-T6 aluminum was used for every suspension component depending on which material was more practical considering any compatibility and dimensional restrictions. These materials were chosen due to their superior strength to weight ratios. The suspension load paths were also extensively studied to ensure that they were fed into the suspension system and frame in a robust manner. 245 Badih A. Jawad and Brian D. Polega Lawrence Technological University ‘SUSPENSION DESIGN CONTROL ARMS ‘The purpose of the control arms is to secure the wheel assembly to the chassis. Coupled with the suspension geometry, the control arms play a key role in determining the kinematics of the car such as camber rejection and roll stabilty. [1] The control arms also provide a means for tuning the suspension for specific courses, Figure 1: Assembled Rear Control Arms In order to reduce weight, spherical bearings are staked into the pivot points and ball joints of the lower control arms, along with the rear upper control arm pivot poiffs and front upper control arm ball joints instead of using traditional heavier rod ends at these locations. In order to stake the spherical bearings into the 4130 steel tubing, a hollow aluminum insert is pressed into the tubing. Non-tempered aluminum was used for the insert due to the fact that tempered aluminum is too hard to flatten, which causes the 4130 steel tubing to crack. Next, the end of the tube is crushed flat and a hole is milled through the flat end of the tubing. The bearing is then firmly staked into the control arm,Figure 2: Inserted Spherical Bearing Rod ends with 4130 steel threaded inserts are used where suspension adjustment is necessary for tuning. Rod ends are used on the front upper control arm pivot points to allow for camber and caster adjustments in the front suspension. Also, rod ends are used on the rear upper control arm ball joints to allow for ‘camber adjustment in the rear ‘The appropriate size of 4130 steel tubing was determined to be 19.05 mm OD x 0.71 mm wall thickness from performing buckling and bending stress calculations. (See Appendix) This size of tubing is equivalent to 0.75 inch x 0.028 inch wall thickness, which is a common size of tubing in the United States, Using this size of tubing with @ cornering load of 1.3 g and a braking force of 1.4 g, which were determined from equipping previous Lawrence Technological University Formula SAE vehicles with data acquisition, the minimum safety factor in any of the control arms subjected to simultaneous braking and cornering was calculated to be 1.7, [2] The comering and braking forces were calculated using a vehicle and driver weight of 2935.8 N. (See Appendix) These calculations were also verified by performing Finite Element Analysis using COSMOS sofware. Front Lover Cail Arm Figure 3: Control Arm FEA Results ‘Also, an extensive load study performed on the control arms resulted in the arms of the control arms being directly in line with chassis nodes, minimizing any bending moments acting on the frame. All of the control farm fasteners are put into double shear and meet AN specifications. Therefore, the control arms were designed to be lightweight, reliable, and safe. UPRIGHTS The main function of the uprights is to provide an interface to connect the upper and lower ball joints with the spindle. It is crucial to minimize the weight of the uprights because they are unsprung mass, and the shocks have to control this weight in bump. [3] The uprights were manufactured from 7075-T6 aluminum instead of 4130 steel, which is common on many Formula SAE vehicles, as a weight reduction. ‘Also, the 2001 Lawrence Technological University Formula SAE uprights were manufactured using CNC processes instead of cutting and welding tubing in order to increase their strength, For safety purposes, the ball joint fasteners were put into double shear by passing them through the top web of the ball joint pocket and threading them into the lower web of the ball joint pocket Front Upri To maximize the strength and minimize the deflection of the front uprights, many design iterations consisting of various shapes were performed. Finite Element Analysis was executed on each iteration in ‘comering, braking, and a combination of comering and braking situations as a worse case scenario. These situations are seen while performing typical maneuvers on a Formula SAE course. To simulate a