ROLL CAGE, SAFETY AND

ERGONOMICS REPORT

ABSTRACT:
The objective of the roll cage is to provide a safe and
comfortable ride to the driver. Driver posture and the
interaction with the machine is crucial for the proper
functioning of the machine, to extract maximum
performance from it and to enable the driving for four
hours at a stretch (keeping in mind the Endurance Race).
Ergonomics is paid special attention to in Legacy V,
with the incorporation of more leg room to the driver
through a front-placed rack, comfortable seating by
integrating the suspended or hammock seat. Driver
seating posture have been decided and based on various
research papers emphasizing driver seating angles. Material Selection:

Driver safety has been given priority in the design of roll
cage. Whiplash analysis was conducted to ensure safety
of the driver’s neck from flexural Whiplash injuries
during operation of the ATV.
ROLL CAGE DESIGN:
The roll cage was designed considering the following
points in decreasing order of priority:
1. Rulebook Compliance: The ATV must adhere to the
‘SAE BAJA 2017 Rulebook’.
2. Driver safety: RC members must have enough
strength and rigidity to ensure that member deflections
do not violate the driver clearances in case of impact.
3. Subsystem integration: The RC is a dependent
structure which is designed around the front suspension
and steering setup, drivetrain at the rear, and the driver
workspace.
4. Driver ergonomics: Driver comfort in the ATV is
largely dependent upon the posture, and long-term poor
ergonomics can lead to Musco-Skeletal Disorders.
5. Weight Optimization: The RC accounts for 20% of
total weight reduction in the ATV.
6. Aesthetics: An appealing RC draws attention to the
vehicle and makes it stand out.
Steel tubing of AISI 4130 was selected based on its
strength (Syt= 619 MPa, Sut= 731 MPa), to achieve
weight reduction by allowing use of thinner cross
sections, having the bending strength of the members as
a constraint.
Four different cross-sections of AISI 4130 members
have been used according to the strength requirements in
specific sections of the RC.
FEA and its inference on the Roll Cage:
1. Static Analysis:
The static analysis performed on the roll cage for various
load steps and conditions was for determining the basic
design of the roll cage. The initial iterations of the roll
cage were used in static analysis, and based on the
stresses induced, addition or removal of members
portions of the roll cage were determined.
I. Front Static Impact:

 Front hitch:
 Displacement = 3.22 mm
Stress = 474 MPa
FOS = 1.30

III. Side Static Impact:

Force applied = 5G
Displacement = 3.81 mm
Stress = 422 MPa
FOS = 1.46

Force applied = 3G
 Front nose:
Displacement = 5.39 mm
Stress = 430 MPa
FOS = 1.43
Changes made: Gusseting positions were
changed considering various geometrical
iterations for better stress flow.

IV. Rollover:
Force applied = 5G
 RHO-FBM LC:
Displacement = 3.45 mm
Stress = 287 MPa
FOS = 2.15

II. Rear Static Impact:

Force applied = 3G
Displacement = 3.93 mm
Stress = 212 MPa
FOS = 2.91

Force applied = 3G
Changes made: Gusseting position between RRH Stress = 174 MPa
and RHO was changed for better stress flow. FOS = 3.55

 Rollover RRH:

 Rear torsion:

Force applied = 3G
Displacement = 1.35 mm
Force applied = 2000 N
Stress = 196 MPa
Displacement = 1.93
FOS = 3.15
Stress = 323 MPa
FOS = 1.91

2. Dynamic Analysis:
V. Torsional Static Analysis:
In dynamic analysis, a front impact assembled crash and
a front-rear crash was performed.
 Front torsion:  Front Impact Assembled Crash:

In the front impact assembled crash, mass blocks of

driver and other subsystems were placed in the roll cage
and a crash was simulated at 45 kmph (according to the
nCAP standards). The stress flow was studied and
members were relocated to avoid stress concentration.

Force applied = 2000N

Displacement=5.67mm
 Ergonomic Considerations:
• The head clearance (8”), knee clearance (3”) and
foot clearance (3”) provided to comply to the
rulebook, providing utmost safety to the driver.
It was observed in the static and dynamic analysis
performed, that these clearances are not violated at
any given point in the simulation.

• The back angle (7°), knee angle (120°), ankle angle

(95°) at static position) provided for a comfortable
driving stance. These angles are referred from
previously published data

• 25mm lumbar support to avoid discomfort during

long duration driving.

 Front-Rear Crash: • Thigh support provided by hammock seat.

The front-rear crash was simulated to check for the

deformations in the front and rear portions of the
roll cage. The results were used to estimate the
safety of the transmission assembly at the rear and
steering assembly in the front.

• Ball of foot point remains on the pedal throughout

acceleration, increasing driver comfort.

3. Wall Thinning and Thickening:

Wall thinning and thickening was theoretically
calculated at the bends and the thick and thin regions at
bends were given as element thicknesses in meshed roll
cage to provide realistic results.

4. Modal Analysis:
Modal analysis was conducted on the firewall to
optimize positions of the tab locations to minimize
vibrations induced by the engine to the firewall.
 BALL OF FOOT POINT
ACCELERATOR HEEL POINT

• Steering column angle with horizontal is kept at

27° for quick driver response and the steering column
length is decided based on ergonomic elbow angles
made by the driver (around 120°).

• Strategic bend of SIM to allow quicker egress and to

provide maximum space at the knee
• Pedal contact point- begins below BOF and goes
above it for acc. pedal. For brake pedal, contact
surface is flat and BOF lies on the surface throughout
travel
• Adjustability provided for various driver heights
• 4 kg accelerator pedal resting stiffness based on
driver feedback
• Visibility unhampered by keeping height of the
nose as low as functionally possible
• Lock to lock steering angle is kept at only 152 deg
for quicker steering input input and steering effort
reduced from the previous version by 30%

DRIVETRAIN REPORT:

ABSTRACT
The transmission system influences the power flow from
the engine crankshaft to the wheels. The main aim of the
transmission system of Legacy V is to keep the
crankshaft sufficiently loaded and yield maximum
transmission efficiency while keeping the weight as low
as possible. The vehicle has a theoretical gradablility of
45 degrees and a top speed of 44.1mph. Custom dual
stage spur with a cageless differential incorporated in it.
Custom dual tripod drive shafts were manufactured to
reduce the weight and allow high articulation angles.

