Final Design Report

Submitted to Dr. Darrel Doman Design Project Supervisor

December 7th, 2010

Submitted by Design Group 14 Simren Gill Philip Hay Patrick McKenna Philippe Thibodeau

Table of Contents
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables............................................................................................................................................................................. iii 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Background Information........................................................................................................................................ 1 Problem Definition ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Scope............................................................................................................................................................... 2 Design Requirements .............................................................................................................................................. 2

5.1 Constraints ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 5.2 Criteria ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 6.0 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.4 Final Design ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Frame ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Frame Prototype................................................................................................................................................... 5 Final Iteration ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Manufacturing Selection.................................................................................................................................... 7 Materials Selection .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Suspension ................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Suspension Design Parameters .................................................................................................................... 11 Iterative Suspension Testing ......................................................................................................................... 12 Final Suspension Design.................................................................................................................................. 15 Rod Ends and Bearings .......................................................................................................................... 16 Bellcranks .................................................................................................................................................... 16 Uprights ........................................................................................................................................................ 16 Hubs ............................................................................................................................................................... 18 Shocks............................................................................................................................................................ 19

8.4.1 8.4.2 8.4.3 8.4.4 8.4.5 9.0 9.1 9.2

Steering ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Ackerman Geometry ......................................................................................................................................... 19 Final Steering Design ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Rack and Pinion ......................................................................................................................................... 21 Steering Wheel........................................................................................................................................... 22 Steering Shaft ............................................................................................................................................. 23 i

9.2.1 9.2.2 9.2.3

9.2.4 9.2.5 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 12.0 13.0

Rod Ends ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 Bearings ........................................................................................................................................................ 24

Summary of Completed Work............................................................................................................................ 25 Frame ...................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Suspension ............................................................................................................................................................ 26 Steering .................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Path Forward ............................................................................................................................................................ 26 Frame ...................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Suspension ....................................................................................................................................................... 26 Steering .................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Potential Issues ................................................................................................................................................... 27 Budget .......................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................. 28

References ................................................................................................................................................................................ 29 Appendix A Glossary of Terms ..................................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix B VR3 Engineering Ltd. Drawing Standards ...................................................................................... 32 Appendix C - CAD Engineering Drawings .................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix D - Formula SAE Chassis Design Group Budget ................................................................................... 58 Appendix E Rod End and Bearings Catalogue ........................................................................................................ 59

ii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Formula SAE Chassis .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Frame Prototype Iterations ............................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 3: Final Frame Prototype ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Final Design CAD Steel Spaceframe .............................................................................................................. 7 Figure 5: Profiled Tube Ends (Cartesian, 2010) ......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 6: Non-Equal Non-Parallel Wishbones (Smith, Tune to Win, 1978) .................................................. 11 Figure 7: Final Suspension Design Results ................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 8: Final Suspension Design Model .................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 9: Final Suspension Design.................................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 10: Bellcrank Design .............................................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 11: Upright Design Finite Element Analysis (Gill, 2010) ........................................................................ 17 Figure 12: Hub Design ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 13: Spring/Damper Selection (KazTechnologies.com, 2010) ............................................................. 19 Figure 14-Lateral Load Shift Calculations ................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 15-Woodward Steering Rack (woodwardsteering.com) ....................................................................... 21 Figure 16: Pegasus Racing Steering Wheel ................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 17-Bump Steer Curve ............................................................................................................................................ 25

List of Tables
Table 1: Final Design Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Table 2: 4130 Cr-Mo vs 1020 Plain Carbon ................................................................................................................ 10

iii

1.0

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the progress of the Formula SAE Chassis Design Groups design project. This document will present an overview of the project, the project scope, and the design requirements for this project, while outlining the selected final design. The design groups progress to date will then be detailed, including testing and prototypes of the final design. A list of the remaining work to be completed along with areas of concern will also be included. Finally, this report will contain a detailed team budget and engineering drawings of the parts designed to date. The Formula SAE Chassis Design Group is confident that with the progress completed so far the proposed design will be completed by the deadlines assigned.

2.0

Background Information

Formula SAE is an international collegiate student design competition organized by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International (SAE International, 2010). The competition in Detroit, Michigan attracts over 1400 students from more than 120 universities and colleges from around the world (SAE International, 2010). The premise behind Formula SAE is that each student-run group has been approached by a fictitious manufacturing company to develop a small formula-style race car (SAE International, 2010). SAE International outlines strict rules and regulations to ensure competition and vehicle safety. Due to the nature of this project, there are many technical terms presented throughout this report. As such, a glossary of terms is included in Appendix A.