cornering force of 1.3 g, the spindle hole was rigidly constrained while @ load of 895.0 N was applied to the upper ball joint and a load of 2304.7 N was applied to the lower ball joint in the opposite direction. (See Appendix) Braking was simulated in Finite Element Analysis by rigidly constraining the spindle hole and applying a force of 1121.1 Nat each of the brake caliper mounting locations. Preliminary Finite Element Analysis results showed that a wide upright with pockets in it was stronger than a traditional narrow upright without any pockets. It was also discovered through Finite Element Analysis that triangular pockets provided the greatest strength with the least amount of deflection. Further Finite Element Analysis iterations resulted in an upright with optimized triangular pockets with the majority of the mass centered around the spindle hole. The safety ‘actor of the final front upright was 4.0 in comering, 2.8 in braking, and 2.6 for combined cornering and braking,Frat Upright FEA Ress a ‘Combined Comering ‘and Braking Stress Figure 4: Final Front Upright FEA Results Rear Uprights Many design iterations were performed on the rear uprights to maximize their strength while minimizing their weight. Finite Element Analysis was performed on the tear uprights in commering, braking, anda Combination of both of these situations. To simulate comering on the rear uprights, the center hole was rigidly constrained, while forces of 781.3 N were applied to the upper ball joint and toe bar mounting location and a force of 2227.0 N was applied to the lower ball joint in the opposite direction of the upper ball joint force, (See Appendix) To simulate braking, a force of 2224.1 N was applied to the upper and lower ball joints in the longitudinal direction, while the center hole was fixed. Finite Element Analysis results showed that triangular pockets proved to be the most effective means to reduce the weight of the rear uprights without compromising strength. The resulting safety factors of the rear upright were 4.3 in comering, 3.3 in braking, and 3.1 in combined cornering and braking, __ Rear Upright FEA Results [Fatartae | nersrex | Dencio | seiorear { ire | fees” | canbe | we] aa a ag | ae oo eS eee = Comerng Stress Figure 5: Final Rear Upright FEA Results SPINDLES The spindles provide a base at which the wheel assembly rotates about. Its outer diameter Is critical to prevent slop in the bearings, resulting in premature wear. Also, as learned from previous Lawrence Technological University Formula SAE cars, this suspension component is greatly prone to fatigue loads that originate from abnormalities in the road surface and from weight transfer due to lateral and longitudinal accelerations. [4] The spindles were manufactured from 4340 steel due to its excellent fatigue-resistant properties and strength. Key dimensional considerations for the spindles included bearing and upright dimensions because the spindle is pressed into the upright. In order to prevent the hub from sliding into the upright, a step was designed into the spindle 6.08 mm from the upright. The step is the same thickness as the bearings’ width in the hub so that the slight impact load caused by movements of the hub and bearings would be distributed through the entire bearing, Another step was added to the free end of the spindle so that a washer and castle ‘ut could be used to Secure the hub to the spindle. Figure 6: Final Spindle Design ‘An analysis of the spindle was performed using maximum braking and vertical forces. The maximum braking force experienced by the 2001 Lawrence Technological University Formula SAE car was found to be 1.4 9, and the maximum comering force on a tre was found to be 1.3 9. Using these forces and Finite Element Analysis, the spindle's safety factor was revealed to be 25.8 in braking and 2.8 during cornering, The spindle's safety factor was determined to be 2.6 when braking and comering loads were applied to the spindle simultaneously.Spindle FRA Results Comering stress Figure 7: Spindle FEA Results For safety purposes, a backplate was welded to the back of the spindle so that it could be bolted onto the back of the front uprights after it was pressed into the upright. HUBS The purpose of the hubs is to rotate the wheels ‘and tres. It's crtical to minimize the weight ofthe hubs because they are rotating and unsprung mass. 5] ISO, to reduce friction