INTRODCTION
The transmission subsystem transfers the power from
crankshaft to the powering wheels. The aim is to keep
the transmission efficiency maximum while keeping the
center of gravity as low and center aligned as possible.
The Briggs and Stratton Model 20 engine provided for
BAJA SAE competitions is a 10HP engine generating
maximum 19.6Nm of torque. The engine is coupled to a
Gaged GX9 CVT which provides reduction ratios from
3.9:1 to 0.9:1. The final transaxle consists of a two stage
spur reduction consisting a cage less differential. In
BAJA competitions it is common to use a solid axle
spool to reduce the weight and the roll at the rear is
restricted in order to lift the inner wheel when sufficient
lateral acceleration in generated. This causes oversteer
action above sufficiently high speeds. But in slow speed
corners as the vehicle cannot generate enough lateral
acceleration there is understeer which makes the ATV
less usable in real life conditions. Thus a differential was
incorporated in the vehicle.
DESIGN OBJECTIVES
The primary design goals of the transmission subsystem
are as follows.
 To keep the center of gravity of the overall
transmission assembly as low and center
aligned as possible while maintaining the
packaging of overall rear of the vehicle.
 To keep the engine crankshaft sufficiently
loaded in all working conditions to not affect
the engine governor negatively.
 To keep the transmission efficiency maximum.
 To reduce the moment of inertia of all the
rotating parts.
 To provide high articulation angles required by
the suspension kinematics at the drive shafts.
shifting characteristics as compared to other
OEM CVTs like Polaris P90 or CV-Tech.
 The weight of the Gaged GX9 CVT is 5.5kg
thus making it one of the lightest OEM CVTs
available.
 The CVT provides reduction ratios ranging from
3.9:1 to 0.9:1. The transaxle ratio of 6.58:1 was
selected such that the engine is at its maximum
load on 100% grade.
 The CVT was experimentally tuned to
constantly load the engine crankshaft in various
situations with the transaxle to provide
maximum acceleration in different load
requirements.
 Belt tension, flyweights and spring pretensions
were experimentally decided for different set of
tunes.
 CVT casing was manufactured from 6061 T6
Aluminium sheet of 3mm thickness.
 CFD analysis was carried out on the control
volume of CVT casing in order to decide the
radial clearance between the CVT and the casing
as well as the location of the inlet. Maximum
turbulence was generated inside the CVT casing
to allow maximum heat transfer helping us to
keep the temperature of CVT belt below its
maximum working temperature of 110ºC.

DRIVELINE
 Transmission layout was designed considering
the height of center of gravity of engine,
clearances between rotating parts, desired
location of inboard drive shaft in the suspension
kinematics, the required center to center distance
between the pulleys of the CVT and clearance of Fig 1: CFD analysis of CVT Casing
exhaust port of engine from outer envelope of
roll cage. TRANSAXLE AND DIFFERENTIAL
 The minimum clearance between two parts of
 A two-stage reduction with a cage-less
transmission system is 5mm.
differential was designed, analyzed and
 The Gaged GX9 CVT was incorporated in the
manufactured and was coupled with the CVT
vehicle due to high number of tuning variables,
through a keyway. The ratio between the two
lower weight, compact assembly and good back
stages was split on the basis of the Inboard
 driveshaft location and the drive shaft running
clearance.
 A cage less differential was incorporated in
order to reduce the weight of the differential
assembly and make the assembly centralized
 The cage less differential consists of a cross pin
connected to the crown gear of differential
which retains four bevel gears with it. The
crown gear is mounted by the bushings provided
on the bevel gears and cross pin side arms.
GEAR MANUFACTURING
Fig 2: Cage less Differential Assembly
 Various materials such as EN36, 20MnCr5 and
30Ni16Cr5 was considered for manufacturing of
gears. Weighted point analysis was carried out
on these materials. 30Ni16Cr5 or EN30B steel
was selected for the spur gears of the gear train
due to its high ultimate tensile strength of 1540
MPa which allowed higher optimization of the
gears.
 Aluminium 7050 T745 was selected as gearbox
casing material due to its high ultimate strength
of 519.46Mpa and yield strength of 468.75Mpa
(as tested) and good stress corrosion cracking
properties. Straight or taper cylindrical roller
bearings were used wherever purely radial or
axial load was applied. FEA was carried out on
the gearbox casing.
 Transaxle ratio of 6.58:1 was selected such that
the engine is at 19.6 Nm load under its
maximum grade situation.
 DFMEA was carried out on all the components
of transaxle and driveline and different failure
modes were estimated and addressed. Different
modes of failures were addressed in sequence of
their reducing RPN value (Risk Priority
Number). The RPN was calculated on the basis
of probability of occurrence, Probability of
detection and severity.
Fig 3: Failure modes with highest RPN Values
 FORGING:
For forging, the gear material has been heated to
1000-1100 degree Celsius then, it was soaked
for 3 hours.
 ANNEALING:
The billet was cooled slowly to 100 degree
Celsius followed by annealing at 620 degree
Celsius and cooled in furnace.
 MACHINING:
 The gears and shafts are integral parts to reduce
the weight increase caused to cope up with the
increased stresses due to a keyway. Firstly the
gear blanks were machined on lathe. The spur
gears of the gear train have been then wire cut in
order to achieve higher manufacturing accuracy
of DIN grade 7 allowing us to reduce the
required factor of safety as per the DIN 3990
standards. Wire cutting allows manufacturing
accuracy of ±10 microns and surface finish of
Ra=1 micron.
 HARDENING & TEMPERING:
Gears were hardened by heating uniformly to
810- 830 degree Celsius and thoroughly soaked
at this temperature and were oil quenched.
Hardening was followed by tempering at 250
degree Celsius which gave us the final hardness
of 46 HRC.
 GRINDING AND FINISHING:
The bearing holding areas of shafts were grinded
on cylindrical grinding machines in order to
achieve the required surface finish for proper
contact bearing as well as uniform loading from
shaft to bearing. The grinding allows a surface
finish of Ra=0.8 microns with tolerance grade of
IT5.
GEAR TOOTH DESIGN APPROACH (3.56∗m)2
=
6∗4.56∗m 2
= 0.4632
W∗Pd
St =
F∗Y
Tmax∗Low end reduction of CVT ∗2
=
q∗m∗Y∗m∗Zp 1
19.66∗3.9∗2
=
q∗m3∗Y∗19
19.66∗3.9∗2
=
q∗0.4632∗m3∗19
17424.32
= N/mm2
q∗m3
Fig 2: Parabola of Uniform Strength
Geometry Factors for Strength
In order to find out the most critically stressed point on
the surface of a gear tooth the inscribed parabola method The geometry factor for strength is a dimensionless
was used. When a parabola is made into a cantilever factor that evaluates the shape of the tooth, the amount
beam, the stress is constant along the surface of the of load sharing between teeth, and the stress
parabola. Figure () shows the largest parabola that can be concentration in the root area.
inscribed in the gear tooth. This construction gives us the 1 Kf
most critically stressed point on the gear tooth profile. Kt = =
J Y
This is the point at which the parabola of uniform
strength becomes tangent to the surface of the gear tooth. Where Kf is the fatigue stress concentration factor
The normal from this point was constructed. The
L M
variables required to calculate the Lewis form factor t t
Kf = H + ( ) + ( )
were calculated in terms of module. As discussed earlier, r l
the no of teeth on the pinion are 19.
Where,
The tensile strength at the root of the beam is given by:
H = 0.34 - 0.4583662ɸ
W∗Pd
St = = 0.18
F∗Y
L = 0.316 - 0.4583662ɸ
Where,
= 0.156
St = Tensile strength at the root of the beam
M = 0.290 + 0.4583662ɸ
Pd = Diametrical pitch
= 0.45
F = Face width
Y = Lewis form factor
3.56∗m 0.156 3.56∗m 0.45
Kf = 0.18 + ( ) +( )
0.3∗m 4.56∗m
2∗x∗Pd
= = 2.5454
3
Hence,
t2
=
6∗l∗m Kf 2.5454
Kt = = = 5.495
Y 0.4632
 Dynamic load factor (Kv)
Unit Load (U1) for first stage pinion Generally the velocity factor upper limit for high
Wt 1 Tmax∗Low end reduction of cvt∗2 precision gears is
U1 = =
q∗m 2 q∗m 3∗19 Kv = 0.85
8070.95
= SIZE FACTOR
q∗m 3
Unit Load (U2) for second stage pinion
Wt 2
U2 = =
q∗m 2
Tmax∗Low end reduction of cvt∗First stage reduction∗2
q∗m 3∗19
17416.254
=
q∗m 3

