1

 
 

A Complete Multi-Body Model for an FSAE Space Frame Car

A thesis submitted to the

graduate school

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

in the Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering

of the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences

By

Tejas Chothani

Bachelor of Engineering from University of Mumbai

June 2011

Committee Chair: Dr. Randall Allemang

Committee Members: Dr. David Thompson

Dr. Aimee Frame

   2  
 
Abstract:

Vehicle dynamics has evolved into an increasingly indispensible discipline to supplement the

design of automobiles, especially racecars. Every single component of the car and the

environment with which it interacts contributes to the overall dynamic behavior of the vehicle.

For Formula Society of Automotive Engineers (FSAE) cars in particular, these parameters

become extremely critical and hence require robust and accurate physical testing methods, which

are expensive and time consuming, warranting the need for virtual testing methods. The Bearcat

Motorsports team (BCMS) lacked this capability of predicting vehicle dynamic behavior, relying

on previously available test data and the performance of the car after fabrication. Hence, a

thorough multi-body dynamics model has been developed to overcome this inadequacy. The

2013 race car is used for this study and ADAMS/Car is used as a multi-body development

platform. ADAMS/Car multi-body model consists of different automotive subassemblies

modeled as independent subsystems, which can interact amongst themselves to mimic the overall

dynamics of a physical car model. Each subsystem requires data pertaining to its characteristics

such as mass, inertia, center of gravity, which can be tuned to calibrate and eventually validate

the model against data obtained from physical testing. This makes it imperative to bring together

the work done by all sub-system teams over the course of the year. For simulation of road-tire

interface, the PAC2002 tire model [2] is used, which is the latest Pacejka Tire Model. A new

ADAMS template is made for the anti-roll bars and the strut structure. The model can predict full

vehicle dynamic behavior apart from generating sub-system specific vehicle dynamic

parameters. The validation of a full vehicle model is a multi-year project and is not within the

scope of this thesis. However, the initial dynamic model is now able to help the team predict

vehicle dynamic trends and evolve their designs based on previous design ideologies. The future
   3  
 
work for this project will include further calibration and validation of the model and then running

the simulation model on a complete virtual endurance track.

   4  
 
   5  
 
Acknowledgements

I take this opportunity to thank my parents for making my dream come true and for their

continued support throughout my Graduate school.

Thank you to all the members of the Faculty and team members at Orion Racing India,

KA-Raceing and Bearcat Motorsports for making my time in FSAE the best experience till date.

A special thanks to Dr. Randall Allemang for his guidance and expertise without whom my

graduate work and thesis wouldn’t have been possible.

To all my friends, in India and Cincinnati for giving me support and pushing me to achieve what

I always wanted to.

The Bearcat motorsports Lab, UC- Machine shop and UC-SDRL lab facilities have also

contributed in every way possible.

I would take the opportunity to thank Dr. Aimee Frame and Dr. David Thompson for all the help

and guidance.

A special thanks to Nishant, Suresh, Madhura, Devanshi and Murli for making me believe in my

work and helping me in any and every way possible.

   6  
 
Table of Contents

Abstract............................................................................................................................................2

Acknowledgement............................................................................................................................5

Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................6

List of Figures...................................................................................................................................8

List of Tables..................................................................................................................................11

Acronyms........................................................................................................................................13

1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................14

1.1 Formula SAE background................................................................................................................................16

1.2 Bearcat motorsports..........................................................................................................................................16

1.3 Project methodology.........................................................................................................................................18

2. Multi body simulation.......................................................................................................................................19

2.1 Multi body modeling.......................................................................................................................................19

2.2 Sub system modeling.......................................................................................................................................21

2.3 Kinematic joints...............................................................................................................................................22

2.4 Coordinate system........................ ...................................................................................................................23

2.5 Sub-Systems in ADAMS modeling.............. ..................................................................................................24

2.5.1 Front Suspension sub-system...................................................................................................................24

2.5.2 Rear Suspension sub-system....................................................................................................................26

2.5.3 Steering system.............................................. .........................................................................................26

2.5.4 Powertrain, Drivetrain and Brakes sub-systems......................................................................................27

2.5.5 Modeling of flex bodies...........................................................................................................................28

2.6 Part modeling of sub-systems…………………………………………………………………………………30

2.6.1 Tire development......................................................................................................................................30

2.6.2 Shock absorbers........................................................................................................................................34

2.6.3 Springs......................................................................................................................................................37
   7  
 
3. Calibration...........................................................................................................................................................38

3.1 Vehicle mass moment of inertias.........................................................................................................................38

3.1.1 Test procedure – Vehicle inertia measurement........................................................................................39

3.2 Weight audit for Bearcat 2013............................................................................................................................43

3.3 Coordinate measurement for the hardpoints.............................. ........................................................................44

3.4 Pseudo static calibration ......................................................................................................................................45

3.4.1Spring file calibration...............................................................................................................................45

3.4.2 Adams motion ratio plot............................... ...........................................................................................47

3.4.2.1 Experimental calibration of the front and rear suspension subsystems.................................................47

3.4.2.2 Test Procedure.………………………………………………………...................................................48

3.5 Calibration examples....................................................................................................................................49

4. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future work..............................................................................................51

4.1 Future Scope......................................................................................................................................................51

4.2 References..........................................................................................................................................................53

Appendix A...............................................................................................................................................................55

Appendix B...............................................................................................................................................................79
   8  
 
List of Figures:

Figure 1: Time-line based analysis .............................................................................................................................14

Figure 2: Static and dynamic points distribution..........................................................................................................16

Figure 3: Suspension_2012…………...................................................................…...................................................17

Figure 4: Suspension_2013…....................................…....................................…......................................................17

Figure 5: ADAMS/car front suspension template........................................................................................................19

Figure 6: FSAE template_1..........................................................................................................................................20

Figure 7: FSAE template_2..........................................................................................................................................20

Figure 8: Hierarchical template model..........................................................................................................................21

Figure 9: Quarter car model..........................................................................................................................................21

Figure 10: Damper cap setup........................................................................................................................................24

Figure 11: ISO view- steering sub-system…................................................................................................................27

Figure 12: Three-part ARB CAD model.......................................................................................................................28

Figure 13: ADAMS flex body template........................................................................................................................29

Figure 14: Coefficients- tire development....................................................................................................................33

Figure 15: Damper test facility.....................................................................................................................................34

Figure 16: Internal Schematics-_TTX-25.....................................................................................................................35

Figure 17: Spring design_ADAMS ..............................................................................................................................37

Figure 18: Vehicle inertia measurement method..........................................................................................................39

Figure 19: Vehicle inertia measurement facility...........................................................................................................41

Figure 20: Vehicle inertia measurement results_1........................................................................................................42

Figure 21: Vehicle inertia measurement results_2........................................................................................................42

Figure 22: Experimental weight measurement.............................................................................................................43

Figure 23: Spring stiffness experimental setup.............................................................................................................45

Figure 24: Test procedure_motion ratio........................................................................................................................48

Figure 25: % error- FVSA vs. camber change..............................................................................................................49

Figure 26: SAE tire axis system....................................................................................................................................55

Figure 27: TYDEX W-axis system ………………………………………………......................................................55

   9  
 
Figure 28: Front view- front suspension…………………………………………………...........................................56

Figure 29: Plan view - front suspension.......................................................................................................................56

Figure 30: ISO view- front suspension.........................................................................................................................56

Figure 31: Front view- rear suspension.........................................................................................................................57

Figure 32: Plan view - rear suspension.........................................................................................................................57

Figure 33: ISO view- rear suspension...........................................................................................................................57

Figure 34: BCMS coordinates_1...................................................................................................................................58

Figure 35: BCMS coordinates_2...................................................................................................................................58

Figure 36: Damper testing- Penske...............................................................................................................................59

Figure 37: Damper testing- Ohlins................................................................................................................................59

Figure 38: Internal schematics-high speed rebound_TTX-25......................................................................................60

Figure 39: Internal schematics-high speed compression_TTX-25...............................................................................60

Figure 40: Joints- names and types- front suspension..................................................................................................61

Figure 41: Joints- names and types- rear suspension....................................................................................................62

Figure 42: Brake system sample requirements.............................................................................................................63

Figure 43: Engine system sample requirements...........................................................................................................63

Figure 44: Linkage diagram- front suspension.............................................................................................................64

Figure 45: Linkage diagram- rear suspension...............................................................................................................64

Figure 46: Front suspension kinematics.......................................................................................................................65

Figure 47: Rear suspension kinematics........................................................................................................................65

Figure 48: Force vs. Velocity curves - Ohlins..............................................................................................................66

Figure 49: Force vs. Displacement curves – Ohlins.....................................................................................................66

Figure 50: Spring Stiffness test apparatus.....................................................................................................................67

Figure 51: Strain gauge based load cell........................................................................................................................67

Figure 52: Spring stiffness testing model.....................................................................................................................68

Figure 53: Spring stiffness testing_1............................................................................................................................68

Figure 54: Spring stiffness testing_2............................................................................................................................69

   10  
 
Figure 55: Spring stiffness testing_3............................................................................................................................69

Figure 56: Spring stiffness testing_4............................................................................................................................70

Figure 57: Damper input file........................................................................................................................................70

Figure 58: Force- Velocity curves Penske....................................................................................................................71

Figure 59: Force- Velocity curves Ohlins.....................................................................................................................71

Figure 60: ADAMS motion ratio test results................................................................................................................72

Figure 61: Experimental motion ratio test results .......................................................................................................72

Figure 62: Front static kingpin inclination....................................................................................................................73

Figure 63: Front suspension roll rate............................................................................................................................73

Figure 64: Rear suspension FVSA................................................................................................................................74

Figure 65: Sub-system test bench.................................................................................................................................74

Figure 66: Gantt chart representation of BCMS_2013 ................................................................................................75

Figure 67: Gantt chart representation-- thesis timeline.................................................................................................76

Figure 68: MR calibration_1.........................................................................................................................................77

Figure 69: MR calibration_2.........................................................................................................................................77

Figure 70: MRcalibration_3..........................................................................................................................................77

Figure 71: Engine curves_1..........................................................................................................................................78

Figure 72: Engine curves_2..........................................................................................................................................78

   11  
 
List of Tables:

Table 1:BCMS_2013....................................................................................................................................................17

Table 2: Subsystem Weight audit ……………………………………………………………………………………44

Table 3: Calspan tire data channels…………………………………………………………………………………..79

Table 4: PAC2002 tire modeling coefficients 1-..........................................................................................................80

Table 5: PAC2002 tire modeling coefficients 2............................................................................................................80

Table 6: PAC2002 tire modeling coefficients 3............................................................................................................80

Table 7: PAC2002 tire modeling coefficients 4............................................................................................................80

Table 8: PAC2002 tire modeling coefficients 5............................................................................................................80

Table 9: PAC2002 tire modeling coefficients 6............................................................................................................81

Table 10: PAC2002 tire modeling coefficients 7..........................................................................................................81

Table 11: PAC2002 tire modeling coefficients 8..........................................................................................................81

Table 12: PAC2002 tire modeling coefficients 9..........................................................................................................82

Table 13: PAC2002 tire modeling coefficients 10........................................................................................................83

Table 14: PAC2002 tire modeling coefficients 11........................................................................................................83

Table 15: PAC2002 tire modeling coefficients 12.......................................................................................................84

Table 16: Weight and inertia properties -1..................................................................................................................85

Table 17: Weight and inertia properties -2...................................................................................................................86

Table 18: Hardpoint location coordinates (Front)........................................................................................................87

Table 19: Hardpoint location coordinates (Rear).........................................................................................................88

Table 20: Weight audit - drivetrain..............................................................................................................................89

Table 21: Weight audit - powertrain.............................................................................................................................89

Table 22: Weight audit – miscellaneous parts..............................................................................................................90

Table 23: Spring stiffness test results - 1......................................................................................................................91

Table 24: Spring stiffness test results - 2......................................................................................................................91

Table 25: Spring Stiffness test results - 3.....................................................................................................................92

Table 26: Spring Stiffness test results - 4.....................................................................................................................92

Table 27: Damper file (front) ......................................................................................................................................93

   12  
 
Table 28: Joints characterization..................................................................................................................................94

Table 29: Constraints characterization.........................................................................................................................95

Table 30: Joints description – front suspension ..........................................................................................................96

Table 31: Joints description –rear suspension..............................................................................................................97

Table 32: Joints description – steering system.............................................................................................................97

   13  
 
Acronyms:

A/car- ADAMS/Car software/ Default template database.