due to the rotational motion of the hhubs, the 2001 Lawrence Technological University Formula SAE car utilizes bearings in the hubs. Front Hubs The front hubs are manufactured from 7075-T6 aluminum due to its superior strength to weight ratio. ‘Also, in order to minimize weight without compromising strength, the front hub utlizes a fourleaf clover pattem to hold the lugs and brake rotor fasteners. The brake rotor and lug four-leaf clover patterns are offset 46° from teach other to allow for ease of pressing lugs into the hub ‘and installation of brake rotors. Also, a 10.16 mm high ‘step that is 19.69 mm wide is designed into the inside center of the front hub to keep the bearings apart from each other and to dissipate heat from the beerings. ‘Another key function of the front hubs is to allow the brake rotors to float freely. This is accommodated through a slot in the brake rotor fingers. Floating rotors provide maximum stopping force by allowing both brake pads on the caliper to grip the rotor evenly. Also, the Slot in the brake rotor fingers allow the brake rotor fasteners to be put into double shear as a safety feature. [6] Figure 8: Final Front Hub Finite Element Analysis was performed on the front hubs to validate their design. A braking force of 1.4 @ applied to the brake rotor fastener holes resulted in Safety factor of 5.0. Also, a comering force of 1.3 9 was ‘simulated by applying a force of 4469.9 N on the bottom lug hole and 3024.2 N on the top lug hole in opposite directions while constraining the brake rotor fingers from translating. (See Appendix) This loading resulted in a safety factor of 2.8. A safely factor of 2.7 was obtained ‘when combining braking and cornering, Froniliw FEA Revals [Pee 7a] od + Tae i Comnering Stress Figure 9: Front Hub FEA Results Rear Hubs ‘The main function of the rear hubs is to connect the driveline to the wheels through the halfshafts and constant velocity (CV) joints, The rear hubs are manufactured from 4340 steel because they must be ‘compatible with the outer CV joints that are splined to accept a hub. The rear hubs also utllze a four-leaf clover design to minimize their weight, To reduce friction from the rotating hub, bearings are placed in between the upright and the shaft on the hub. As a safely feature, a spindle lock nut is applied on the end of the CV joint to prevent the hub from becoming disengaged from the driveline Finite Element Analysis proved that the rear hhub’s design was adequate for its application. A safety factor of 4.8 was obtained when a torque of 697.0 N-moriginating from the driveline was applied to the hub shaft while restraining the hub from rotating. When a comering force of 1.3 g was simulated on the hub by Placing @ load of 3024.2 N on the top lug hole and 4469.9 Non the bottom lug hole in the opposite direction while preventing the shaft from rotating, the resultant safety factor was 4.2. (See Appendix) When combining ‘2 comering situation with the torque acting on the hub, the resultant safety factor was 3.8 Rear Hab¥ EAR us [PRO] ae | oe | SR (ers Figure 10: Rear Hub FEA Results ENERGY MANAGEMENT MECHANISMS The energy management system consists of the pullrods, rockers, and shocks. The system's purpose is 10 activate the inboard shocks, which greatly improves the handling qualities of the car. The geometry of the suspension mechanism is critical because it determines ‘the motion ratio, which is the ratio of vertical wheel movement to shock displacement. This ratio is used to determine the car's natural frequency, which significantly affects the car's handling qualities. Friction is kept to an absolute minimum in the dampening system to allow for maximum efficiency of the shocks. [7] It is also crtcal that the pullrod, suspension mechanism, and shock are located in the same plane to eliminate bending moments fon these suspension components, Figure 11: Placement of Pullrod and Suspension ‘Mechanism Pullrods Pullrods are utilized on the 2001 Lawrence Technological University Formula SAE car instead of pushrods, which are typically used on Formula SAE 249 vehicles, for a weight reduction. Smaller diameter tubing can be used for pullrods because when the car hits a bump, the pullrod pulls the suspension mechanism, which puts itn tension. During rebound the pullrods are subjected to an insignificant buckling load equivalent to the weight of the wheel assembly. Therefore, buckling