De rating factor (Kd)

Ka∗Km∗Ks
Kd =
Kv Fig 3: Graph of Size factor for specific
Module

The size factor de-rates the gear design for the adverse
Application factor (Ka) effect of size on material properties. Generally the size
factor for module less than 5 is taken as 1.
This factor evaluates external factors that tend to apply
more load to the gear teeth than the applied load Wt. A
rough-running prime mover and/or a rough-running
Overall de rating factor Kd
piece of driven equipment can seriously increase the
effect of the applied load. Since the primary mover in Ka∗Km∗Ks
our case is a CVT so application factor of 1 is Kd =
Kv
considered.
1∗1∗1
Load distribution factor (Km) = = 1.176
0.85
This factor evaluates non uniform load distribution
across the face width.
Strength formula for first stage pinion
The Load distribution factor is proportional to:
10000∗b
Km α * et + 1 St1 = Kt * U1 * Kd
Wt
The load distribution factor is dependent on the degree
8070.95
1200 = 5.495* *1.176
of helix angle present due to improper manufacturing of 8∗m 3
gears. The et value is a measure to represent this error.
The value of et is high for gears with high face width. m3 = 5.432
The experimentally calculated value for a spur gear with m = 1.758
a face width of 2in was found to be 1.1. Hence Load
distribution factor of 1 was considered. Strength formula for second stage pinion
St2 = Kt * U2 * Kd
17416.254
1200 = 5.495* *1.176
6.4∗m 3
BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAM OF
m3 = 14.654
SHAFT (Nmm)
m = 2.447

SHAFT CALCULATIONS
First stage

Calculating the loads on bearing

In vertical plane
Rav + Rbv = 3956.67 N
(78.8*92.44) + (4035.47*25) = Rbv * (48+25)
Rbv = 1481.79 N
Rav = 2474.88 N
In horizontal plane
Rah + Rbh = 1530.356 N
(1468.79*25) – (61.566*92.44) = Rbh * (48+25)
Rbh = 580.97 N
Maximum Bending Moment on shaft
Rah = 949.38 N
Mb = √ 499552.252 +181898.9052
SHEAR FORCE DIAGRAM (N)
= 531638.658 N mm
Torsional Moment on shaft
Mt = Max Torque on engine * Low end reduction of
CVT * 1000
= 19.66*3.9*1000
= 76674 N mm
According to the ASME code, the permissible shear
stress τmax for the shaft is taken as 30% of yield strength
in tension or 18% of the ultimate tensile strength of the
material, whichever is minimum.
τmax = 0.30 Syt , OR
τmax = 0.18 Sut (whichever is minimum)
For 30Ni16Cr5

τmax = 0.30 * 1200 = 360 N/mm2

 τmax = 0.18 * 1540 = 277.2 N/mm2 In horizontal plane

Hence τmax = 277.2 N/mm2 Rah + Rbh = 1066.81 N

16 (2535.6*56) – (1468.79*30) = Rbh * 86

τmax = * √ Mb2 + Mt 2
π∗d 3 Rbh = 1138.71 N

16 Rah = -71.9 N
277.2 = * √ 1660202+ 766742
π∗d 3

d 3= 3359.851
d = 14.977 mm

SECOND STAGE

Fig 4: Exploded View of the Gearbox Casing

Fig 5: Static Structural Analysis of Gearbox Casing

Calculating the loads on bearing

CUSTOM DUAL TRIPOD
DRIVESHAFT
In vertical plane
 Custom Dual Tripod drive shafts have been
Rav + Rbv = 11001.97 designed for the ATV. An All-Terrain Vehicle
(4035.44*30) + (6966.5 * 56) = Rbv * 86 (ATV) is subject to high wheel travel of 9.8”
demanding high amplitude of articulation angle
Rbv = 5944.037 N of drive shaft so as to enable it to define similar
kinematics as the suspension links. Legacy V
Rav = 5057.932 N
demands a compound maximum articulation
 angle (δmax) of 27.4˚ in its complete droop
condition.
 OEM drive shafts find it difficult to achieve the
required angle without developing high bending
moments. The customized tripod driveshaft
installed on the ATV allows maximum
articulation angle of 29˚ with a 37.5% weight
reduction in the tulip. The drive shaft also
permits more control over packaging constraints
in the wheel assembly. Spherical contact Rollers
and Tulip were designed for the purpose. The
forces were calculated for the static structural
and fatigue load.
 Structural design of the tulip was based on the
forces and was verified by FEA. The diameter
was selected on the basis of the torsional rigidity
and the von Misses stresses induced in the shaft.
This along with weight reduction in the tulip
allows for overall weight reduction of 38% in
the driveshaft as compared to an OEM
driveshaft of same length. Thus, this custom
dual tripod driveshaft serves a dual purpose
specific to the functioning of the ATV.
 The drive shaft was designed such that it
inscribes the same arc defined by the suspension
kinematics. Axial plunge of 5mm was provided
to compensate departure from suspension
geometry and misalignments.
 The figure shows the location of the driveshaft
in the suspension kinematics of the system.
Fig 6: Location of drive shaft in rear view geometry of the vehicle
The design incorporated by team Kraftwagen
incorporates a tripod driveshaft with its pivot center at
20mm from the face of the tripod tulip. This reduces the
bending movement generated at the spline base of the
drive shaft tulip which allows higher optimization of the
drive shaft tulip along with the reduction in the required
dedendum diameter of the splines. The driveshaft also
uses involute shaped splines which give higher torque
carrying capacity under similar conditions of working
against straight taper faced splines.
 The bearing diameter of 30mm and the cup outer
diameter of 59mm were calculated according to
the forces generated on the tripod joint. The
diameters were calculated on the basis of torque
capacity of the driveshaft calculated considering
specific loading and the Hertzian stresses
induced in the tulip. ‘The design of driveshaft
also allows better packaging of the drive shaft in
the outboard wheel assembly.
 The close pivot point locations in the driveshaft
allows a lower articulation running of the
driveshaft thus reducing the losses of the force
in the form of radial component. The forces
acting on the driveshaft and driveshaft were
calculated with the formulae listed below and
finite element analysis was carried out on it to
withstand these loads under maximum loading
condition.
 Finite Element analysis was performed on the
driveshaft tulip by applying the force
components at the contact points of roller and
tulip. EN 24 steel with ultimate tensile strength
of 1000 MPa was selected as material for the
tulip as well as shaft.
 Involute splines were used on drive shafts to
improve the torque carrying capacity of the
driveshaft.
CALCULATIONS FOR DRIVESHAFT
AND SPLINES
 Static Torque carrying capacity of the tripod
joint:
M 0= 3kd 2R
Where M= torque carrying capacity’
K=specific loading on driveshaft
R=moment arm of tripod joint
 Dynamic Torque carrying capacity of the tripod
joint:
 1
M D = M 0 ( 1+cos β )
2
TESTING AND DISCUSSION
Where β= shaft articulation
 The vehicle has been tested for 300 kilometers
 The torque capacity of spline teeth in shear = on various types of probable off road terrain. No
πDL D component failed during testing as per the
[ ]( )
z
τ
2 d fatigue deign of the component. The vehicle
yielded an actual gradibility on 42%. The
 The torque capacity of the spline in bearing with
b ¼ 2dc The torque capacity of the spline in vehicle reached an actual top speed of 70km/hr.
bearing with σ b=2σ bc The vehicle completes a distance of 150 ft.
within 5.3 seconds.
= 0.8 D2Lσ dc
 The temperature of the CVT casing was
measured
After each 4 hour session of the testing runs
with the help of infrared sensors. The
Max. Stress: 480 MPa
temperature during all the testing routines did
Material: EN24
not exceed 80oC for extreme conditions where
Sut : 1000 MPa
atmospheric temperature was 35o.
 The CVT was experimentally tuned by
estimating the crankshaft load under different
scenarios. Thus for events such as hill climb,
sled pull in which high torque is required the
Fig 7: Static Structural Analysis of drive shaft Cup speed of shift was reduced by increasing the
pretension of the driven spring. Similarly the
belt tension was another parameter with which
load was drastically changed. As Team
Kraftwagen has two drivers weighing 50kg and
74kg respectively a setup which yields
satisfactory results under various loading
conditions was found out.
 For this Ramp angle of driven pulley, pretension
of the driven pulley and the center to center
distance were varied. The ramp angle was
changed from 28-30 to 35-33. The center to
center distance was varied from 8.3 to 8.6
seconds to observe different results.
 For events such as acceleration and
maneuverability the engine was heavily loaded
by reducing the pretension of the driven pulley,
increasing the ramp angle of driven pulley and
thR
Fig 8: Exploded View of the Tripod Assembly reducing the center to center distance of the
pulleys.
 Various time trials were carried out for different
settings and final state of tune was decided.
 The gearbox was disassembled during its mid
service after a 150kms of run for metrology and
observation. There was no wear or damage seen
to the gear tooth or the casing. The lubricant was
regularly replaced and checked for presence of
metallic burr