SAE- Society of Automotive Engineers

ECU – Engine control unit

CAD – Computer aided designing

CG – Center of gravity

DOF - Degrees of freedom

UC – University of Cincinnati

BCMS: Bearcat Motorsports

ARB- Anti-roll bar

HPL - hard point left

HPR - hard point right

HOK- Hooke joint

REV- Revolute joint

UBJ – Upper ball joint

LBJ – Lower ball joint

CMM- Coordinate measuring machine

PE- Performance Electronics

TTC- Tire test consortium

FVSA- Front view swing arm

   14  
 
1. Introduction:

The scope of this thesis is to develop an initial, working version of a complete multi-body model

of an open wheeled space frame racecar. An operational ADAMS model is a first step in

developing the dynamic simulation capabilities of the team. This model will be available to

simulate suspension, steering, tire and other vehicle sub-systems contributing to the development

of the Bearcat Motorsports 2013 race vehicle that would enhance the performance of the team at

the Formula SAE competitions. This model was developed as a consequence of identifying the

reasons for increase and decrease in the points earned at the event over the years. Figure 1 shows

a time-line based analysis, showing the need for a simulation model. The increase and decrease

Figure  1:  Timeline  Based  Analysis

in design event points is indicated by the yellow boxes and blue arrows The first row of red

boxes indicate the method that were used to develop a sub-system model and it also indicates the

reasons for the team scoring less points at the design event. The third row boxes show the

capability of the simulation model to enhance point-scoring ability in the engineering design
   15  
 
event. The black boxes indicate the years in which the team has used the tire data accurately for

suspension design development. In order to develop this model, previously available work done

for the BCMS Team was coalesced in to useable mathematical models. The multi-body platform

chosen for simulation was ADAMS (Automated Dynamic Analysis of Mechanical Systems). It is

force-joint based software capable of performing full vehicle dynamic analysis. These references

include theses on frame stiffness by Thomas Stead [16], vehicle dynamics by Fred Jabs [11] and

engine development by David Moster [17] respectively. The prime focus of this thesis was to

ensure that the ADAMS model is furnished with correct input parameters to facilitate good

results for static and dynamic calibration tests. The input parameters include tire property files,

damper and spring curves, hardpoint geometry, engine and brake data. All the links and bodies

are assumed to be rigid, but a procedure is laid out to accurately model flexible bodies along with

their bushings and mounts in ADAMS. Knowledge of solid modeling and finite element

development software is, therefore, a pre-requisite for this project. The errors generated in the

calibration process are partly human and partly due to resolution problems in the sensors used.

Effort was taken to keep these errors minimal. A lot of ideas and work has been done while

keeping in mind that the race car is constructed by a team of engineers in training trying to

improve upon their design year round.

   16  
 
1.1 Formula SAE Background:

Formula SAE is an international engineering design event in which students have to design,

fabricate, test and compete with their formula-styled racecars. The target marketing group for the

team would be a non-professional weekend autocross racer. Formula SAE vehicles are an

equivalent system to that of any complex road car with enhanced performance benchmarks. The

dynamic events (4-7) comprise of 65 % of the total points in the competition. The static events

include engineering design, cost analysis and business plan presentation and the dynamic events

include acceleration, skid pad, autocross and endurance.

                                                                                   
Figure  2:  Static  and  Dynamic  points  distribution

1.2 Bearcat Motorsports:

Bearcat Motorsports started taking part in Formula SAE events in 1994, and since then has

competed in various locations including the Silverstone Formula 1 track at Silverstone (UK). The

team has had a successful history with many top 10 finishes in FSAE Michigan and the events in

Virginia and Lincoln (Nebraska). Every year, a majority of the team is comprised of senior level

students who are using this activity as part of their Senior design requirements. These team

members have little or no experience working on the Formula SAE project hence, carrying
   17  
 
forward the designs and evolving them becomes a difficult task. Since the team had changed the

front and rear suspension type in 2013 from a double wishbone push-rod actuated spring-damper

setup to a double wishbone direct acting damper setup, kinematic trend patterns had to be

developed for this suspension type. The project was initiated keeping these factors in mind.

Figure 3-4 depicts the change in suspension type.

Figure  3:  Suspension  2012   Figure  4:  Suspension  2013  

The team needed a platform to analyze previous year designs and come up with their own set of

ideas using these previous designs as a reference. This gives the team a head start into their

design period and providing the team with trends, which can be used to compare designs from

the previous years.

An overview of BCMS 13 is as follows:

Model Type Formula SAE Race car

Frame type Open wheeled space frame
Engine type Single cylinder Yamaha 450 Rear wheel
driven
Suspension type (Front, rear) Double Wishbone, direct acting dampers
Transmission 5 speed Manual
Track (m) (Front, rear) (1.118,1.08)
Tires (Front, rear) Hoosier 18/6-10 Front (R-25B), WET
Electronics PE DAQ, Motec data logger
Steering Rack and Pinion
Brakes (Front, rear) Disc (Brembo, AP-racing)

Table1:  Overview  BCMS  2013  

   18  
 
1.3 Project Methodology

The ADAMS model has three levels of hierarchy: the full-vehicle, system (for example, front

suspension) and the sub-system (for example, dampers) levels. In order to develop the model, the

software makes use of templates. The project made use of the appropriate (ADAMS/Car)

templates and not the standard FSAE template, since there are no FSAE templates for a direct-

acting setup which the current team was going to use. Modifying the standard FSAE template is

not an option due to difficulties that arise in ADAMS template modification. In order to input

data for the templates and sub-system, data files in the form of mass properties of each

component, rotational inertia values of all the components in roll, pitch and yaw, suspension

hardpoint coordinates, damper curves, spring stiffness graphs, steering ratio, tire property files,

engine power and torque curves have been measured. Verification is done at each step to check

the adherence of the ADAMS model with the theoretical model developed using Solidworks and

the actual car. For part of the calibration of the model, an experiment to check the motion ratio of

the front and the rear suspension is done. Along similar lines, graphs are generated to check for

correct trends. Mounts were made for using appropriate sensors to extract real time data using

the (Performance Electronics Version 3) data acquisition system with the electronics sub-team.

The data will be used for future model calibration and validation exercises.  

The major steps of this thesis can be outlined as follows:

Multi-body model building (Chapter 2)

Verification (Chapter 3)

Calibration (Chapter 3)

Validation (Chapter 4

The subsequent chapters handle the above in detail

   19  
 
2. Multi-Body Simulation:

2.1 Multi-Body Model Building:

As mentioned earlier, an ADAMS model consists of several independent automotive sub-

systems. The ADAMS/car template is used to modify these sub-systems as per team

requirement. Figure 5 depicts a front suspension sub-system ADAMS/car template. These

templates are used as a start point for sub-system development. An ADAMS/car template

essentially, is an assembly of rigid bodies connected to each other via simple mechanical joints

and kinematic constraints.

Figure  5:  Template-­‐  Front  Suspension

These templates are used for sub-system modeling in place of the FSAE templates. An FSAE

template defines automotive sub-systems traditionally developed for FSAE events and used by a

majority of student teams. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show sample FSAE templates.
   20  
 

Figure  6:  FSAE_template_1 Figure  7:  FSAE_template_2

The BCMS 13 uses a non-traditional suspension setup. Therefore a more generic approach is

essential. The actual BCMS 13 suspension setup will be explained in Section 2.5.1. The type of

template used establishes the complexity of the effort required. Modifying standard templates to

a great extent poses significant increase in sub-system modeling time and effort. The scope of

this thesis does not warrant making these templates from scratch.

The ADAMS/car template gives the user enough opportunities to achieve acceptable simulation

results and the availability of these templates at no cost is a major contributing factor for their

use. For the development of the entire model, all the sub-system templates have to be defined,

calibrated and validated. A custom ADAMS/car template has also been made for the anti-roll bar

(ARB) of the car since the ARB made by the team is a non-traditional approach for countering

the roll of the vehicle. The template for this is explained in Section 2.5.5.

Figure 8 shows a hierarchical template model, depicting bottom to top construction in ADAMS

for full vehicle analysis.

   21  
 

Figure  8:  Hierarchy  template  model

2.2 Sub- System Modeling:

A quarter car representation is shown in Figure 9. This figure shows a sample of how sub-

systems are connected via joints in order to explain sub-system modeling using ADAMS/car

template.

Figure  9:  Quarter-­‐  car  model

   22  
 

In the ADAMS virtual environment, the geometric positions of these sub-system templates are

fully defined by points having ‘x’ y’ and ‘z’ coordinates in space. In ADAMS terminology, these

are called as ‘hardpoints’. Since a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) is not available, two

methods have been used to arrive at the coordinates of the hardpoints. The value of the

coordinate is the average of the two methods. The methods are explained in detail in Chapter 3.

2.3 Kinematic Joints:

A multi-body system is a collection of multiple bodies connected via different types of joints. A

list of joints along with their properties is shown in Table 28, Appendix B. A sample list of joints

is given below:

• Fixed

• Translational

• Revolute

• Universal

• Spherical

• Inplane

• Motion

Kinematic joints impose constraints on the relative movement of two rigidly connected bodies.

For instance, a spherical (SPR) joint defines the connection between the upright and the

wishbone, which are a part of the front suspension (double-wishbone) ADAMS/car template,

shown in Figure 5. It allows rotational motion in three directions and attaches constraints on the

translational motion, which is a characteristic of the double wishbone suspension. A second

instance would be the revolute (REV) joint, defined at the hub of the suspension system. It
   23  
 
constrains the relative motion between the hub, upright and the wheel in two ways, translation

and rotation. It allows motion of the two components along a common axis. The joints within the

ADAMS/car template have been changed to match the BCMS 2013. While changing the

template for joints, it is not advisable to over-constrain the template. The Gruebler count of a

system is a quantity to explain the under-constrained and over-constrained multi-body

systems.

The Gruebler-Kutzbach criterion determines the degrees of freedom of a kinematic linkage [4].

Table 28 presents the degrees of freedom at associated with each joint. The sub-systems can be

modeled using bushings in place of joints, which introduces non-linearity in behavior of the

connection. Since racecars are relatively rigid automobiles, there is an attempt to reduce this non-

linearity in connections. Due to resource constraint, the BCMS 2013 has not been able to make

use of a kinematics and compliance (K&C) rig to determine the real extent of modeling the

quarter car with bushings or joints to check for hardpoint compliances.