does not have to be considered in the design of pullrods for a Formula SAE vehicle. However, a pushrod is subjected to a buckling load whenever the car goes into Febound, so buckling must be considered in the design of pushrods, Also, pullrods allow the rockers and shocks to be packaged towards the bottom of the car resulting in a lower center of gravity AA stress analysis of the pullrods using a 1.4 9 tensile force resulted in a maximum stress of 116.88 MPa, A safety factor of 2.6 is obtained from this stress. Finite Element Analysis was also performed on the pullrods to verify the stress calculations and resulted in safety factor of 2.5 Rockers Rockers, commonly called bellcranks, were placed on the 2001 Lawrence Technological University Formula SAE car so that the shocks could be packaged inboard, This packaging scheme significantly reduces unsprung mass. Also, rockers allow the pullrod and shock displacements to be in different directions, which aids tremendously in the packaging of suspension components. The rockers were designed to have a one to one motion ratio, which means that the shocks travels the same amount that the wheel moves in the vertical direction. A one to one motion ratio was selected because it allows the total range of shock displacement to be used, which improves the sensitivity of the suspension system. The rockers were manufactured from 7075-T8 ‘aluminum due to its superior weight to strength ratio. To reduce friction in the energy management system, roller bearings were placed in between the two rocker plates and thrust bearings were incorporated into the bellerank plates at the pivot points. - Extensive Finite Element Analysis was performed on the rockers to minimize their weight. A safety factor of 4.9 was obtained for the final design of the front rockers when a force of 1.3 g was applied to them at the pullrod attachment point while restraining it from translating. A safety factor of 4.5 was obtained for the rear rocker when it was loaded in a similar manner.Rocker FEA Results, Sex Displicemen Figure 12: Rocker FEA Results CONCLUSION This paper addressed essential design considerations for @ small formula-style open wheel racing car. These considerations were addressed properly because none of the suspension components fon the 2001 Lawrence Technological University Formula ‘SAE cer failed during intensive driver’ training or at the 2001 Formula SAE competition. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the 2001 Lawrence Technological University Formula SAE team for all of their hard work and effort put into the project, REFERENCES 4. Smith, Carroll, Tune to Win. Fallbrock, CA: Aero Publishers, 1978 2. Hibbeler, R.C. Mechanics of Materials. rd ed. Upper ‘Saddle River, NU: Prentice Hall, 1994. 3. David E. Woods and Badih A. Jawad. “Numerical Design of Racecar Suspension Parameters’, Wahingion, 0.C. ‘SAE International, 1999, 4. 2000 LTU FSAE Team, ‘2000 Formula SAE Final Report’ Souls, Wicigen Lawrence “Technological University, 2000. Pubn, Fred. How to Make your Car Handle. Los Angeles, ‘GA: HPBooks, 1981 Smith, Carrol. Enginger_to Win. Osceola, Wh Motorbooks International, 1984. Wiliam F. Millen and Douglas L. Milken. Race Car Vehicle Dynamics, Warrendale, PA: SAE IntemationalAPPENDIX AMPLE CALCI NS TOTAL WEIGHT Target Vehicle Weight Average Driver Weight 224.11 N 11.72N Total Weight = 2224.11 + 711.72 = 2035.83 N CONTROL ARMS FRONT CONTROL ARM AXIAL FORCES Frcs 15457 ms Z 1556.0 N ty STDP $0=556.0- Fic, sins” + Fp sin 28.06? ~ Fycy sin 4.40° $Y, <0= 1445.74 Fi, cos 45° ~ Fg 60828.06" + Fycy c084.40° > ~ ($56.0)21.8)+ (Fy sin 4.40" (4.1) = (1445.7)381) +(Ficy €05-4.40° (238.8) REAR CONTROL ARM AXIAL FORCES (0 = 556.0— Ries Sin 14.30° +R + Rp Sin 28.03° — Ry sin 4.13” + D4, Ry C08 28.03" + Rig, C08-4.13" #yM= ~(556.0)8.64) + (Rye Sin 4.13° 2.29) = 1445.7 + Ryycy €0814.30" = (1445.7)381) +(Rjcg c054.13°)241.3) Rios =-2,267.3N Rycg = -1060.5N Rg =~2,088.0N . BUCKLING CALCULATIONS 121723.20.10-" m* . Puy «(1206 sso'|(Z)o or -oorr') Pur =52,167.90NFront Upper Control Arm Q. Front Arm a (03 0,660.26 52,167.90 _ 19,660.26 Rear Arm _ 11° Q06.84>10°f1723.20%10°?) a (any Front Lower Control Arm Front Arm TE (206.84 x 10” [1723.20 107" p, -bassex10"fi72320%107") (0520) P,, 1300958 5216790 _ 13,009.58 4.01 ; a. Rear Arm 11?