Fig 9: Location of driveshaft in the wheel assembly

 The driveshafts were observed during jumps and
bumps for any kind of motion redundancy.
Metrology was regularly carried out on gearbox
mounting cut plates to check any kind of
flexure.
 The splines at gearbox, hubs and driveshafts
were observed regularly for any amount of wear.
 The transmission subsystem did not face any
type of mechanical failure during its course of
running thus experimentally validating the
safety of the transmission subsystem of the
vehicle. Thus we have ensured 4 hour constant
running of the vehicle provided proper oil and
grease levels are maintained.

SUSPENSION REPORT:

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The primary functions of the suspension systems are to
maximize traction, stability & ride quality. For design of
the suspension system, the SAE (Society of Automotive
Engineers) BAJA ATVs’ (All Terrain Vehicles)
manufactured by Sinhgad College of Engineering,
Vadgaon, have been used as reference and the
suspension is designed for use in the latest ATV known
as Legacy V. An ATV is a vehicle which faces an
extremely diverse terrain, ranging from five feet drops to
extremely hard and rocky terrains. The functional
requirement of an ATV also demands a small turning
radius (inner turning radius smaller than 2 m). As this
suspension system is to be used in a competition,
performance enhancement is given extremely high
priority. The goal is also to design a suspension system
that is specific to an ATV. Thus, factors such as
unsprung mass reduction, reduction of fasteners, absence
of relative motion between components are given high
priority. This design draws upon the experience of the
past four ATVs’. The drawbacks from the previous
designs were high bump steer, poor kinematics leading
to drive shaft slippage, high steering effort (12.5 Nm),
high unsprung mass (16 kg). These factors formed the
basis for improvement in subsequent designs.
This project focusses on designing front suspension
kinematics, by using CATIA. The next step is to develop
a simulation model in Simulink. The simulation model
replicates a quarter car model of the ATV. The result of
running simulations is to generate accelerations incident
upon unsprung mass and chassis. The various softwares
used for design and analysis include CATIA,
Hyperworks, Lotus. Topological optimization has been
used to carry out unsprung mass reduction. The design
was also made keeping in mind the fabrication, and
assembly procedures were laid out. Geometric
tolerances, fits and surface finish were specified.
1.1 AIM
The aim of this project is to design a suspension system
for an ATV that will suffice the following requirements
 To develop a lightweight suspension system that will
ensure lower spring mass and unsprung mass.
 Develop a suspension system that develops oversteer
chracteristics
 To design a suspension system that is durable under
all types of terrains. The various terrains that should
be negotiated by the ATV include muddy terrain,
gravel, hard and rocky terrain, vegetation, and
shrubbery.
 The suspension should be designed keeping in mind
the ease of manufacturing and the feasibility of
selected manufacturing processes.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
The major objectives of this project are:
 Developing a suspension system ensuring ride
comfort. This can be achieved by reducing the
transmitted vibrations from the road
 To achieve a slight oversteer via appropriate mass
distribution and roll center heights.
 To gain stability during riding and develop
sufficient grip to maximize the traction.
CHAPTER 2
KINEMATICS & SIMULATION
Kinematics involves study of motion of objects without
considering the mass or forces acting on the object. This
section discusses various design steps such as design of
geometry, selection of Spring-Damper and selecting the
installation ratio. Simulation has been performed by
developing a quarter car model in Simulink. Various
road inputs have been given as input to the Simulink
Model and the sprung mass displacement vs. road
displacement plots have been developed. Additionally,
acceleration of the unsprung mass has been determined
which is necessary for further design.
2.1 SELECTION OF GEOMETRY
Double wishbone suspension is selected due to the
following reasons:
 Best camber control as the suspension behaves like a
4-bar linkage
 Steering misalignment obtained through two turning
pairs at the knuckle end
 Camber change through steer input can be obtained
 Negative camber gain in vehicle roll
 Pro-Dive setup can be used with recessional wheel
travel
2.2 DESIGN OF GEOMETRY
Front suspension assembly
Shown above is a double wishbone suspension geometry
designed in CATIA. The geometry design is based on a
front and side view geometry. The parameters
considered are the width of the vehicle nose, the tire
dimensions, wheel dimensions, rim offset and the track
width. The lower ball joint point placement is decided
on the basis of the deflated tire dimensions and the
distance from the rim based on the wheel assembly
dimensions. The knuckle or kingpin height is decided
based on the axial force generated on the upper
wishbone to obtain an optimum value. A steer axis
inclination (SAI) of 7.5 degrees and a camber angle of
11 degrees is chosen so as to give the desired steering
characteristics, and a certain scrub radius. This defines
the position of the steering knuckle within the geometry.
The vehicle nose is inclined at 11 degrees to the vertical.
Thus, for construction of the front view geometry, the
mean line of the wishbone (the altitude of the triangle) is
considered. This wishbone is connected on the roll cage
mountings and the line is extended till the front view
swing arm distance which is decided on the basis of the
negative camber gain per degree chassis roll. This point
obtained in space is the instantaneous centre of rotation
of the suspension linkages. From this point, a line is
extended till the upper ball joint point and the upper
wishbone is constructed based on the shape of the nose.
All projections are taken to the side view and the
wishbones are constructed in this view.
In dynamic condition of cornering, due to body roll, an
undesired positive camber is produced on the outer
wheel. This generates a thrust force acting on the wheels
which yields under steer characteristics. For avoiding
this under steer condition it is advisable to keep this Plot of Toe change vs vertical wheel travel
positive camber change to a minimum.
Spring inclined at 11 deg to the vertical, and
The location of the steering arm and its length and angle perpendicular to the wishbones. This absorbs a sin (11)
is chosen depending on the percentage Ackerman that component of the longitudinal force which is 20%, with
can be obtained as well as the packaging constraints, and the vertical force on the spring reducing only to 98%.
this steering arm is constructed in the front and side Thus, lower amount of longitudinal force is taken by the
view. A line is drawn from the end of the steering arm to suspension links.
the ICR. This line is the extension of the tie rod in the
front view. Joining the tie rod to the ICR allows the tie Camber is also induced through steering input. The 7.5
rod to define an arc about the same centre, reducing toe deg KPI and 11 deg caster contribute to a negative
change with wheel travel. The length of the tie rod is camber gain of 5.9 deg for full steering lock. This
also adjusted based on its position within the polygon compensates the camber change through vehicle roll.
created by the knuckle, lower wishbone, upper wishbone Thus, an effort is made to keep the positive camber
and the line connecting the inner pivot points of both the generated in vehicle roll to a minimum or below zero.
wishbones. This length when correct, allows the tie rod
to define the same arc of rotation, thus, not inducing
dynamic toe change.