2.4 Coordinate System:

The coordinate system used for the development is a fixed Cartesian coordinate system. This

system is defined using unit vectors X, Y and Z shown in the Fig 33-34. In this system, the ‘X’

coordinate is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, the ‘Y’ coordinate is aligned with

the lateral axis of the vehicle and the positive ‘Z’ coordinate aligned vertically pointing towards

the top of the vehicle. The x-y plane defines the ground and is placed at the tire contact patch of

the vehicle with the ground. The measurements for the hardpoints are taken from the origin of

the vehicle coordinate system; in this case, it is the vehicle back-axle centerline. The

measurement methods have been explained in Section 3.3.

   24  
 
The sub-systems are explained in further detail in the following subsections.

2.5 Sub-Systems in ADAMS modeling:

This section discusses all the sub-system templates, defining the purpose of each in the full

vehicle model, and the way in which these sub-systems have been modeled in the ADAMS

environment.

2.5.1 Front Suspension system:

A suspension system is used to isolate wheel movement relative to the frame, which determines

how a vehicle moves and turns. This is accomplished with a kinematic arrangement of linkages,

dampers and springs. The wheels and tires are attached to the system using a revolute joint,

which allows translational movement in the y-z plane and rotational movement on the z-axis.

The front suspension for the BCMS 2013 is a double wishbone suspension system, with a unique

spring-damper arrangement. The damper is connected to the wishbone via a ‘Damper Cap’. A

picture of the damper cap is shown in Figure 10.

Figure  10:  Damper  cap  setup

   25  
 

This setup is termed as a ‘Direct-Acting’ suspension setup. This setup manages each wheel

independently, hence providing control over modifying wheel and tire parameters. The motion

ratio describes the amount of damper travel for a certain change in wheel travel. In this system,

the vertical wheel movement directly actuates the shock absorbers, eliminating the need for a

‘bell-crank’. This design also eliminated other components associated with the bell crank,

namely, the ‘push-rod to bell crank’ and the ‘bell-crank to shock absorber’ that are used to

adjust the motion ratio. This eliminates the need to describe the bell-crank mechanism in the

model but has a possible negative characteristic of more limited motion ratios. Fig 44 shows the

arrangement of the front suspension, mounted onto the frame rigidly via mounts. The damper for

BCMS 2013 is modeled as a separate part, as explained in Section 2.6.2.

A steering system is attached to the front suspension system using a link called the tie rod via

spherical joints. The attachments for one of the ends are on the rack, which is a part of the

steering sub-system, and for the other end on the upright. The steering controls the wheels via its

attachment at the upright. The kingpin and the castor axis allow the tire to rotate about itself and

are defined by the positions of the upper and the lower ball joint. (UBJ and LBJ). These are

spherical joints.

An anti-roll bar was originally included in the design, but later replaced by spring snubbers

(rubber coil to coil inserts) to supplement roll stiffness. The use of spring snubbers results in a

quicker tuning approach that changes the balance of the car without affecting the tire spring rate.

Along with the above advantage, they are inexpensive, easily replaceable and save money and

time in machining as compared to an ARB.

   26  
 
2.5.2 Rear Suspension System:

The rear suspension system supports the weight of the engine, drivetrain system, sprung and

unsprung rear suspension mass, which constitutes for approximately 55% of the total car weight.

The rear suspension sub-system has attachment points on the frame. It is an independent wheel,

double wishbone system with a direct acting setup, similar to the front suspension. The geometry

differs from the front, in terms of constraints attached to the wheel movement. The wheel cannot

have angular motion along the z-axis of the vehicle, due to the constraints associated with the

drivetrain system. The axle attaches to the upright and prevents the movement of the wheel in the

x-axis direction, but the axle has a linear movement in the lateral direction inside the hubs. The

toe-rod is mounted on the upright via support brackets on one end and is either bolted/ welded to

the lower wishbone on the other end. The toe-rod controls the rear steer of the vehicle.

2.5.3 Steering System:

The steering system of BCMS 2013 is a traditional ‘rack and pinion’ arrangement, which

allows the driver to control the wheels of the car via a set of linkages and a gear reduction

system. The tie-rod is attached to the rack at one end using rod-end bearings and the other end is

attached to the upright in the front suspension system via a spherical (SPR) joint. The lateral

translation of the tie-rod facilitates the angular movement of the wheels, which are attached to

the front suspension via a revolute joint. In order to fully define the ADAMS/car steering

template, the gear reduction ratio for the rack and pinion along with the steering ratio was

defined. The ADAMS/car steering template is shown in Figure 11.

   27  
 

Figure  11:  ISO-­‐  Steering  System

By entering values for coordinates of the hardpoints, the percentage Ackerman steering can be

defined. Percentage Ackerman is a quantity that indicates the movement of the inner wheels of a

car relative to its outer wheels during vehicle cornering. The rotary motion of the steering wheel

is converted into the linear motion by the rack and pinion arrangement via a steering column and

this linear motion is translated to the wheels by the tie rod.

2.5.4 Powertrain and Drivetrain and Brakes:

The Powertrain and Drivetrain sub-systems define the amount of power and torque output of the

engine and how effectively it is transferred to the wheels. Curves generated from the engine

dynamometer testing are entered into ADAMS as input files [17]. The BCMS team currently

uses both eddy-current and water brake dynamometer, to generate these curves. Figure 71 and

72, in Appendix A, shows the final power and torque curves for the BCMS 2013. ADAMS does

not include the internal components of the engine in the template, since it increases the difficulty

of the work, and inertia values for rotary components are difficult to find. The non-availability of
   28  
 
inertia values for internal components of the engine pose a major challenge in developing the

ADAMS/car engine template and this has not been attempted at this point.

The drivetrain system comprises of the axles, tripod, tripod housing (constant velocity joints) and

differential. It deals with the amount of torque transferred to the wheels. It is connected to the

rear suspension sub-system using revolute joints at the hubs. The engine system is connected to

the frame using bushings with finite value of stiffness, which is an equivalent of soft mounts

used in the car to accommodate engine vibration. Attached also are the parametric values that are

associated with the engine and the drivetrain sub-systems.

The brake system is comprised of the brake rotors, brake pads and the brake calipers. This

system is represented graphically in ADAMS with no associated mass and inertia properties

associated with it. Based upon the location of these components (at the four wheels of the car)

this means that the overall vehicle inertia in yaw (rotation around the z axis) will not be

completely defined. This will need to be corrected in future revisions of the model. The

parameters required to fully define the engine and brake sub-system are listed in Figure 42 and

Figure 43 in the Appendix A.

2.5.5 Modeling of Flex Bodies:

The anti- roll bar (ARB) for BCMS 2013 is a Z-bar in the x-y plane working in bending instead

of torsion. Introduction of flexible bodies in a future revision of the model is essential to predict

accurate behavior of this body and the final handling and tuning characteristics of the

suspension. A CAD model of a three-part ARB working in bending is shown in Figure 12.

Figure  12:  Three-­‐part  ARB

   29  
 

As shown in Figure 13, a new template that has been made in ADAMS since this is a non-

traditional way of using an ARB in the modeling of an FSAE vehicle in ADAMS.

Figure  13:  ADAMS  ARB  template

The solid body model is imported into ANSYS as a parasolid (.x_t*) file. The flex body is

modeled as a MASS21 element since there is mass and inertia associated with the anti-roll bar.

Kinematic constraints define how the structural system (rigid and flexible body) is held together,

since rigid and flexible bodies are going to be connected in the ADAMS environment.[6]

Material property and element type is defined in ANSYS for the flexible body for meshing

purposes. A triangular mesh is generated of fine grade. The ANSYS-ADAMS interface is used to

save this meshed component as a modal neutral file keeping scaling factors in mind, since

flexible bodies change dimensions when imported from different software packages
   30  
 
2.6 Part Modeling of Sub-systems:

2.6.1 Tire Development:

There are parts within the ADAMS/car templates, which are modeled independently and then

included in the sub-systems. The first part chosen was ‘Tires’, since the team has experimental

data with regards to the accurate numerical model of the tires. The tires in the multi-body system

are modeled as rigid bodies attached to the hub at the front and the rear suspension sub-system.

The tire model in consideration is a “Magic Formula” based model developed by Hans Pacejka.

[2]. It is not a predictive tire model but a means to represent the force and moment curves and is

still in continual development. ADAMS 2011 allows the usage of this model since it has a lot of

inherent advantages over the previously used Pacejka94 tire model.

Pacejka 2002 Tire handling model for BCMS 2013:

Fred Jabs [1] had extracted fitted models from the raw data given to the team by the Tire Testing

Consortium (TTC). The tire testing facility runs data analysis tests on different tires every two

years. The data used to develop the current tire model is from Round 5. Stackpole Engineering

also provides numerical tire models for ADAMS use, based on PAC2002 model. The agency

uses the same tire data, which is generated by the TTC. But these models had inherent

disadvantages over the one developed for the BCMS by Fred [10]. The Magic Formula on which

the model is based is as follows:

Equation: General form of the “Magic Formula”

y = D sin[C tan-1 {Bx-E (Bx-tan-1 Bx)}] +Sv (1)

x=X+ Sh (2)

Sh= Horizontal Shift; X = Slip angle or Longitudinal slip

SV = Vertical Shift; C= Shape factor; D= Peak factor

   31  
 
The handling performance and directional response of a vehicle are greatly influenced by the

mechanical force and moment generating characteristics of the tire. In vehicle dynamics all the

interaction that can happen with the car, happens only at the four small tire contact patches.

Hence an accurate tire model is critical in aiding the virtual model to become more real. In order

to carry forward and use the work done in accurately quantifying the tire forces for the team, the

PAC2002 model was incorporated in the best possible way and fitted according to the multi-

body software tire test rig requirement.

Since the team is part of the TTC (Tire Testing Consortium) the Team had raw data from the

TTC machines (Round 4 and 5), for which scripts were developed to extract, analyze and

implement the tire data for the selection of the best possible tire[14][15]. The TTC is a research

group, which analyses tires for a variety of parameters at the ‘Calspan Tire Research Facility’,

based in Buffalo, NY. Stackpole Engineering utilizes the same data to create tire models for

ADAMS. The Hoosier R25B tires used by the Bearcat Motorsports were part of the Round 5

testing. These tires were tested on 2 sets of rim widths. The wheels were Keizer aluminum

wheels. The wheel stiffness is assumed to remain constant for the wheels used on the car.

Regardless of the rim width or diameter, all wheels have appropriate backspacing to align the

wheel center with the center of the tire tread. To achieve more accuracy over the previous rounds

of tire testing, attempts were made to enhance data extraction from the model [12] [14] [15]. The

highlights for Round 5 over the previous rounds are as follows:

1) Full drive/brake/combined testing was done for the 10inch tires

2) Each tire/rim combination was put through a full matrix of load, inclination angle and

pressure combinations.
   32  
 
3) A “cold to hot” series of sweeps was added to each test to track the break-in of a new

tire and watch performance change as tread temperature increased. The number of these

sweeps has been increased from Round 4.