(206,84 10" [723.2010 1, = Heosatateizas20.a0"") (03507 P,,=11629.06N 5216790 _ 4 49 11,629.06 Rear Upper Control Arm Front Arm op, - He 06.8410°)1725.20%10°7 a (oasiF TP Q06.84x10° jt7: Fae (aor p= M241ssw 2.16790 Ta3aiss Rear Lower Control Arm 11? (206.8410? \723.20%10- a Front Arm 1206.84.10" fi 723.2010 p, ~Tbas s4x10°fi72320.10-") (05337 Py =12382.71N 5216790 1238271 a Rear Arm T17(206.84 10° \1723.20«107!? p, = Toosstx10")1723.20.107?) (0ss3F 7, =1193082N 5216790 11,930.82 MOMENT CALCULATIONS: M=Fd Bonding Moment duo to Vertal Force > Front Upper Control Arm yd) = (278.0¢0525 43" [0413c052848") Ma536iN—m a Front Lower Control Arm: M a(VPya) (278 cos 4.40? Jo. 304 os14.40°) M=13148N-m Rear Upper Control Arm 1M = (PFyd)= 278. 0c052430"fo.438e0524.30°) M=I0LAN—m Rear Lower Control Arm 1M =(UFyd) = 278 0cost4.13°Jot13¢0s14.13°) M=10797N—m Bending Moment due to Cornering Force {Front Upper Control Arm M = (Cd) = (841.16 c0s15.45° )0.117) = 94.86N — m Front Lower Control Arm Wr cICP a 2259 Toss 4°) 0081) 9237 Q Rear Upper Control Arm Ms (ePch- (051 79os14.30°)0.114) «11729 ~ 2. Rear Lower Cota Am (Che) - 26681cos4.13"}0.08) 85.920 —mShearing Moment due to Braking Force Front Upper Control Arm = (BFY(d) = (711.72\(0.127) = 90.39 —m Front Lower Control Arm, ‘M = (BF Yd) = (711.72\0.127) = 90,39N —m Rear Upper Control Arm M = (BF Xd) = (711.72)(0.127) = 90.39N =m Rear Lower Control Arm M =(BFY(d) = (711.72\0.127) 10.39. —m STRESS CALCULATIONS so =1723,20%10-"? m* 525% 107m Bending Stress due to Vertical Force Q Front Upper Control Arm _(9361)0.25.10° =51743MPa 1723.20x10" 1206.58 233 317.43 a Front Lower Control Arm 5 (03145)0.525:10°) '=726,59MPa 1723.20x10" Rear Upper Control Arm 0119882510") os os py 1723.20x10 1206.58 359.05 SP = © Rear Lower Control Arm (07 9799.525%107 1723.20x107? 1206.58 2.02 396.80 = 596.80MPa Bending Stress due to Comering Force Front Upper Control Arm __ (94.86}9.525%107 © 1723.20«10-F 1206.58 52434 524.34MPa =2.30 2 Front Lower Control Arm _ (02.37)9.52510 1723.20%10°7 sop = 1206.58 51058 =510S8MPa Rear Upper Control Arm _(0721)6.525:107 = 648.32MPa 1723.20%10- 1 Rear Lower Control Arm _ (85.92)9.525%10 © 173.20%10-? 1206.58 474.92 = 47492MPa Shearing Stress due to Braking Force Front Upper Control Arm Sel -(903919.525%10") 6p gaye Q Front Lower Control Arm (039)9 5255107 = 499.63MPa 1723,20%1077 1206.58 =242 499.63 Q Rear Upper Control Arm ~60.39)9.525%107 a) = 499.63MPa 1723,20«10" 1206.58 =242 499.63, Rear Lower Control Arm (90.3999.525x10°°) _ - 1723.20%10-? 206.58 _ 5 4 499.63 | SPINDLES. FATIGUE ANALYSIS: Maximum Vertical Force ‘Minimum Vertical Force = 0 NMaximum Bending Moment Minimum Bending Moment = (0)(0.082) 1=Hooie'-oo1s!)era2x10-n! ‘Maximum Stress Sag =A = 200019) 0170 77 722x10 Minimum Stress “My _ (0(0.019) me "T 722x110" oMPa Sau Sun _ 62:39-+0 2 2 Average Stress s, -5e =31.20MPa 6239-0 2 Sup =825MPa Syy =70125MPa Siqoo = 742.5MPa 12.5MPa Soderberg Approach Sr Se 31.20, 31.20 _, 70125" S. 126 6, sys 39X10" cycles, =31.20MPa “3y,- $M =0=(445.700.147)+ Fuy (0272) =0 UPRIGHTS. FRONT UPRIGHT CORNERING FORCE u 144s n>) L, DoF = 0= 1445.7 Few Fens FM =0=(1445.79(0.142)+ Fg; (0239) REAR UPRIGHT CORNERING FORCE =1445.7 Foy ~FissHUBS PULLRODS FRONT HUB CORNERING FORCE TENSILE STRESS f— o: 1 Fen, ter. = (esos? - nor") =2.42-10°n! ais7~3L 18.89Pa (1445.7)(205.0) + Fy, (98.0) Fy = 3024.17 Fy, = 4469.87 REAR HUB CORNERING FORCE Ru. fe Ru, 1445.7 N—>-—1 Ly ; 1445.7 Ry Rex (1445.7)(205.0)+ Rey, (98.0) Ry = 30201 7N Ry, =4469.87N 2552002-01-3310 Design of Formula SAE Suspension Copyright © 2002 SAE International ABSTRACT Formula SAE is a Student project that involves a ‘complete design and fabrication of an open wheel formula-style racecar. This paper will cover the suspension geometry and its components, which include the control arm, uprights, spindles, hubs, and pullrods. ‘The 2002 Lawrence Technological Universities Formula SAE car will be used as an example throughout this paper. INTRODUCTION The suspension system is one of the most important systems to consider when designing a FSAB car. All accelerations, either lateral or longitudinal, must be put to the ground through the tires, which are held in contact with the ground by the suspension system. ‘The suspension system must therefore keep the largest contact tire patch at all times. If the suspension does a poor job of this, the car will not perform up to its full potential. A good suspension ‘must therefore incorporate a good kinematics design