2.3 FEATURES OF GEOMETRY

Plot of Camber change with steer input

Double wishbone 4-bar linkage

2.4 SELECTION OF SPRING-DAMPER
The double wishbone geometry is equivalent to a 4-bar
linkage as shown in the above diagram. This 4-bar The spring-damper system chosen for the suspension
linkage when non-parallel and when the upper and lower system is an OEM Fox Float 3 Evol R.
links are of different lengths, yields camber change with
wheel travel. This camber change is important as it
counters the positive camber change during vehicle roll.
Bump Steer reduced to under one degree for full wheel
travel as shown in the graph below by appropriate tie rod
positioning and length as mentioned above.
 Schematic of installation ratio of a simple suspension system

The figure above shows the installation ratio of a simple

suspension system [11]. This is the ratio of distance a by
b shown in the above figure. Thus, the wheel
displacement in relation with spring displacement can be
found as x/y = b/a.
Actual image of Fox Float 3 Evol R shocks
If the spring is inclined at theta degree to the vertical, the
The Fox Float 3 Evol R [10] is an air spring with an ratio of wheel displacement to spring displacement is x/y
integrated damper. The air spring is a progressive = (b/a) * cos(theta). This is known as motion ratio (MR).
stiffness spring with an extra chamber for greater control
over stiffness in the maximum compression region. The However, as wheel travel increases, the force on the
Fox air spring provides the following advantages over suspension link also increases by the lever arm principle.
the conventional spring-damper system. Thus the ratio of wheel rate to spring rate is (MR) 2
where spring rate is spring stiffness and the wheel rate is
Adjusting the pressure inside the main chamber changes the resultant stiffness of the spring at the wheel end.
the stiffness of the air spring giving greater control over
vehicle setup over different terrains. A motion ratio of 2 has been selected throughout travel
for obtaining a wheel travel of 10.6”.
The air spring weighs 1.6 kg which is much lighter than
the spring damper system, with the lightest system
(AFCO shocks with aluminium springs) weighing 2.8 kg
and lighter than the commercial vehicle shock absorber
systems weighing upwards of 5 kg.
Progressive stiffness spring allows for greater shock 2.6 SIMULINK ANALYSIS FOR THE
absorption ability. Rebound rate adjustable through 25 SUSPENSION MODEL
settings. Low slenderness ratio allowing it to be mounted
at an angle to the vertical. A quarter car model was designed using the basic
differential equations of damped vibrations. Consider the
following system:
3.5 SELECTION OF INSTALLATION
RATIO
Installation ratio is the ratio of the distances between the
wishbone mounting point
 b1 – Coefficient of damping of
suspension(Ns/m)
k2 – Stiffness of tire(N/m)
b2 – Coefficient of damping of tire(Ns/m)

Schematic of a Quarter Car Model

Governing Equations:
m car ẍ car +b 1 ( ẋ car − ẋ wheel ) + k 1 ( x car −x wheel )=0
…………….. (2.1)

mwheel ẍ wheel −b 1 ( ẋ car − ẋ wheel )−k 1 ( x car −x wheel ) + b2 ( ẋ wheel− ẋ road ) +k 2 ( x wheel −x road )=0
.…………… (2.2)

The notations used in eq. (3.1) and eq. (3.2) are:

m car – Mass of car/ sprung mass(kg)
m wheel – Mass of tire(kg)
x road – Vertical displacement of road/terrain(m)
x wheel – Vertical displacement of Wheel(m)
x car – Vertical displacement of the car/sprung
mass(m)
ẋ road – Vertical velocity of the road(m/s)
ẋ w heel – Vertical velocity of the wheel(m/s)
ẋ car – Vertical velocity of the car/sprung
mass(m/s)
ẍ wheel – Vertical acceleration of the wheel Quarter Car Model in Simulink
(m/s2)
Working of the Simulink Model
ẍ car – Vertical acceleration of the car(m/s2)
The figure 3.8 illustrates the Simulink model that was
k1 – Stiffness of suspension(N/m) used for the suspension analysis. A sinewave is given as
input velocity of the road. An integrator block integrates
the road velocity to convert it into vertical road
displacement. The lower loop demonstrates the wheel-
road interface. The tire stiffness for various pressures is
entered in the k2 gain block. Similarly the coefficient of
damping of the tire is included in the b2 gain block. The
upper loop describes the sprung mass and the shock
absorber system. This loop includes a unique Matlab
function block. A custom function ‘myfunction’ is given
as the input in the Matlab function block.