4) Certain operating conditions are repeated throughout the test for comparison. This

includes a full repeat of the first pressure (12 psi) after the other test pressures were

recorded. The tire data collected is structured in the SAE tire coordinate system. In this

system the X-axis is the intersection of the wheel plane and the road plane with the

positive direction taken for the wheel moving forward. The Z-axis is perpendicular to the

road plane with a positive direction assumed to be acting downward. The Y-axis is in the

road plane, its direction dictated by the use of a right-handed orthogonal axis system. The

angles ‘ ’ represent the slip angle and the camber angle respectively.

For fitting the data, the TYDEX (tire data exchange wheel axis system) is used. Figure 22,

Appendix A, shows this wheel axis system. It is also the tire system used by ADAMS/Tire for

the implementation of the magic formula. A tire PAC2002 file was made for the Hoosier R25B

tire model. The units are in the metric system since the raw tire data was in metric. The file type

is ‘. tir’ and the tire version is PAC2002. The tire details are as follows:

1) Tire dimensions: 18*6 6 inch rim (0.457 m * 0.1524 m, 0.1524 m rim)

2) Manufacturer: Hoosier

3) Nominal Section Width (m): 0.205 m

4) Nominal Aspect Ratio: (- 35)

5) Inflation pressure considered: 68947.57 Pascal

6) File Format: ASCII

   33  
 
This file is used for the PAC2002 Tire data and Fitting tool in ADAMS. This file includes the

tire model parameters to model the influence of the inflation pressure (Ip) on the steady-state tire

behavior. The units are as follows:

1) Length: meter

2) Force: newton

3) Angle: radians

4) Mass: Kg

5) Time: second

6) Pressure: Pascal

Table 2, Appendix B, lists the data channels used for tire data acquisition at the Tire Test

Consortium, Calspan Facility. The PAC2002 tire model is constructed using the coefficients

shown in Figure 14.

Figure  14:  Coefficients-­‐  tire  development

   34  
 
2.6.2 Shock absorbers

A shock absorber consists of a spring and damper assembly. In BCMS 2013, a coil spring is used

with the damper in a concentric manner. The dampers (OHLINS –TTX25 FSAE special) were

tested on a hydraulic damper dynamometer setup test facility at ThyssenKrupp Bilstein INC of

North America, shown below.

Figure  15:  Damper  test  facility,  ThyssenKrupp  Bilstein  of  North  America

The dampers, manufactured by Penske, were also tested for the same setup in bump and droop at

similar gas pressures. Using the results of the ‘Force-Velocity’ and ‘Force-Displacement’ graphs

and a comparison made by the Team, a decision was taken to use the TTX-25 shocks. A lot of

testing has been done to compare the two shocks, but the simulation model acts as a tool to select

the best spring-damper setup by providing the ability to input spring and damper files to check

for the ride characteristics of the car. It simultaneously shows the effect of these files on other

suspension sub-system parameters. The current shocks have an overall weight of ~ 480gms,

overall length of 200mm. (center to center of spherical bearings) and a stroke of 57mm. It is a

four way adjustable shock with high and low rebound and compression damping.
   35  
 
A figure of the internal schematics of the damper is given in Figure 16. The internal schematics

of the damper in high-speed rebound, and high-speed compression are shown in Figures 38 and

39 in Appendix A respectively.

Cane Creek DB-1

Check valve
Check valve

Piston

Solid Stroke
Compression
Twin Tube
(low speed)
Solid Stroke High Speed
Rebound Compression
(low speed)
Reservoir

High Speed
Dividing Piston
Rebound

Nitrogen
gas

Figure  16:  Internal  Schematics_  TTX-­‐25

This damper uses a piston-cylinder arrangement. It has two work cycles: compression and

extension. The upper part is attached to the frame (i.e. sprung weight) and the lower mount is

attached to the lower wishbone of the front and rear suspensions (unsprung weight) of the BCMS

2013. The piston sits in a hydraulic fluid; the fluid properties and the way it travels through the

orifices of the piston determine the damping. An additional chamber, comprising of pressurized

nitrogen is attached to the main body. It allows for the accommodation of the volume of

hydraulic fluid displaced under compression or extension strokes, providing additional stiffness
   36  
 
from the damper. The input for the ADAMS environment is a force-velocity file and the two

figures have been attached which show the damper testing results.

The full force-velocity curve is used to show the hysteresis in the damper. The curves at different

gas pressures are shown in Figure 45, Appendix A. With this damper, the extension and

compression curves (each way) are almost directly on top of each other. This shows very little

hysteresis. With the Kaz Technologies dampers (used in the past), in the rebound direction the

two corresponding curves are very far apart, showing a large amount of hysteresis, which will

show up as inconsistent damping, and slow reactions.

The force-displacement curve (also called a ‘football’ curve) shows damping force along the Y-

axis and piston rod displacement along the X-axis. This curve is shown in Figure 46, Appendix

A. For the dampers used by BCMS 2013, the curves are smooth as seen in Figure 46. The Kaz

Technologies dampers have a “flutter” to the force-displacement curve lines, created by their

base valves. This also happens in everyday twin tube dampers in an auto or truck implementation

with their base valves. Something else to look for on these plots is lag/cavitation. If, at any point,

the force becomes extremely linear rather than the football shape shown in Figure 46, Appendix

A, the gas pressure is too low, and the fluid is cavitating. The lag will show up on the direction

change (near zero force), when the damper will not have the parabolic-like curve. Instead, the

curve will face the other way (parabolic in the opposite direction), until pressure builds in the

damper, which causes the oil to become liquid again, and the damper will generate more normal

damping force.
   37  
 
2.6.3 Springs:

The spring template in ADAMS requires a force-displacement curve or it calculates the

installed length required based on the force input and the number of coils of the spring. The

spring used has a linear relationship until reaching a non-linearity as it approaches maximum

compression or rebound. Springs with linear characteristics are chosen, since spring behavior

becomes predictable. The ADAMS/car template provides bumpstops to limit spring travel, that

bumpstops have a very high stiffness value. The spring template in ADAMS/car uses

interpolation techniques to estimate stiffness values. Spring definition in ADAMS/car is shown

below in Figure 17.

Figure  17:  Spring  Design_  ADAMS

The direct acting damper setup is essentially a spring-damper setup attached to a damper cap. It

facilitates in easy adjustment for ride height of the car by adding thin aluminum plates called

shims. Fewer number of parts leads to a reduced unsprung mass and elimination of a motion

ratio results in increased linearity in load-transfer pattern from wheel to shock. The load directly

gets transferred to the frame via bolted joints. The setup is relatively rigid as compared to a

push-rod/pull-rod setup. The effects of changes in spring and damper setup are hence more

predictable.
   38  
 
3. Calibration

3.1 Vehicle Mass Moment of Inertia:

This section describes the static calibration procedures adopted for the multi-body model.

Dynamic calibration methods are described in a later section, Section 3.4.

As explained earlier, calibration of sub-systems is an important step in the development of the

multi-body model. The calibration procedures have been divided into static and dynamic parts.

The static parts include furnishing the sub-systems with mass, rotary inertia and geometry data.

Likewise, the dynamic calibration techniques are used to improve the quality of results expected

from the full vehicle and sub-system simulations. Dynamic calibration techniques involve

accelerating or braking of vehicle parts or sub-systems while performing experiments for

collecting numerical data models.

The mass moment of inertia of the rigid body is a fundamental requirement for the virtual

environment to achieve mass balance in the rigid body system. The CAD model developed in

Solidworks calculates the mass moment inertia of the rigid bodies based on simple geometry of

the rigid bodies and the density of the material associated to the part modeled. This mass

moment of inertia is calculated with respect to the back axle centerline of the car. Unfortunately,

the ADAMS model does this with respect to the front axle centerline. To calibrate the simulation

model for the correct inertia values of the entire car in terms of roll, pitch and yaw, experimental

validation of the inertia values was done on a test rig at the Vehicle Inertia Measurement Facility

(VIMF) at the SEA Inc. facility in Columbus, OH.

The test values serve as a starting point for calibration of the inertia model of the rigid body and

also provide an accurate value of the vehicle center of gravity with and without the driver. This

serves as a point for comparison between the design and actual CG of the car. The comparison of
   39  
 
the measured and calculated test is associated with measurement of the inertias, the errors

associated with the derived CG height of the car and ways to account for it. The measured inertia

values allow a more realistic simulation and thus better estimate the vehicle response

characteristics.

3.1.1 Test procedure – Vehicle Inertia Measurement

For the vehicle inertias to be accurate, the total car mass was measured. The total car mass was a

summation of four corner masses. This was done to compare the experimental and designed curb

weight of the car with and without the driver. Apart from the vehicle inertia, the center of gravity

of the vehicle is an important vehicle dynamic parameter. The location of the vehicle CG is

important since ADAMS/Car does not have mass associated with all the rigid bodies in the

BCMS 2013 assembly. The total theoretical inertia value is adjusted to match the experimental

value. This is achieved by adjusting the mass and inertia properties of major, rigid bodies, which

contribute most to the total mass of the full vehicle assembly. This exercise is performed to

correlate the CG values. The test rig has been designed by SEA Inc. and consists of a huge

aluminum platform used as ground for the subject car in concern as seen in Figure 18.

Figure  18:  Vehicle  inertia  measurement  method

   40  
 
After getting the car weights from the corner weight load cells, the track width and wheelbase of

the car were accurately measured. The equations used to measure the vehicle mass moment of

inertia are dependent on several variables. They are as follows:

• CG= Center of gravity height (m)

• K= Approximation constant (dependent on inertia property and vehicle class)

• L= Overall length of the car (m)

• m= Vehicle mass

• TW= Track width

To get the inertia values, the CG value must first be known. The procedure is outlined below:

The VIMF test calculates the CG height by averaging four individual CG heights (two tilting the

vehicle forward and two backwards) by attaching weights to the aluminum platform. A thorough

effort has been made to enlist important rigid bodies whose inertia values would be required in

ADAMS. The variables used for CG calculations at the test rig are as follows. [5]

• Hv= Vehicle center of gravity distance below pivot axis

• Hp= Platform’s center of gravity distance below the pivot axis

• Wv= Weight of the vehicle

• Wp= Weight of the platform

• p = Tilt angle of the platform

• Xv = Movement if the vehicle relative to the platform in the platform’s X- axis

• HA= Position relative to the pivot axis of the applied weight in the platform’s Z-axis.

• LA= Position relative to the pivot axis of the applied weight in the platform’s X-axis

• WA= Applied weight.

   41  
 

Figures 19 through 21 show the vehicle inertia test setup and the results of the vehicle inertia

measurement test.

Figure 19: Vehicle Inertia test facility

   42  
 

Figure  20:  Vehicle  Inertia  Test  Results_1

Figure  19:  Vehicle  inertia  measurement  facility

Figure  21:  Vehicle  Inertia  Test  Results_2

   43  
 
3.2 Weight Audit of Bearcat Motorsports 2013:

Achieving mass equivalency is the initial key to calibration of the simulation model. The

theoretical and the experimental weight audit acts as a metric for mass calibration of the full

vehicle ADAMS model. The measurement of the theoretical mass of the car was done by

carefully entering material details for sub-system components in the Solidworks model,

assuming the volume of the CAD model is as close to the real part as possible. The CAD model

calculates the mass based on simple volume and density values.