to keep the tite as perpendicular to the pavement as possible, optimal damping and spring rates to keep the tire on the ground at all times, and strong components that do not deflect under the loads induced upon them. During the design phase of the 2002 FSAE vehicle safety, durability, and maintainability were placed as top priorities. With use many computer aided desiga progtams, and Finite Element Analysis software the ‘max stress and deflection of each part was determined at various load conditions. The use of the software served as a valuable tool in the selection of the proper ‘metal alloy, and the geometry of each part. Badih A. Jawad and Jason Baumann: Lawrence Technological University SUSPENSION DESIGN DETERMINE LOADS To properly design the suspension components the loads experienced by each part had to be determined. ‘The FSAB vehicle will see many different loading conditions, it was decided that a spreadsheet should be set up to calculate the loads in each part under all possible inputs of both lateral and longitudinal accelerations. A free body diagram of one comer of, the vehicle was used to solve equations for the reaction forces in each component (Figure 1). These resulting equations were then put into a spreadsheet that relates all suspension components and vehicle patameter to numerous acceleration conditions and calculates the loads in each component for those conditions (Figure 1). ‘The max loading conditions observed were then used for a ‘worst-case’ analysis of every suspension component. Freee Fret Fea Fe Figure 1: Free Body DiagramCONTROL ARMS Control arms have the important task of connecting the uprights to the chassis. The control arm also plays 1a key roll in determining the camber and roll stability ‘The 2002 Formula Car utilizes rear control arms constructed of 19mm OD. x .7mm wall thickness round 4130 chrome-moly tubing. ‘This material was used on the 2001 FSAE and proved to be lightweight, strong, and easy to manufacture. UPPER CONTROL ARM (UCA) ‘The upper control arms (Figure 2) use two spherical bearings at the frame mounts with an adjustable rod end at the upper ball joint to allow for camber adjustment. In order to make camber adjustments more efficiently while tuning the suspension, Quick Camber Adjustment (QCA) was designed and incorporated in all upper control arms (Figure 4). Length of the upper control arm has been determined to be 356mm, with a spread of 368mm Figure 2: Upper Control Arm LOWER CONTROL ARM (LCA) The lower control arms (Figure 3) utilize two spherical bearings at the frame mounts, a spherical bearing at the lower ball joint, and an adjustable rod end at the toe link to allow for rear tow adjustment, ‘The lower control arm will also incorporate the toe link on the front of the control arm. This will allow for rear toe adjustment and will also transmit most of the tear suspension load into the central part of the chassis, where it is strongest. Length of the lower control arm has been determined to be 460mm, with a spread of 355mm. Figure 3: Lower Control Arm CAMBER ADJUSTMENT Camber is the angle between the wheel plane and the vertical, perpendicular to the pavement. Negative camber is when the top of the tire leans inward. If the tire leans outward that is considered to be positive camber. Camber is used to maintain the maximum tire contact patch The QCA system. will alow the driver to adjust the camber quickly for varying driving conditions. Figure 4: Quick Camber Adjustment Analyzing the Control Arms ‘The control arms were analyzed at the maximum load, and buckling analysis was performed using Buler’s buckling equation, 268 [Upper Corie mm [Lover Corr Am ike 2 Few Tibet [bea ahem a a ae ee Ez esa} Necro sil 26st nes [ibe cm “ece] ace] {net dressy arr] ari] arr or Era) Doerner Donor] — ae 7 [om “rasta — rat Tet Ta [are a 7] — san] ea zee] Zoe Table 1: Control Arm Buckling AnalysisUPRIGHTS The uprights provide a link between the upper and lower ball joints. The weight of the uprights must be minimized. During a bump the weight of the upright are controlled by the shocks, FRONT UPRIGHTS ‘The Front uprights connect the upper and lower ball joints of the control arm, also provides a mounting point for the break calipers. The weight of the front Uprights was minimized and the strength was maximized by the use of Finite Element Analysis. The Front Uprights were machined out of one solid aluminum