Matlab ‘myfunction’

The function is a 3 degree approximating polynomial

generated using test data for the shock absorber. The
data was obtained by testing the suspension in the
Instron Universal Testing Machine. A special fixture
was manufactured for mounting the shock absorber on
Load-deflection testing of Fox Shock Absorber
the machine. Also, tire stiffness at 3 psi, 4 psi and 5 psi
pressure were found out using another testing machine.
The lower integrator block is a second order integrator,
one output being the velocity of the tire which is fed to Results from testing of tire
the upper loop and fed back to the lower loop as well for 3000
the next iteration. The second output is wheel 2500
displacement which again follows the same path as the 2000
velocity of the tire.
Load[N]

1500
The upper integrator block has two outputs as well. The 1000
first output, velocity of the sprung mass is fed back to 500
the loop for the succeeding iteration. The second output, 0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
the displacement of the sprung mass is displayed using Deflection[m]
the scope function block in Simulink, on the same time
Load-deflection curve for Tire at 3psi pressure
axis as the road vertical displacement.
The output is i.e. the road displacement and the sprung 3000
mass displacement are displayed for a sine wave input of 2500
amplitude=15 and various frequencies. 2000
Load[N]

1500
1000
500
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Deflection[m]

Fig 3.13: Load-deflection curve for Tire at 4psi pressure

 3000 Simulink Results for sine wave input ,40 psi Shock
2500 Absorber pressure and 5 psi Tire pressure.
2000 Sinewave Amplitude-15
Load[N]

1500
1000
500
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Deflection[m]

Fig 3.14: Load-deflection curve for Tire at 5psi pressure

Simulink Results for sine wave input , 40 psi Shock

Absorber pressure and 3 psi Tire pressure.
Sinewave Amplitude-15
Road deflection vs Sprung Mass deflection, frequency:45
rad/sec

Fig 3.16: Road deflection vs Sprung Mass deflection,

frequency:45 rad/sec

Fig 3.25: Unsprung Mass acceleration, frequency:250 rad/sec

Simulink Results for sine wave input ,40 psi Shock
Absorber pressure and 4 psi Tire pressure.
Sinewave Amplitude-15
2.7 INFERENCES DRAWN FROM
SIMULINK MODEL
The Simulink model was tested for various input
conditions.
 Major emphasis was given on testing the
suspension for sinusoidal road input.
 The tire stiffness was measured at pressures of 3
psi, 4 psi, 5 psi keeping the pressure in the shock
absorber constant and equal to 40 psi.
 The stiffness values of 22500 N/m, 26600 N/m
and 31000 N/m for pressures of 3 psi, 4 psi and 5
psi respectively were calculated using the graphs
plotted using Excel.
Fig 3.19: Road deflection vs Sprung Mass deflection,
frequency:45 rad/sec
Acceleration for Sine wave input amplitude-15 cm and Dynamics deals with the motion of bodies under the
frequency-250 rad/sec: action of force. This section basic analysis of the Double
Wishbone System. It is followed by designing and
It can be inferred that 250 rad/sec = 39.78 Hz analysis of knuckle under bump loading, under braking
……………….(since ω=2∗π∗n, n is frequency in Hz) and under steering load. Hub design has also been
Thus the time period of an oscillation is 1/n = 0.025 sec described in this section. Finally, the Wheel Assembly
procedure has been laid out
For the above case the wavelength is found to be 30 cm
Thus the approximate velocity of the ATV is calculated
using the simple relation between speed, distance and 3.1 FREE BODY DIAGRAM OF THE
time
DOUBLE WISHBONE SYSTEM
Therefore the resulting velocity is found out to be 11.94
m/s or 42.97 km/h
For the above velocity of the ATV the resultant
unsprung mass acceleration was found out to be nearly
300 m/ s2 or 30*g force.
This value of 30 g is the acceleration of the wheel
assembly. Thus, forces in cident on the wheel assembly
can be calculated as 30*9.81*(approx. mass of wheel
assembly = 12 kg)
Thus, force incident on wheel assembly is 3600 N.

FBD of the Double Wishbone System

The double wishbone system force transmission path

consists of the tyre, rim, hub, dead shaft, knuckle, lower
wishbone and the spring.
For force analysis, it is considered that the spring exerts
a reaction force on the lower suspension link. As the
motion ratio is 2, The reactive force on the lower
wishbone is 2F. A force of F is incident on the lower ball
joint causing a moment of F*r as shown above. This
moment is reacted by the axial force generated on the
upper wishbone (f), where f = F*r/y.

3.2 DESIGN OF KNUCKLE

The knuckle has been designed considering the upper
and lower wishbone ball joint points, the steering arm
hardpoint, the kingpin axis inclination and the brake
calliper mounting points.
The material selected for knuckle is Al 7050-T7451 due
to its high strength to weight ratio which helps reduce
unsprung mass and wheel assembly forces, and
machining ease The Syt and Sut are 460 and 540 MPa
CHAPTER 3: respectively.

DYNAMICS OF DOUBLE WISHBONE

GEOMETRY
 FBD of knuckle
The free body diagram of the knuckle is shown above.
As mentioned above, the force F causes a moment about
the lower ball joint which is reacted by the upper
wishbone. The single point constraint (spc) is the
deadshaft mounting hole. The maximum steering force
exerted by the driver is experimentally calculated to be Knuckle under braking
equivalent to 70 Nm. Thus, the maximum force exterted
on the steering arm is 3500 N wth the spc as the Under braking, a max stress of 157 MPa is seen,
deadshaft mounting hole as well. It is also necessary that however, increased material addition is avoided as
the knuckle is able to withstand the forces generated on displacement increases.
the caliper body due to the braking torque. As the
braking torque is 205 Nm, a force of 4400 N is incident
on the two slider pin mounting points on the knuckle.
The following images show the analysis carried out on
the knuckle.

Knuckle under steering load

For the steering load case, as the max reaction torque

exerted by the driver is known (70 Nm), and hence
resultant force on the steering assembly is 3500 N. As
accurate resistive force generated by the driver is known,
the FOS chosen is lower (1.5) and the knuckle has been
optimized accordingly.

Knuckle under bump loading

It can be seen that the knuckle has been designed to

yield a FOS of approx. 2.5 under bump loading, where
the forces cannot be calculated precisely and there is lot
of uncertainty of loading conditions.
 Knuckle under Fatigue Load

As the steering arm is subjected to reversed loading
conditions, its fatigue life needs to be calculated. In the
above image, it can be seen that the steering arm lasts for
72000 cycles of the max loading condition. Based on
driver feedback, it is understood that, these reaction
forces occur approximately once for every minute
driven. Thus, considering an avg. speed of 25 kmph, the
steering arm lasts for 30000 km.
Topological optimization of the hub
For topological optimization of the hub, level set method
has been used. The software Hyperworks, conducts
topological optimization based on this principle in
Optistruct. Topological optimization is used to obtain a
base design of the hub. Taking this into consideration
and applying manufacturing constraints, the refined
design of the hub can be obtained.

3.3 DESIGN OF HUB

The material chosen for the hub is Al 7050-T7451 for
similar reasons as mentioned above. The hub houses the
outer races of two taper roller bearings mounted face to
face. It has 4 tappings on the top surface to hold the disc
on top of the hub.

Stress distribution in the final designed hub

The above figure shows the stress distribution on the

final designed hub.