Experimental weight audit was achieved by measuring the mass of every single component of all

sub-systems using a calibrated scale, which had a resolution up to two decimal places. Figure 22

shows car on calibrated scales at the SEA VIMF facility to confirm the accurate weight

measurements.

Figure  22:  Experimental  weight  measurement

Tables, in Appendix B, show the values generated after the theoretical and the experimental

weight audit. The material densities were closely monitored and the CAD model materials were

re-entered to match the experimental masses of the component. The percentage error in weight
   44  
 
values comparing the theoretical weight measured from Solidworks and experimental values

from a weigh scale in the table below:

Table 2-Subsystem weight audit    
Sub-system Theoretical Weight Experimental Weight Percentage Error
 
Front suspension 10.64 11.22 5.16
 
Rear suspension 9.54 10.77 11.4  

Engine 58.63 47.60 23.17  

Frame 29.96 35.92 16.59  

Miscellaneous 19.498 21.683 10.07  

The percentage error in the frame and Engine systems is high due to the lack of modeling

expertise of components associated with this system in Solidworks since the number of

components associated with these systems is very high.

3.3 Coordinate measurement for the hardpoints:

The simulation model has to accurately match in shape its digital twin in space; hence, it is

imperative to accurately define the geometry of the hardpoints as mentioned in the previous

chapter. In order to arrive at the best approximation for these values, both modeling and

experimental methods were adopted. In the modeling approach, the measurements for the X, Y

and Z locations of the hardpoints were taken from CAD model of the BCMS 2013. Readings

were taken by measuring the values of all three coordinates from the origin of the Cartesian

coordinate system for the vehicle. This method was followed by an experimental approach. It is

necessary to supplement the CAD data with the physical test data, to account for the inaccuracies

and compliances that are generated in the hardpoint coordinate values during the fabrication

process.
   45  
 
In order to perform this test, two steel plates, which acted as reference planes, were used.

Measurements of the hardpoint coordinates were taken using a tape from the origin of the

Cartesian coordinate system. The coordinates of all the hardpoints in both the methods were

measured from the back- axle centerline of the car. Table 18-19 shows the values associated

with these hardpoints. These include suspension connection points on the frame, the drivetrain

and engine connection points on the frame and also the steering connections for the rack and the

pinion steering system adopted by the team. ADAMS virtual environment measures the same set

of hardpoints from the front-axle of the vehicle; hence a lot of care was taken to translate the

coordinates of the hardpoints from the back-axle to the front-axle

3.4 Pseudo static Calibration

3.4.1 Spring File Calibration

In order to supplement the static calibration procedures, some pseudo static calibrations were

performed. In order to achieve results with minimal errors, multiple numbers of tests can be

performed. Due to time and resource constraints, only few tests have been performed and are

described below. The following procedure describes the tests performed to generate accurate

spring stiffness data, which will be used as an input for the spring model, part of the front and the

rear suspension sub-systems. A hydraulic ram was used to compress springs by applying load at

one end of the spring. A hydraulic test bench was used in a closed loop circuit to measure the

Force versus displacement curve for the springs. Figure 23 shows the spring stiffness setup.

Figure  23:  Spring  stiffness  experiment  setup

   46  
 
The spring input files for the Adams files are as follows:

Four sets of springs were tested using the procedure, with the following results.

The default position of the hydraulic piston is 38.1mm on the left of its complete travel.

1) The details of the load cell used are as follows:

The force/ load applied on the spring was measured by a rod-style load cell, with a

capacity of 8.89kN, with sensitivity number of 2mV/V, having a 6-pin connector, with an

overload limit (side force) of 13.34kN and a side force load limit of 0.2224kN.

2) A medium duty hydraulic cylinder has been used as part of the rig with a nominal

pressure rating of 6894744.82 N/m^2(1000psi), depending on bore size. The cylinder has

been connected to a closed loop hydraulic rig whose oil pressure and piston position is

controlled by knobs attached on the electrical panel, which is a part of the rig

construction.

3) A National Instrument data acquisition system was used with Matlab based Mini-X

software (UC developed) to read the data.

Due to the mounting conditions of the plate and the spring, a static load exists on the load cell.

The table for the Force vs. Displacement characteristics of the spring was made using a

resolution of 0.1 inches. Four sets of springs were tested to validate the test setup and minimize

the random and the bias errors. Two sets of readings were taken for each spring to minimize

human errors.
   47  
 
Test Case 1: The spring in concern here is 13134.51 N/m (75 pounds / inch) and the free length

of the spring is 0.12 m (4.8 inches). The static load for this setup is 17.79 N (4 pounds.)

Test case 2: The spring in concern here is 14885.78 N/m (85 pounds/ inch) and the free length of

the spring is 0.126 m (4.97 inches). The static load for this setup is 17.79 N (4 pounds.)

Test case 3: The spring in concern here is 95-pounds/ inch and the free length of the spring is

4.80 inches. The static load for this setup is 20.5 pounds.

Test case 4: The spring in concern here is 170 pounds / inch and the free length of the spring is

4.85 inches. The static load for this setup is 14.6 pounds. The results for the above test cases are

shown in Appendix A.

3.4.2 Adams motion ratio plot:

A second type of dynamic calibration determines the motion ratio calibration of the vehicle. This

calibration test was divided in to two parts. The theoretical motion ratio test, which was

performed in the ADAMS environment, is part of the conclusions chapter and will be explained

in Section 4.1. The experimental approach is as follows:

3.4.2.1 Experimental Calibration of the front and rear suspension subsystems:

The front suspension subsystem is experimentally tested for its motion ratio, values for which

will be used as a reference for the theoretical motion ratio test performed in ADAMS simulation

environment. The motion ratio tested in this procedure is the (wheel travel/damper travel.) The

additional motion ratio of (bell-crank travel)/ (damper travel) are non-existent due to the absence

of bell-crank in the system which is replaced by direct acting dampers.

The test apparatus uses the MINI-X data acquisition software system to which a ‘National

Instruments’ DATA ACQ is connected, which is the hardware used for gathering data from the
   48  
 
two sensors used. The first sensor is a string potentiometer and the second, is a ‘Linear Variable

Differential Transformer’ commonly known as an ‘LVDT’

3.4.2.2 Test Procedure:

The string pot was attached to the lower wishbone mount and the LVDT was connected to the

damper (Ohlins TTX-25) in parallel. A figure to depict the experiment is attached below.

Figure  24:  Test  procedure-­‐  Motion  ratio

A wooden spacer was made for the shaft of the sensor to activate the nut on the damper cap. The

string pot was rigidly placed/ mounted on the ground, and the string was kept as parallel to the

lower wishbone mount as possible to measure the exact pull of the string. The exact experimental

setup is shown in the Appendix A, Fig 68, Fig 69 and Fig 70.

Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 were two sample cases of making the simulation environment more real.

Multiple calibration tests, experimental and otherwise could be performed on all the sub-systems

to achieve a good ADAMS model.

   49  
 
3.5 Calibration examples:

An example would be Figure 25 which shows a percentage error of 4.6511 for FVSA at a static

camber angle of(-1 degree).

Figure  25:  FVSA  vs.  camber  change-­‐  %  error

Similarly, Figure 62 and Figure 63 in Appendix A, shows the value of static kingpin inclination

and front suspension roll rate in ADAMS to be 6.3 degrees and 185 N-mm/ deg, the theoretical

values being 5.8 degrees and 201N-mm/ deg respectively.

A Front suspension motion ratio test was also conducted in the Adams simulation environment.

The results were used as a reference for the same test performed experimentally.

A front suspension file, comprising of a direct acting setup was used with the parameters that

made the system are as follows: On the abscissa is the damper travel, and on the ordinate is the

wheel travel. Motion ratio for the front suspension is defined as a ratio to measure the wheel

travel to the shock travel. In the test case performed in Adams, the value comes out to be 0.76,

vis-à-vis the value for the front motion ratio, which was experimentally obtained, is 0.88. The

graph associated with the test in the simulation environment is shown on Figure 60. The graph

associated with the experimental test is shown in the Figure 61.

   50  
 
The discrepencies in theoretical weight and experimental weight introduces error in experimental

tests which involve measuring the modal parameters of the car (refer to table 2).There is

approximately 12 % error in weight measurements for the front and the rear suspension sub-

systems. An example in that direction would be the modal testing of the frame for torsional

stiffness[16] .The error in resonance frequencies as measured in FEA software and experimental

work, may be as a result of weight error.This helps to optimize designs in CAD softwares

keeping in mind the material proeprties offered in the software and the properties of materials

used in the car are different.

   51  
 
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations for Future work

The thesis work has established an initial working multi-body model that has the capability to

predict vehicle behavior. More calibration tests have to be performed for the different sub-

systems to improve the accuracy of the parameter files used for making the model. The objective

was to correlate the vehicle static and dynamic parameters extracted from the model after

calibration. The static portion of this goal has been minimally achieved but it is clear that getting

even a completely calibrated model with respect to statics has been an enormous undertaking.

The further development of the static calibrations and dynamic calibrations will need to be left

for others, achieving sufficient levels of accuracy between the theoretical model of BCMS 2013

and the simulated model of BCMS 2013. At this point, the model is working and is primarily

useful for trending of suspension kinematics, since the BCMS 2013 has been mainly calibrated

for the front and rear suspension sub-system.Visualizing those trends aids in understanding

abstract suspension development parameters. After running sub-system simulations in ADAMS,

graphs were generated to determine the values of a selective set of parameters used for vehicle

dynamic calculations, comparing it with the theoretical model generated from empirical

calculations. Error in the values generated was used as a benchmark for the ‘correctness’ of the

model. Error between verified and calibrated files range from approximately 5-15% .Full car

analysis requires extensive calibration and verification which is a part of the future scope of the

project. The bigbest unforeseen challenge was to match similar sub-systems models from

different software platforms.

4.1 Future Scope:

In order to achieve better simulation results, more correlation techiniques have to be used.

Dynamic full-car simulations have been performed in ADAMS, but lacks accurate calibrated
   52  
 
input data, an example of which is, the inertia of the rotary components of the engine, hence

future work would include measuring accurate engine inertias. The accuracy of the power and

torque curves is a function of the dynamometer used, hence there is a need for better engine test

setup. The use of a CMM for hardpoint location measurement would go a long way in making

the location of suspension hardpoints in space more accurate. A lot of work has been completed

by electronics team for data acquisition using the Performance Electronics data acquisition

system and the Motec data logger. Validation of longitudinal and lateral tire slip using wheel

speed sensors and damper travel using shock travel sensor etc using the above DAQ system,

would aid in correlating the calibrated with the actual test data. ADAMS platform allows the

user to generate custom driver profiles to mimic real driver ( .dcf ) files. It is imperative to use

this functionality since it allows the team to understand the race lines a driver would take on a

defined path.
   53  
 
4.2 References

[1] Milliken, William F., and Douglas L. Milliken. Race car vehicle dynamics. Ed. L. Daniel
Metz. Warrendale, PA: Sae International, 1995.

[2] Pacejka, Hans. Tyre and vehicle dynamics. Elsevier, 2005.

[3] Gillespie, Thomas D. "Fundamentals of vehicle dynamics (R-114)." SAE International,

March (1992).

[4] Blundell, Michael, and Damian Harty. The multibody systems approach to vehicle dynamics.
Access Online via Elsevier, 2004.

[5] Ronald, A. "Bixel et al: Development in Vehicle Center of Gravity and Inertial Parameter
Estimation and Measurement.”