block ‘9 7075 6, which provided excellent strength to weight ratio. The Front Uprights were analyzed by using the center of the spindle mount fixed. Forces were applied at the upper and lower ball joints and applied at the caliper Mounting holes. The forces applied simulated a ‘comering force of 1.3g, 895N was applied to the upper ball joint and -2304.7N was applied to the lower ball joint, also a force of 1121.1N was applied to the caliper mounting holes. ‘The Final design used triangular pockets to lighten the Upright. Finite Element Analysis showed that triangular pockets provided the greatest strength with the least amount of deflection. After several iterations the result of the final upright was 1.16 kg. The Front Upright had a Safety Factor of 2.5 while a combined ‘comering and braking force was applied, Von ices 306,004 a Figure 5: Front Uprights REAR UPRIGHTS The rear uprights were analyzed using Finite Element Analysis. This technique was used to maximize performance while minimizing weight. The rear uprights are analyzed at braking conditions, and combined braking and cornering, To analyze comering force the center of the Upright is held fixed and a load of 781.3N was applied to the upper ball joint and a force of -2227.0N applied to the lower ball joint. Simulating braking force 224.1 N was applied at the lower ball joint. The center of the Upright is held fixed. This force is different that the force used to analyze the front uprights because the use of a three rotor braking system. With the use of a three rotor braking system there is only one rotor located in the ‘ear, The tear rotor does not apply a torque on the rear Upright, it is absorbed by the chassis, therefore it only reacts to acceleration and deceleration forces. Through the help of Finite Element Analysis and bench marking the uprights used years prior, we were able to provide maximum strength and minimize weight by eliminating small tiangular pockets. Weight of the 2002 rear upright is .932 kg.. Max deflection and stress were analyzed using the loads caleulated in the Previously mentioned spreadsheet and FEA software. Results of the analysis show 5mm max. deflection with 4 max. siress of 174Mpa. The Safety Factor determined Was 8.2 at worst case conditions, which was comering combined with braking. Vonesee e004 ee 1500008 so4ev004 A 882e+004 f asietans | 270er008 058008 4990+003 S000 2200002 12294009 bs sraesa04 Figure 6: Rear Uprights SPINDLES, The purpose of the spindle is to provide a base about which the wheel assembly rotates. The spindle is @ part that has caused prior teams problems with excessive wear. Due to the many load the spindle experiences with cross car weight transfers, and many Changes in road conditions this part must be analyzed extensively. When designing and fabricating the spindle the outer diameter where the bearing mounts must be fabricated with litle tolerance (+0. 100mm /-0. 000mm),The spindles were manufactured out of 4340 steel due to excellent wear resistance properties. While manufacturing mating parts dimensions had to be taken into account. The mating parts include the bearing and the upright. Similar to years before a step in the spindle was used the same thickness of the bearing so that impact loads would be distributed though the entire bearing. Another step was used to free the end of the spindle so that a washer and castle nut could be tightened down on the bearing and the hubs, Finite Element Analysis wes used to analyze the spindles at maximum braking force and vertical force was used. The force exerted during a braking maneuver is 1121 Nand 1445 N of force applied at the tires during cornering. The results revealed 25.8 safety factor during breaking, and 2.8 during comering. When combining ccommering force and braking forces a safety factor of 2.6 was maintained. ies sree 228004 450004 1 suo e004 seiei008 27004 {osoeane 0003 801002 20s 2650009 ‘2401 Figure 7: Spindle (FEA results) FRONT HUBS The Front hubs were manufactured out of 70785-T6 aluminum. The hubs are designed at a 4-leaf 45-degree offset. The front hubs provided mounting holes for the front brake rotors. The brake rotors have a mounting tab that is applied to the hub, which allows the brake rotor to float. The floating of the brake rotor allows {or perfect caliper alignment and evenly wears the brake pads vensee Figure 8: Front Hub REAR HUBS, ‘The main function of