3.4 DESIGN OF DEAD SHAFT

The dead shaft houses the inner races of the two taper
roller bearings. The dead shaft is axially constrained on
the knuckle via a step and a circlip. Rotational DOF is
constrained via 2 splines on the dead shaft.

FBD of hub

The FBD of the hub is shown above. The constrained

points are the hub bolting points and the bump load is
applied at the bearing housing surface. A braking torque
is applied at the disc bolting points shown around the
inner circle.
 Design of dead shaft
Stress analysis of dead shaft
3.5 WHEEL ASSEMBLY PROCEDURE
Exploded View of Wheel assembly
The wheel assembly (3.38) begins by fixing the dead
shaft on the knuckle and attaching a circlip. The outer
races of the taper roller bearings are press fit (N5) into
the hub. The inner race of the larger taper roller bearing
is fit onto the dead shaft under a sliding fit (g7). The disc
is fixed onto the hub and the knuckle-dead shaft fits onto
the hub. The inner race of the other taper roller bearing
fits (g7) from behind the hub and is held in place with a
Nylock nut.
3.6 SELECTION OF BEARING AND
DESIGN OF WISHBONE BEARING
HOUSING
Sectional view of Bearing housing
In a move to reduce unsprung mass, heavy ball joints
have been eliminated from the assembly. In place of
these, spherical bearings have been used to have a joint
with 3 DOFs.
The bearing selected is an SKF spherical bearing called
(GEH12C). This is a non-lubricating type spherical
bearing, which avoids repeated serviceability. The
misalignment angle provided by the bearing is 18
degree, for the required misalignment of 17 degree for
the wishbone.
To house these bearings, the housing has been designed
to constrain the bearing axially. This has been done via
step on top and a circlip on the bottom while facilitating
full misalignment of the bearing.
Fig 4.14: Assembly inside the bearing housing
The assembly inside the bearing housing is shown
above. The wishbone is held in place on the knuckle via
two misalignment spacers and a bolt in single shear.
Nylock nuts are used to avoid loosening under vibrations
at the knuckle.
CHAPTER 4
TESTING RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
The suspension system was fabricated and installed in
the ATV. The vehicle was tested for a total of 300 km to
verify the performance of the suspension system and to
check the durability of the components.
The terrain had the following sections
 This will ensure higher predictive ability of the
model.
 Use of wheel force transducers to accurately
measure the incident loads, hence reducing the
FOS, leading to weight and cost optimization.

 Mud 10%
 Gravel 20%
 Hard and rocky 20%
 vehicle jumps 5%
 Tight corners 5%
 Flat earth road 30%
 Vegetation and shrubbery 10%

The significant observations made were:

 No component of the wheel assembly failed which
showing that factor of safety consideration was
adequate and load cases were not underestimated.
 No development of relative motion between the
different components. It can be inferred that the
assembly procedure was correct and the fits and
tolerances defined were suitable (assuming
manufacturing was according to the design)
 No loosening of nuts present.
 Permanent bending of the wishbones absent, which
shows that yield stress point was not crossed.
 The spring travel was only upto 85% of its length
showing that its stiffness becomes equal to the
bending stiffness of the wishbone in that range.
 The driver experienced slight oversteer
characteristics as compared to understeer
characteristics in the previous vehicle. A
contributing factor is that cumulative camber
change in roll was kept as minimally positive as
possible and that the front roll center height was
below the rear roll center height
 Chassis deflection in bump was lower as compared
to the previous vehicle due to lower unsprung mass
 It was experimentally seen that steering effort was
lowered by 30% as compared to the previous year
due the reduction of scrub radius and replacing ball
joints by spherical bearings

Future Scope
 The Simulink Model used considered the
stiffness of the wheel and shock absorber only.
 More advanced models including the stiffness of
wishbone and damping of the tyre can be
devised.
 incorporates rack placed ahead of the wheel centre line,
leading to a 15% increase in the usable cockpit space, hence
improving the ergonomics. The steering arm is integrated with
steering knuckle to eliminate the possibility of relative motion
between them. FEA has been conducted on all components to
obtain desired rigidity, by considering subsystem weight and
manufacturing cost as constraints, to improve vehicle
performance.

Introduction
Steering system plays vital role in maneuvering the vehicle . It
converts rotational motion of the steering wheel into linear
motion of the All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV). Commercially
available steering systems like recirculating ball screw, worm-
worm wheel, rack and pinion and hydraulic steering were
considered. Rack and pinion system was selected owing to its
simple construction, low cost and lighter assembly when
compared to other systems. The steering system consist of
steering wheel, steering column, universal joint, rack and
pinion, tie rod and steering knuckle. Driver ergonomics were
considered while deciding steering wheel angle and
placement.

Methodology

The following methodology was followed while designing the

steering system for this vehicle-
 An Ackermann geometry has been achieved by ensuring
that the rack placement behind the steering hard points.
 A front placed rack incorporated in Legacy V.1 has
ensured improvement in the ergonomics by increasing
accessible cockpit space in the roll cage by 15%.
 The steering arm has been integrated with the upright to
eliminate fasteners and remove possibility of relative
motion between them.
 The material used for manufacturing of the rack and pinion
has been changed from 20MnCr5 (S ut = 880 MPa) to En36
(Sut = 1100 MPa). En36 has a high ultimate strength (1100
MPa) and hardenability, ensuring a more compact and
optimized steering subsystem. Hence, the module of the
pinion has been reduced to 1.25 mm as compared to 1.75
mm from last year. This resulted in 18% reduction in
backlash.
 A steering ratio was selected which provides lock to lock
steering in just 0.7 rotations of the steering wheel to
minimize driver fatigue.
 An 11° caster was integrated to induce camber change with
steer input, causing the front wheels to effectively lean into
LEGACY V.1 Steering Report corners, providing a camber thrust to obtain tighter
cornering.
 To ensure accurate location of the rack and pinion with a
fixed centre to centre distance, a 2-piece casing of AISI
6082 T6 is manufactured using Vertical Machining Centre
Abstract (VMC).
A steering system design influences the directional behaviour Specifications Value
of the vehicle. The main consideration is to provide comfort to Maximum outer angle 34.6º
the driver and improve manoeuvrability by decreasing the Maximum inner angle 42.9º
turning radius and reducing steering effort. The ATV Minimum inner turning radius 1.83 m
Steering effort on cement flooring (static) 8.5 Nm
Lock angle ±126º
Ackermann % (static) 29.3 %
Ackermann % (dynamic) 37.8 %
 The steering wheel of butterfly-shaped is selected from
Table 1. Steering Specifications conventional steering wheel since the steering wheel lock to
lock angle is 252o.

Steering Geometry

 The Ackermann steering geometry is used for low speed

maneuverability. It helps to reduce front tire slippage and
turning radius of the vehicle.
 The parameters of the suspension geometry such as upper
and lower ball joint, upper and lower wishbone front-rear
pivot, inner and outer track rod ball joint were considered
as the inputs to the Lotus Software.

Fig No. 3. FBD of the Steering Wheel

Calculations:
Experiment to calculate steering effort:
The experiment was performed on a similar terrain as that of
the event. While performing the experiment the tires were
inflated to 4 psi.