[6] Chunhuaa, Z. H. A. O., et al. "Study on modeling methods of flexible body in ADAMS."
(2011).

[7] http://www.ohlinsusa.com/files/files/Schematic.pdf

[8] Smith, Carroll. Tune to win. Fallbrook: Aero Publishers, 1978.

[9] C. Rouelle, Vehicle Dynamics & Race Car Engineering Seminar, Denver, CO: Optimum G
LLC, 2008

[10] M. J. Stackpole, A. Stackpole and T. Stackpole, "PAC2002 Fitting Results - FSAE Tire
Testing Program - ADAMS/2005r2 Support," Stackpole Engineering Services, Inc., North
Canton, OH, 2008.

[11] Simplified Tools and Methods for Chassis and Vehicle Dynamics Development for FSAE
Vehicles – Fred Jabs

[12] Kasprzak, E., and David Gentz. "The formula SAE tire test consortium—tire testing and
data handling." SAE Paper (2006): 01-3606.

[13] "TTX25 MkII." Öhlins Performance Suspension, Shocks, Struts, and Dampers Home.
Ohlins, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.

[14] "Milliken Research Associates, Inc. -- FSAE Tire Test Consortium." Milliken Research
Associates, Inc. -- FSAE Tire Test Consortium. Milliken Research Associates, n.d. Web. 17 Oct.
2013.

[15] Calspan TIRF; FSAE TTC; "Round 5 Data," 3 April 2012. [Online]. Available:
   54  
 
http://sae.wsu.edu/ttc/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=78. [Accessed 3 April 2012].

[16] Torsional Stiffness Measuring Machine and Automated Frame Design tools- Thomas Steed

[17] Intake manifold design for an air restricted design- David Moster
   55  
 
Appendix A: Figures

Figure  26:  SAE  Tire  Axis  System

 
 
Figure  27:  TYDEX  W-­‐  axis  System
 
 
   56  
 

Figure  28  Front  view-­‐  Front  suspension

Z  
Y  

X  

Figure  29:  Plan-­‐  Front  Suspension Figure  30:  ISO-­‐  Front  Suspension
   57  
 

Figure  31:  Front  View-­‐  Rear  suspension

X
Y

Figure  33:  ISO-­‐  Rear  Suspension

Figure  32:  Plan:  Rear  Suspension
   58  
 

Figure  34:  BCMS_coordinates_1

Figure  35:  BCMS_Coordinates_2  

   59  
 

Figure  36:  Damper  Testing-­‐  Penske Figure  37:  Damper  Testing-­‐  Ohlins
   60  
 

High Speed Rebound Stroke High Speed Compression Stroke

Piston
rebound
shim stack
opens

Rebound
poppet opens
(high speed) Compression
poppet opens
(high speed)
Piston
Displaced oil compression Displaced oil
shim stack
opens

Figure  38:  Internal  schematics-­‐  High  speed  rebound Figure  39:  Internal  schematics-­‐  High  speed  compression  

ion  
   61  
 

Figure  40  Joints-­‐names  and  Types  -­‐Front  Suspension

   62  
 
 

Figure  41:  Joints-­‐Names  and  Types-­‐  Rear  Suspension

   63  
 

Figure  42:  Brake  System  Sample  Requirements

Figure  43:  Engine  System  Sample  Requirements

   64  
 

Figure  44:  Linkage  Diagram-­‐  Front  Suspension

Figure  45:  Linkage  Diagram-­‐  Rear  Suspension

   65  
 

Figure  46:  Kinematics-­‐  Front  Suspension

Figure  47:  Kinematics-­‐  Rear  Suspension

   66  
 

Figure  48:  Force  vs.  Velocity-­‐  Ohlins

Figure  49:  Force  vs.  Displacement-­‐  Ohlins

   67  
 

Figure  50:  Spring  Stiffness  Testing-­‐  Apparatus

Figure  51:  Strain  Gauge  based  load  cell

   68  
 

Figure  52:  Spring  stiffness  test  apparatus

Figure  53:  Spring  stiffness  Test_1  

   69  
 

                       
Figure  54:    Spring  Stiffness  Test_2

                     
Figure  55:  Spring  Stiffness  test_3  
   70  
 

                                     
               Figure  56:  Spring  Stiffness  test_4

Figure  57:  Damper  input  file

   71  
 

Figure  58:  Force-­‐  Velocity-­‐  Penske  

Figure  59:  Force-­‐  Velocity  Ohlins

   72  
 

Figure  60  ADAMS  motion  ratio  test  results

                                     
Figure  61:  Experimental  Motion  ratio  test-­‐results
   73  
 

Figure  62:  Front  static  kingpin  inclination

Figure  63:    Front  suspension  roll  rate

   74  
 

Figure  64:  Rear  suspension-­‐FVSA

Figure  65:  ADAMS  sub-­‐system  test  bench

   75  
 

Figure  66:  Gantt  chart  Representation  -­‐  2013

   76  
 

  Figure  67:  Thesis  timeline

   77  
 

Figure  68:  Experimental  setup-­‐  motion  ratio  test Figure  69:  Experimental  setup-­‐  motion  ratio  test

Figure  70:  Experimental  setup-­‐  motion  ratio  

test
   78  
 

Figure  71:  Engine_input_1

Figure  72:  Engine_input_2

 
   79  
 
Appendix  B  

Table  3:  Calspan  Tire  Data  Channels  

Channel Description TIRF USCS TIRF SI TYDEX

units
‘ET’ Elapsed time seconds seconds seconds

‘testid’ Calspan TIRF ID number - - -

‘tireid’ Tire Description - - -

‘P’ Inflation Pressure Psi KPa Pascal

‘N’ Tire RPM Rpm Rpm Radian/sec

‘V’ Roadway Velocity Mph Kmph Meter/sec

‘SA’ Slip Angle- SAE J2047 Degrees Degrees Rad

‘SL’ Slip Longitudinal- SAE J2047 - - -

‘SR’ Slip Ratio – Calspan TIRF - - -

‘FZ’ Normal Force SAE J2047 Lbf Newtons Newtons

‘IA’ Inclination Angle SAE J2047 Degrees Degrees Rad

‘FX’ Longitudinal Force SAE J2047 Lbf Newtons Newtons

‘FY’ Lateral Force SAE J2047 Lbf Newtons Newtons

‘NFX’ FX/FZ- Longitudinal Coefficient - - -

‘NFY’ FY/FZ- Lateral Coefficient - - -

‘MX’ Overturning Moment SAE J2047 Lbf*ft. N*meter N*meter

‘MZ’ Aligning Moment SAE J2047 Lbf*ft. N*meter N*meter

‘AMBTMP’ Ambient Temperature Degree F Degree C Degree K

‘RST’ Roadway Surface Temperature Degree F Degree C Degree K

‘TSTC’ Center Tire Tread Surface Temperature Degree F Degree C Degree K

‘TSTI’ Inner Tire Tread Surface Temperature Degree F Degree C Degree K

‘TSTO’ Outer Tire Tread Surface Temperature Degree F Degree C Degree K

‘RE’ Effective Rolling Radius Inch Cm Meter

‘RL’ Loaded Radius Inch cm Meter

   80  
 
 

Table  4:  PAC2002  Tire  Model  Coefficients_1  

Sr. No Property Value Comment

1 Property File Format PAC2002
2 USE_MODE 14 Tire use switch
3 VXLOW 1
4 LONGVL 16.6 Measurement speed

Table  5:  PAC2002  Tire  Model  Coefficients_2  

Sr.no Property Value Comment

1 Unloaded radius 0.2236 Free tire radius
2 Width 0.205 Nominal section tire width
3 Aspect ratio 0.35 Nominal aspect ratio
4 Rim radius 0.127 Nominal rim radius
5 Rim width 0.1524 Rim width

Table  6:  PAC2002  Tire  model  Coefficients_3  

Sr.no Property Value Comment

1 KPUMIN -1.5 Minimum valid wheel slip
2 KPUMAX 1.5 Maximum valid wheel slip

Table  7:  PAC2002  Tire  Model  Coefficients_4  

Sr.no Property Value Comment

1 ALPMIN -1.5708 Minimum valid slip angle
2 ALPMIN 1.5708 Maximum valid slip angle

Table  8:  PAC2002  Tire  Model  Coefficients_5  

Sr.no Property Value Comment

1 CAMMIN -0.26181 Minimum valid camber angle
2 CAMMAX 0.26181 Maximum valid camber angle
   81  
 

Table  9:  PAC2002  Tire  Model  Coefficients_6  

Sr.no Property Value Comment

1 FZMIN 225 Minimum valid wheel load
2 FZMAX 10125.0 Maximum valid wheel load

Table10:  PAC2002  Tire  Model  Coefficients_7  

Sr.no Property Value Comment

1 QSX1 0.0086 Lateral force induced overturning
moment
2 QSX2 0.8313 Camber induced overturning couple
3 QSX3 0.0594 Fy induced overturning couple

Table11:  PAC2002  Tire  Model  Coefficients_8  

Sr.no Property Value Comment

1 Vertical Stiffness 107000.0 Tire vertical stiffness
2 Vertical damping 3100.0 Tire vertical damping
3 BREFF -2.1464 Low load stiffness e.r.r.
4 DREFF 15.655 Peak value of e.r.r.
5 FREFF 2.8975 High load stiffness e.r.r.
6 FNOMIN 852.93 Nominal wheel load
   82  
 
Table  12:  PAC2002  Tire  Model  Coefficients_9  

Sr.no Property Value Comment

1 LFZO 1.0 Scale factor of nominal (rated) load
2 LCX 1.0 Scale factor of Fx shape factor
3 LMUX 1.0 Scale factor of Fx peak friction coefficient
4 LEX 1.0 Scale factor of Fx curvature factor
5 LKX 1.0 Scale factor of slip stiffness
6 LHX 1.0 Scale factor of horizontal shift
7 LVX 1.0 Scale factor of vertical shift
8 LGAX 1.0 Scale factor of camber for Fx
9 LCY 1.0 Scale factor of Fy shape factor
10 LMUY 1.0 Scale factor of Fy peak friction coefficient
11 LEY 1.0 Scale factor of Fy curvature factor
12 LKY 1.0 Scale factor of Fy cornering stiffness
13 LHY 1.0 Scale factor of Fy horizontal shift
14 LVY 1.0 Scale factor of Fy vertical shift
15 LGAY 1.0 Scale factor of camber for Fy
16 LTR 1.0 Scale factor of peak of pneumatic trail
17 LRES 1.0 Scale factor of offset of residual torque
18 LGAZ 1.0 Scale factor of camber for Mz
19 LXAL 1.0 Scale factor of alpha influence on Fx
20 LYKA 1.0 Scale factor of alpha influence on Fx
21 LVYKA 1.0 Scale factor of kappa induced Fy
22 LS 1.0 Scale factor of Moment arm of Fx
23 LSGKP 1.0 Scale factor of Relaxation length of Fx
24 LSGAL 1.0 Scale factor of Relaxation length of Fy
25 LGYR 1.0 Scale factor of gyroscopic torque
26 LMX 1.0 Scale factor of overturning couple
27 LVMX 1.0 Scale factor of Mx vertical shift
28 LMY 1.0 Scale factor of rolling resistance torque
   83  
 