the rear hub is to connect. ‘the driveline to the wheels through the half shafts and the constant velocity joints. The 2002 rear hubs were designed similar to the 2001 rear hubs. The major changes include the use of threaded studs instead of press fit studs for a more accurate wheel alignment and the use of a larger radius on the back face to help with stresses and deflection. The material chosen for the rear hubs was 4340 steel due in large part to its high yield strength of 910Mpa. The rear hubs showed a maximum deflection of .101mm and a maximum stress of 543.7Mpa when analyzed with a 2- comering load using FEA With the use of Finite Element Analysis a 4-leaf clover design with a 45-degree offset was developed. A ‘combination loading of comering and breaking was applied to the hub. To simulate a comering force a load of 1445 N a load of 4469 N was placed on the bottom lug while at the same time a load of 3024 N was placed ‘on the top lug. ‘The hub held a safety factor of 4.2 during these loading conditions. Similar to years before a bearing was used to reduce friction between the upright and the shaft on the hub, As a safety measure a spindle lock nut was used at the end of the CV joint, this made sure that the hub would not disengage from the driveline. DAMPING MECHANISM The damping systems consist of the following components; pull rods, suspension mechanism or bell crank, and the shocks. The purpose of this system is to transfer load from the wheel to the inboard shock, The ‘geometry of this system is critical because it determines the motion ratio, which is the amount of movement at the wheel compared to the amount of movement at the ‘shock. This ratio is used to determine the cars natural frequency. It is critical that these parts have a very low friction factor, therefor transferring the load directly to the shock without putting excess stress on the individual parts Figure 9: Rear HubSUSPENSION MECHANISM The suspension mechanism is commonly called the belleranks. The bellorank aides packaging, it allows the pullrod and the shock displacement to be aligned in different directions. Unlike the 2001 FSAE car, this year the front shocks were positioned vertically in the same direction as the force, to stress. The motion ration in the front was a 1 10 1 ratio, This means the shock moves the ‘same distance at the wheel, The bellcranks were manufactured out of 7075- T6 aluminum due to superior strength to weight ratio, Similar to the 2001 car roller bearings were used in between two belleranks and thrust bearings were used at the pivot points. Suspend Mechanism FEA Results Disphcemart ste Figure10: Belicrank FEA results “Front Motion Ratio = Rear Mon Ratio Figure 11: Motion Ratio an PULLRODS The Pullrods oppose the pushrods, during a bump the pulrod pulls the bellorank and compresses the shock. The force experienced by the pullrod is mainly tensile, however during jounce the pullrod experiences minimal buckling which consists of the weight of the wheel. Because the buckling force is minimal the buckling analysis can be ignored. The Pullrod allows the shock to be positioned in any geometry needed for packing Issues. The pullrod has allowed the shocks to be positioned at a low center of gravity, Finite olement analysis was used to analyze the pullrod Using a tensile force of 1445.7 N resulted in a maximum, stress of 118.89Mpa A salety factor of 2.6 was determined, CONCLUSION ‘This suspension analysis is to be used as a guideline for future FSAE suspension teams. This ‘Suspension has been put through rigorous testing and has yet to fail on the 2002 Lawrence Technological University FSAE car. Each component has been improved through the years either made lighter or stronger with the use of computers, and finite element analysis (FEA). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: ‘The authors would like to thank the 2002 Lawrence Technological University Formula SAE Car team for all their effort put into this project. REFERENCE: 1. Hiboler, R.C. Mechanics of Materials 3° Ed. ‘Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall 2. 2002 LTU FSAE ‘2002 Formula SAE Final Report. Southfield Michigan, Lawrence ‘= Technological University 3. William F Milliken and Douglas L. Milken, Race Car_Vehicle Dynamics. Warrendale, PA: SAE International 4 Polega, B.D. and Jawad B.A Design of FSAE ‘Suspension Components, Washington DC, SAE International