Fig No. 1. Ackerman Steering Geometry

Components
The steering system includes:
 Steering Wheel
 Steering Column
 Rack and pinion
 Tie rod

Zero backlash
Universal Joint
Experimental procedure:
1) The bar of length 30 in. was clamped at the centre of the
steering wheel.
Rack Casing
2) The bag was attached at the end of the bar so that the
weights can be added according to movement of the
Steering Column
steering wheel.
3) The weight required for the movement of the steering
wheel from initial lock position of steering wheel was
determined.
Rack 3 kg of weight was required to move the steering wheel from
static position. The length of bar attached to the wheel is, L =
Fig No. 2. Components of Steering Subsystem 30 in. The steering wheel is inclined 40 0 with vertical i.e. α =
400. And the bar is inclined 450 with horizontal i.e. θ = 450.
Steering Wheel
So, the torque required to move the steering wheel from static Calculations:
condition is
According to principle stress theory,
T =Force× Distance
σt 2
+ ( σt ) + τ 2
T =W × L ×cos ∝ ×cos θ
T =3 ×9.81 ×30 × 25.4 ×10−3 ×cos 40 ×cos 45
σ1 =
2 √ 2

T =12.8 Nm
By experimentation, we found that the 12.8 Nm of torque is
required to move the steering wheel in static condition. Syt 1000 1000
Considering FOS as 1.5 for unaccounted forces applied during
bump as well as droop on rough terrain.
So, torque required = 19.6 Nm
Force applied by the driver = 70 N
…by experimentation
=
FOS π ( 2 2 )
4
D −d ∗2
+ (¿

2
π ( 2 2)
4
D −d ∗2
√
)2¿

Torque required = 19.6 Nm 16 T

+ ( )
Now, π ( D 4−d 4 )
T =F × Ds
19.6=70× Ds 1000∗2
Ds=0.28 m 720 1000∗2 ( )2
= 2 +√ [ π 2 2 + ¿)2]
The diameter of steering wheel is 0.28m or 280mm. FOS 2
π (D −d ) ( D −d )
4

Material Selection: π ×720 2000 2000

2 +√ [
The 6061 T6 was selected as a material for steering wheel and = 2
( 2 2
)2 + ¿
it was sandwiched with Acrylic because of its damping FOS D −( D−2 ) D −( D−2 )
properties. )2]

Considering D=25.4 mmand d=23.4 mm, we get

Ergonomic:
FOS=5
The butterfly type steering wheel was selected because our
lock to lock angle is just 252 0. The thickness of steering wheel
was considered so that the driver shall get the desired grip Such large FOS was because of the unaccounted bending
while driving. forces, axial forces acting on the steering column during
dynamic conditions.
Hence, the design is safe.
Steering Column:

The basic function of the steering column is to transmit torque

applied by the driver on the steering wheel by the driver to the
pinion.

Analysis:

Fig No. 7. FBD of the steering column

Fig No. 8. Analysis of the steering column

 T
Rack and Pinion: cosα 30∗2
P t= = =1200 N
r 50
The rack and pinion is selected for the steering system because
it provides the required mechanical resolution while θ
converting the rotary motion of pinion into linear motion of V =rω=r
rack.
t
50 126.11∗π /180
V= × =0.1833 m/s
2 0.3
3
Velocity factor, C v= =0.942
3+V
Service factor, Cs = 1.5

Cs 1.5
P eff .= × P t= ×1200
Cv 0.942
P eff .=1909.99 N

Fig No. 9. FBD of the rack & pinion

Bending Strength, S b=mb σ b Y
Where (m) Module
Gear Calculations:
Face width = 12mm
The spur gears are considered for the rack and pinion because
they are simplest to design and manufacture compared to
SUT 2.87
helical gears. As the teeth of spur gears are parallel to its axis Bending strength, S b=m×12 × ×(0.484 – )
so they do not produce axial thrust like helical gears. 3 Zp
Now, 1100 2.87
¿ 1.25 ×12 ×( )×(0.484− )
3 40
Considering the Steering Effort on wheel = 70 N
¿ 2267.375 N
Steering wheel diameter = 280mm

Torque transmitted by steering wheel is,

Wear Strength, S w=b Q d p K

T =70 ×0.28=19.6 Nm
Consider FOS as 1.5 for excessive forces acting on the 2 Zg BHN
¿ 12∗( )∗d p∗0.16( )2
steering system during sudden bump. Zg+ Zp 100
T =19.6 ×1.5=23.9 Nm
T 350
The maximum torque transmitted by universal joint is = ¿ 12∗2∗50∗0.16( 100 )2
cosα
30 Nm
¿ 2352 N
Where, α is angle between the two steering columns and α=
37˚ Min( S b , S w)=FOS∗P eff .
Lock angle of steering wheel= 252˚ 2352=FOS∗1909.99
252 FOS=1.23
Wheel travel = πd=110 mm
360
So, the design is safe.
d=50 mmi.e.

mz=50 Initial Design:

We have, m=1.25 and z=40

 Fig No. 12. CAD of the optimized pinion

Analysis of Optimized Pinion

Fig No. 10. Initial CAD of Rack and Pinion

Material Selection:
The EN 36 is selected as a material for rack and pinion by
weighted point method.

Fig No. 13. Structural analysis of the optimized pinion

Analysis:
Structural analysis was performed on the rack and pinion by Tie Rods:
applying a 30 N.m torque on the steering column shaft.
The tie rods are used to connect the rack to the steering
knuckle through forks.

Fig No. 11. Analysis of unoptimized pinion

Fig No. 14. FBD of the tie-rod

Optimization:
The results of the initial iteration of the rack and pinion were
observed and the pinion was optimized depending upon the
stress distribution on the pinion. Material Selection

6082 T6 is selected as a material for tie rod according to

weighted point method.
Calculations

As the tie rod is inclined in the front as well as side view, the
true compound angle was considered and it was 16.3040.
The tensile forces acting on the tie rod are,

T =Pt ×cos θ
Where, θ is the true angle of tie rod with rack.
Since, the maximum steering effort is 80 Nm.
So, Pt = 3200 N
F t=3200 × cos 16.304
F t=3071.37 N
We have,
Ft
σ=
A
Syt Ft
=
FOS π
× d2
4
270 3071.37
=
5 π
×d 2
4
The factor of safety of 5 was considered for the unaccounted
buckling forces acting on the tie rod. Also, due to the
uncertainty in the bending forces acting during frontal impact.
From the above calculation,
d=15 mm

Analysis

Fig No. 15. Analysis of the tie-rod

According to the analysis, maximum stress induced in the

material is less than its yield strength so, the design is safe.

Table No. 2 Components specifications

Sr. Component Materials Manufacturing

No Process
.
1 Steering Wheel Aluminium- Laser Cutting
Acrylic
composite
2 Steering Column AISI 4130 Extrusion
3 Tie Rod Al 6082 T6 Turning
4 Rack-Pinion En36 Hobbing
5 Rack Casing Al 6082 T6 VMC machining
6 Steering Forks Mild Steel CNC Bending
7 Universal Joint Mild Steel OEM