Table  13:  PAC2002  Tire  Model  Coefficients_10  

Sr.no Property Value Comment

1 PCX1 1.7917 Shape factor Cfx for longitudinal force
2 PDX1 2.5626 Longitudinal friction Mux at Fznom
3 PDX2 -0.8766 Variation of friction Mux with load
4 PDX3 10.9922 Variation of friction Mux with camber
5 PEX1 0.5970 Longitudinal curvature Efx at Fznom
6 PEX2 0.6872 Variation of curvature Efx with load
7 PEX3 0.9788 Variation of curvature Efx with load squared
8 PEX4 -0.1083 Factor in curvature Efx while driving
9 PKX1 70.7751 Longitudinal slip stiffness Kfx/Fz at Fznom
10 PKX2 -15.6214 Variation of slip stiffness Kfx/Fz with load
11 PKX3 0.0130 Exponent in slip stiffness Kfx/Fz with load
12 PHX1 0.0020 Horizontal shift Shx at Fznom
13 PHX2 0.0015 Variation of shift Shx with load
14 PVX1 -0.0798 Vertical shift Svx/Fz at Fznom
15 PVX2 -0.0969 Variation of shift Svx/Fz with load
16 RBX1 -21.2425 Slope factor for combined slip Fx reduction
17 RBX2 -29.7784 Variation of slope Fx reduction with kappa
18 RCX1 0.8081 Shape factor for combined slip Fx reduction
19 REX1 -2.3930 Curvature factor of combined Fx
20 REX2 9.3902 Curvature factor of combined Fx with load
21 RHX1 -0.0153 Shift factor for combined slip Fx reduction
22 PTX1 0.85683 Relaxation length SigKap0/Fz at Fznom
23 PTX2 0.00011 Variation of SigKap0/Fz with load
24 PTX3 -1.3131 Variation of SigKap0/Fz with exponent of load

Table  14:  PAC2002  Tire  Model  Coefficients_11  

Sr.no Property Value Comment

 
1 QSY1 0.01 Rolling resistance torque coefficient
2 QSY2 0 Rolling resistance torque depending on Fx
3 QSY3 0 $Rolling resistance torque depending on speed
4 QSY4 0 Rolling resistance torque depending on speed ^4
   84  
 

Table  15:  PAC2002  Tire  Model  Coefficients_12  

Sr.no Property Value Comment

1 QBZ1 10.0298 Trail slope factor for trail Bpt at Fznom
2 QBZ2 -21.7061 Variation of slope Bpt with load
3 QBZ3 57.4837 Variation of slope Bpt with load squared
4 QBZ4 -3.2488 Variation of slope Bpt with camber
5 QBZ5 0 Variation of slope Bpt with absolute camber
6 QBZ9 -14.9000 Slope factor Br of residual torque Mzr
7 QBZ10 -0.1552 Slope factor Br of residual torque Mzr
8 QCZ1 1.8690 Shape factor Cpt for pneumatic trail
9 QDZ1 1.0368 Peak trail Dpt" = Dpt*(Fz/Fznom*R0)
10 QDZ2 -2.6120 Variation of peak Dpt" with load
11 QDZ3 -3.1727 Variation of peak Dpt" with camber
12 QDZ4 43.8455 Variation of peak Dpt" with camber squared
14 QDZ6 -0.0254 Peak residual torque Dmr" = Dmr/(Fz*R0)
15 QDZ7 0.0019 Variation of peak factor Dmr" with load
16 QDZ8 -2.1903 Variation of peak factor Dmr" with camber
17 QDZ9 0.2102 Variation of peak factor Dmr" with camber and load
18 QEZ1 1.0365 Trail curvature Ept at Fznom
19 QEZ2 -0.0242 Variation of curvature Ept with load
20 QEZ3 0.0072 Variation of curvature Ept with load squared
21 QEZ4 0.0029 Variation of curvature Ept with sign of Alpha-t
22 QEZ5 -0.0716 Variation of Ept with camber and sign Alpha-t
23 QHZ1 0.0071 Trail horizontal shift Sht at Fznom
24 QHZ2 0.00098 Variation of shift Sht with load
25 QHZ3 -0.2925 Variation of shift Sht with camber
26 QHZ4 0.1884 Variation of shift Sht with camber and load
27 SSZ1 -0.0370 Nominal value of s/R0: effect of Fx on Mz
28 SSZ2 -0.0469 Variation of distance s/R0 with Fy/Fznom
29 SSZ3 0.9717 Variation of distance s/R0 with camber
30 SSZ4 -1.3253 Variation of distance s/R0 with load and camber
31 QTZ1 0 Gyration torque constant
32 MBELT 0
   85  
 

Table  16:  Weight  and  Inertia  Properties_1  

Sr. Sub-system-Suspension Theoretical Experiment Center of Mass Location Mass Moment of Inertia
no Part Name Mass (Kg) al Mass X Y Z Ixx Iyy Izz
(Kg) (m) (m) (m) Kg-m^2 Kg-m^2 Kg-m^2
1 Hoosier R25B 2.9 3.5 0 0.0013 0 0.10642 0.171 0.10642
2 Wheels 2.5537 2.2 0 -0.033 0 0.025699 0.0357 0.025699
3 Calipers P34G 0.6985 With 0.0675 0.0246 0.03302 0.00161 0.004541 0.004175
upright
4 Damper-TTX 25 0.448 0.93 0.0202 -0.021 0.02288 3.048 0.56305 0.80584
5 Hub 0.6304 With 0 0 -0.0297 0.001428 0.001428 0.000834
upright
6 Upright 0.7393 3.1 0.0050 0.0071 0.00457 0.000921 0.001498 0.002
7 Steering Mount (Upright) 0.12 With upright With Upright
8 Damper strut 0.06123 With 0.000287 0.00029 0.000032
damper
9 Ride height Adjusters 0.03628 N/A
10 ARB Mounting plate 0.04895 With Inconsequential

11 Shock mounting plate 0.04895 Chassis

12 Front rotor 0.6803 With 0 0.0025 0 0.001656 0.0033 0.00166

upright

13 Upper Wishbone 0.2086 0.25 -0.033 0 -0.0005 0.00382 0.00436 0.000550

14 Lower Wishbone 0.3129 0.300 -0.036 -0.172 0 0.01206 0.00163 0.01368
15 Tie-rod 0.1288 0.11 0 0 -0.0005 0.003825 0.003825 7.023E-6
16 GE-8C bearing 0.01 0.01 N/A
17 Chassis Mounts (upper F) 0.14968 0.15
18 Chassis Mounts (upper R) 0.14968 0.15
With Chassis
19 Chassis Mounts (lower F) 0.210 0.235
20 Chassis Mounts (lower R) 0.210 0.235
21 Upper Damper Mounts 0.13 With
Chassis

22 Springs 0.188 0.220 With Dampers

Total 10.64332 11.12
   86  
 
Table  17:  Weight  and  Inertia  Properties_2  

Sr. Sub-system-Suspension Theoretical Experimental Center of Mass Location Mass Moment of Inertia
no Part Name Mass(Kg) Mass(Kg) X Y Z Ixx Iyy Izz
(Rear-Left)
(m) (m) (m) Kg-m^2 Kg-m^2 Kg-m^2
1 Hoosier R25B 2.9 3.5 0 0.0013 0 0.10642 0.171 0.10642

2 Wheels 2.5537 2.2 0 -0.033 0 0.025699 0.0357 0.025699

3 Caliper- AP Racing 4226 0.24 0.24 0.0675 0.0246 0.03302 0.00161 0.004541 0.004175
4 Damper-TTX 25 0.448 0.895 0.0202 -0.021 0.02288 3.048 0.56305 0.80584
5 Hub 0.5125 With upright 0 0 -0.0297 0.001428 0.001428 0.000834
6 Upright 0.893577 2.77 0.0050 0.0071 0.00457 0.000921 0.001498 0.002
7 Steering Mount(Upright) N/A

8 Damper strut 0.05805 With damper 0 0 0.0579 0.000287 0.00029 0.000032

9 Ride height Adjusters 0.03628 N/A
Inconsequential
10 ARB Mounting plate N/A
11 Shock mounting plate 0.02585 With Chassis
12 Rear rotor 0.3084 With upright 0 0.0025 0 0.001656 0.0033 0.00166
13 Upper Wishbone 0.15875 0.29 -0.033 0 -0.0005 0.00382 0.00436 0.000550

14 Lower Wishbone 0.2222 0.33 -0.036 -0.172 0 0.01206 0.00163 0.01368

15 Tie-rod 0.0821 0.15 0 0 -0.0005 0.003825 0.003825 7.023E-6
16 GE-8C bearing 0.01 0.01 N/A
17 Chassis Mounts(upper F) 0.160571 0.12
18 Chassis Mounts(upper R) 0.1179 0.06 With Chassis
19 Chassis Mounts(lower F) 0.2 0.2
20 Chassis Mounts(lower R) 0.2 0.2
21 Upper Damper Mounts 0.13 With Chassis
22 Springs 0.188 0.220 With Dampers
Total 9.5439 10.775
   87  
 

Table  18:  Hardpoint  Location  Coordinates  (Front)  

Sr.no Point Name X-location Y-location Z-location

(mm) (mm) (mm)

1 Driveshaft inner 267.0 -200.0 255.0

2 Lower control arm front -98.59 -280.075 116.052
3 Lower control arm outer -3.722 -525.91 130.35
4 Lower control arm rear 69.282 -280.075 116.052
5 Lower strut mount -5.689 -470.12 180.0
6 (S) Rack house mount 40.74 -280.075 144.625
7 Sub frame front -133.0 -450.0 180.0
8 Sub frame rear 667.0 -450.0 180.0
9 Tierod inner 40.794 -274.07 144.625
10 Tierod outer 30.515 -587.026 175.97
11 Top damper mount 30.0 -202.61 548.245
12 Upper control arm front 98.592 -280.5115 272.989
13 Upper control arm outer 11.415 -517.75 306.275
14 Upper control arm rear -53.573 -280.07 272.754
15 Wheel center 57.029 -605.15 259.697
16 Global part reference 0.0 0.0 0.0
17 (S) Intermediate shaft forward 116.994 -5.145 271.628
18 (S) Intermediate shaft rear 279.4 -5.145 436.728
19 (S) Pinion pivot 40.794 -5.145 144.628
20 (S) Input rotation 200.0 200.0 0.0
21 (S) Input slider 200.0 0.0 0.0
22 (S) Input translation 200.0 -200.0 0.0
23 (S) Steering wheel center 469.9 -5.145 512.928
   88  
 

Table  19:  Hardpoint  Location  Coordinates  (Rear)  

Sr.no Point Name X-location Y-location Z-location

(mm) (mm) (mm)

1 Drive shaft inner 1550.51 -157.13 213.15

2 Lca front 1225.50 -212.38 129.04
3 Lca outer 1542.48 -502.75 145.60
4 Lca rear 1631.57 -211.94 127.08
5 Lower strut mount 1540.65 -452.39 162.80
6 Subframe front 1250.0 -220.0 180.0
7 Subframe rear 1600.0 -220.0 180.0
8 Tierod inner 1631.57 -211.34 147.97
9 Tierod outer 1648.07 -499.33 164.6
10 Strut top mount 1401.32 -192.10 455.60
11 Uca front 1397.24 -275.1305 263.34
12 Uca outer 1574.72 -471.80 325.39
13 Uca rear 1619.72 -274.95 268.54
14 Wheel center 1606.42 -605.15 223.61
15 global part reference 0.0 0.0 0.0
16 Steering input rotation 200.0 200.0 0.0
17 Steering input slider 200.0 0.0 0.0
18 Steering input translation 200.0 -200.0 0.0
   89  
 
Table  20:  Weight  Audit  -­‐  Drivetrain  

Sr. No Sub-system - Part Name Theoretical Mass (Kg) Experimental Mass  

(Kg)
 
1 Frame 29.9688 35.92
 
2 Axle (Left) 0.8618 0.66
3 Axle (Right) 1.108 0.85  

4 Tripod 0 0  
5 Tripod Housing 0.7 0.72
 
6 Differential 2.8803 3.15
 
7 Differential (1,2,3) 0.7244 1.15
8 Chain 0.74 0.74  
9 Sprocket and Chain Guard 1.02 1.05  

Table  21:  Weight  Audit  -­‐  Powertrain  

Sr. Sub-system-Suspension
No Part Name Theoretical Mass (Kg) Experimental Mass
(Kg)
(Engine)
1 Engine (WET) 34.0194 36.5
2 Twinkie (Restrictor side) 0.76203
3 Airbox (Middle part) 0.4173
4 Airbox (Twinkie side) 0.8255 2.6
5 Restrictor – ABS plastic 0.1769
6 Throttle body 0.0816
7 Bell mouth 0.0952 0.1
8 Air filter 0.6803 0.1133
9 Exhaust pipe 1.0750 1.1
10 Muffler + cover 7.983 2.8947
11 Fuel Tank 8.178
12 Radiator core fins 1.9323
13 Radiator upper Tank 0.0997
14 Radiator lower Tank 0.1088
15 Fuel Tank Bracket *4 0.097 0.097
16 Swirl Pot 0.3
17 Fuel Lines + Pressure Regulator 0.9
18 Fuel Pump 0.8

19 Catch Cans 0.11

Total 58.635 47.6078

   90  
 

Table  22:  Weight  audit  -­‐  Miscellaneous  Parts  

Sr. No Sub-system - Part Name Theoretical Mass (Kg) Experimental Mass

(Kg)
1 Impact Attenuator 0.75 0.8

2 Pedal Cluster 2.455 2.5

3 Shifter 0.25 0.3

4 Electronics 5 4.533

5 Battery 0.8 1.1

6 Driver ~65
7 Body 2.3

8 Seat 1.45 1.7

9 Head Rest 0.25

10 Nuts, Bolts and Circlips 3

11 Router 0.3

12 Firewall 0.58 0.6

13 Sidewall 0.35 0.4

14 Undertrays 2.013 2.7

15 Brake Light 0.25

Total 15.848 20.435

   91  
 

Table  23:  Spring  Stiffness  Test  Results_1  

Sr.no Displacement Displacement Force Required Force Required

(Inches) (mm) (Pounds) (Newton)
1 0.1 2.54 14 62.275
2 0.2 5.08 21.6 96.081
3 0.3 7.62 31 137.894
4 0.4 10.16 40 170.928
5 0.5 12.7 48.7 216.628
6 0.6 15.24 59.1 262.889
7 0.7 17.78 66.6 296.251
8 0.8 20.32 75.5 335.840
9 0.9 22.86 83.9 373.205
10 1.0 25.4 91.1 405.232
11 1.1 27.94 96.8 430.587
12 1.2 30.48 101.7 452.384
13 1.3 33.02 107.8 479.518
14 1.4 35.56 113.6 505.317
15 1.5 38.1 118.2 525.779

Table  24:  Spring  Stiffness  Test  Results_2  

Sr.no Displacement Displacement Force Required Force Required

(inches) (mm) (pounds) (Newton)
1 0.1 2.54 30 133.446
2 0.2 5.08 38.7 172.146
3 0.3 7.62 49.6 220.631
4 0.4 10.16 62.8 279.348
5 0.5 12.7 76.6 340.733
6 0.6 15.24 90.3 401.674
7 0.7 17.78 101.5 451.494
8 0.8 20.32 114.0 507.097
9 0.9 22.86 127.3 566.258
10 1.0 25.4 140.9 626.754
11 1.1 27.94 154.0 685.026
12 1.2 30.48 166.8 741.963
13 1.3 33.02 182.3 810.910
14 1.4 35.56 197.8 879.858
15 1.5 38.1 210.3 935.461
   92  
 

Table  25:  Spring  Stiffness  Test  Reults_3  

Sr.no Displacement Displacement Force Required Force Required

(Inches) (mm) (Pounds) (Newton)
1 0.1 2.54 30 133.446
2 0.2 5.08 38.7 172.146
3 0.3 7.62 49.6 220.631
4 0.4 10.16 62.8 279.348
5 0.5 12.7 76.6 340.733
6 0.6 15.24 90.3 401.674
7 0.7 17.78 101.5 451.494
8 0.8 20.32 114.0 507.097
9 0.9 22.86 127.3 566.258
10 1.0 25.4 140.9 626.754
11 1.1 27.94 154.0 685.026
12 1.2 30.48 166.8 741.963
13 1.3 33.02 182.3 810.910
14 1.4 35.56 197.8 879.858
15 1.5 38.1 210.3 935.461

Table  26:  Spring  Stiffness  Test  Results_4  

Sr.no Displacement Displacement Force Required Force Required

(Inches) (mm) (Pounds) (Newton)
1 0.1 2.54 31.1 138.339
2 0.2 5.08 43.7 194.387
3 0.3 7.62 57.7 256.662
4 0.4 10.16 71.1 318.937
5 0.5 12.7 86.8 386.105
6 0.6 15.24 100.1 445.266
7 0.7 17.78 112.5 500.424
8 0.8 20.32 128.6 572.041
9 0.9 22.86 142.5 633.871
10 1.0 25.4 159.0 707.267
11 1.1 27.94 175.3 779.773
12 1.2 30.48 189.4 842.493
13 1.3 33.02 216.3 962.150
14 1.4 35.56 231.6 1030.156
15 1.5 38.1 257.8 1146.24
   93  
 

Table  27:  Front  Damper  File  

Sr.No Velocity Damping Force

(mm/sec) (Newton)
1 -1270 -747.75
2 -254.0 -404.75
3 -152.4 -327.40
4 -127.0 -293.55
5 -101.6 -266.90
6 -76.2 -227.75
7 -50.8 -185.05
8 -25.4 -103.20
9 0.0 0.0
10 25.4 231.30
11 50.8 347.70
12 76.2 427.0
13 101.6 483.2
14 127.0 542.55
15 152.4 585.7
16 254.0 711.7
17 1270 1609.05
   94  
 

Table  28:  Joints  Characterization  

Sr.no Name Abbreviation Dof Type of motion

1 Translational TRA 1 Translation of one part with respect to another while all
axes are co-directed

2 Revolute REV 1 Rotation of one part with respect to another along a

common axis

3 Cylindrical CYL 2 Translation and Rotation of one part with respect to

another

4 Spherical SPH 3 Three rotations of one part with respect to the other
while keeping two points, one on each part, coincident

5 Planar PLA 3 The x-y plane of one part slides with respec to another
6 Fixed FIX 0 No motion of any part with respect to another
7 Inline INL 4 One translational and three rotational motions of one
part with respect to another

8 Inplane INP 5 Two translational and three rotational motions of one

part with respect to another

9 Orientation ORI 3 Constraints the orientation of one part with respect to

the orientation of another one, leaving the translational
degree of freedom free.

10 Parallel axes PAX 4 Three translational and one rotational motions of one
part with respect to another

11 Perpendicular PER 5 Three translational and two rotational motions of one

part with respect to another
12 Convel CNV 2 Two rotations of one part with respect to the other
while remaining coincident and maintaining a constant
velocity through the spin axis

13 Hooke HX 2 Two rotations of one part with respect to the other

while remaining coincident.
   95  
 

Table  29:  Constraints  Characterization  

Constraint Element Translational Rotational Coupled Constraints Total Constraints

Constraints Constraints

Cylindrical joint 2 2 0 4

Fixed Joint 3 3 0 6

Planar Joint 1 2 0 3

Rack and Pinion Joint 0 0 1 1

Revolute Joint 2 2 1 5

Spherical Joint 3 0 0 3

Translational Joint 3 3 0 5

Universal joint 2 1 0 3

Atpoint joint primitive 3 0 0 3

Inline joint primitive 2 0 0 2

Inplane joint primitive 1 0 0 1

Orientation joint 0 3 0 3
primitive
Parallel joint primitive 0 2 0 2

Perpendicular joint 0 1 0 1
primitive

Motion (translational) 1 0 0 1

Motion (rotational) 0 1 0 1

Coupler 0 0 1 1
   96  
 
 

Table  30:  Joints  Description  -­‐  Front  Suspension  

Sr.No Joint Part (A) Part (B) Joint Name Joint Type
No
1 1 uca Upright Uca_outer SPR

2 2 Uca Frame Uca_front FIX

3 3 uca Frame Uca_rear SPR

4 4 Damper Frame Shock_frame HOK

5 5 Damper Frame Shock_frame HOK

6 6 uca Frame Uca_front SPR

7 7 uca Frame Uca_rear SPR

8 8 uca Upright Uca_outer SPR

9 9 Lca Upright Lca_outer SPR

10 10 Front Suspension Damper Shock_lca FIX

11 11 Lca Frame Lca_rear SPR

12 12 Lca Frame Lca_front SPR

13 13 Front Suspension Steering Tie_rod_inner SPR

14 14 Front Suspension Steering Tie_rod_inner SPR

15 15 Lca Frame Lca_rear SPR

16 16 Lca Frame Lca_front SPR

17 17 Front Suspension Damper Shock_lca FIX

18 18 Front Suspension Upright Lca_outer SPR

19 19 Upright Hub Wheel _center REV

   97  
 

Table  31:  Joints  Description  -­‐  Rear  Suspension  

Sr.No Joint No Part (A) Part (B) Joint Name Joint Type

1 1 uca Upright Uca_outer SPR

2 2 Uca Frame Uca_front SPR

 
3 3 Uca Frame Uca_rear SPR
 
4 4 Damper Frame Shock_frame HOK
 
5 5 Damper Frame Shock_frame HOK
 
6 6 Uca Frame Uca_front SPR
 
7 7 Uca Frame Uca_Rear SPR
 
8 8 Uca Upright Uca_Outer SPR
 
9 9 axle Upright Drive_shaft_outer CNV/ TRA
 
10 10 lca Upright Lca_outer SPR
 
11 11 Toe-Rod Upright Toe_rod_inner SPR
 
12 12 Damper lca Damper_lca FIX
 
13 13 lca Frame Lca_front SPR
 
14 14 lca Frame Lca_rear SPR

15 15   lca FRame Lca_front SPR

16 16   Lca Frame Lca_rear SPR

17 17   Toe-rod Upright Toe_rod_inner SPR

18 18   Toe-rod Upright Toe_rodouter SPR

 
19 19 lca Upright Lca_outer SPR
 
20 20 axle Upright Drive_shaft_outer CNV/ TRA
 

Table  32:  Joints  Description  Steering  System  

Sr.No Part A Part B Joint Type

1 Steering wheel Steering column (1) Fixed
2 Steering Column (1) Steering Column (2) Revolute
3 Rack Tie Rod Spherical