3.0

Problem Definition

The objective of this project is to design and construct a chassis for the Dalhousie Formula SAE team. The design group has been approached by the Dalhousie Formula SAE team to complete this project in time for the upcoming 2011 Formula SAE competition in Detroit, Michigan. There is a strong need for this project, as the 2011 Formula SAE Rules state that teams wishing to compete on a yearly basis must have, as a minimum, a new frame for their vehicle each year (Society of Automotive Engineers, 2011). The design group has enthusiastically accepted this challenge and a full description of the scope of the project and the components that constitute the chassis can be found in Section 4.0.

4.0

Project Scope

The chassis is an integral part of a formula-style race car; encompassing the frame, suspension, steering, and hub and upright assemblies. For this project, the chassis is defined as including all frame members, with the forward vehicle limit being the front bulkhead, and the rear vehicle limit being the differential mounts. All mounting tabs other than those for the suspension and the engine are outside of the scope of this project. With regards to the suspension, wheel and brake selection are excluded. Steering will also be included as part of the chassis for this project. The project scope will include design selection, use of modeling tools and simulation, iterative design refinement, and construction of the final design.

5.0

Design Requirements

In order to select the final design of our project, the group has created several design requirements which have been divided into constraints and criteria. These design requirements are a combination of rules and self-set goals to improve upon the chassis of last years vehicle and the success of the design group will be based on being able to effectively meet these requirements.

5.1 Constraints
The following requirements must be followed in the design of the chassis. If any of these requirements are not met, the design will be considered unsuccessful. General Must meet all Formula SAE requirements, as outlined in the 2011 Formula SAE Rules. Must ensure the safety of the driver at all times.

Frame Weight of frame must be 75 lbs or less. All four design group members must be able to exit from the vehicle in 4.5 seconds. Must demonstrate improved driver ergonomics; this will be done by ensuring that the drivers hips are 5 inches or less below the ankles while in the cockpit.

Suspension 10% reduction in wheelbase length from last years design. 25% reduction in steering ratio from last years design. Turning radius must be less than 15 feet.

5.2 Criteria
The following requirements should be followed in the design of the chassis. These criteria are not critical to the success of the chassis, however they will enhance performance. Frame Strengthen the frame by minimizing the number of bends. Improve engine packaging to allow for a removal time of less than two hours and eliminate the need of dismantling the suspension before removing the engine from the frame.

Suspension Include anti-roll bars as part of the suspension design. Reduce size of uprights to eliminate contact with wheel.

6.0

Final Design

The Formula SAE rules were used as strict guidelines throughout the design process to ensure the safety and eligibility of the chosen final design. To select the final design, the design group divided the chassis into subsystems: the frame, the suspension, and the steering. After subjecting each subsystem to the design process outlined in the Design Selection Report, a final design was chosen based on the design requirements in Section 5.1 and Section 5.2. Table 1 shows the final design for each subsystem. Table 1: Final Design Summary Subsystem Frame o Construction o Manufacturing o Materials Suspension o Construction o Manufacturing o Materials Steering o Construction o Manufacturing o Materials Final Design Steel Spaceframe VR3 Engineering Ltd. Cartesian Tube Profiling 4130 Cr-Mo

Non-Equal and Non-Parallel Wishbones Dalhousie University & Velocity Machining 4340/4130/1018 Steel &7075-T6 Aluminum

Front Wheel Steering System with Rack & Pinion Dalhousie University 4130 Steel

Figure 1 presents the final chassis design of the Formula SAE vehicle with the three main subsystems shown.

Frame

Suspension

Steering Figure 1: Formula SAE Chassis The following sections provide a detailed description of the final design of the three main subsystems.

7.0 Frame
The frame is the most important component within a race car, as it is paramount for vehicle and driver safety. Furthermore, the frame is the attachment point for all other systems of the car, including: suspension, steering, engine, cooling, oil, brake, fuel, and safety (Milliken & Milliken, 1995). As mentioned in Section 6.0, the design group has selected to build the frame according to the Formula SAE Drivers Cell rules outlined in the 2011 Formula SAE Rules Handbook (Society of Automotive Engineers, 2011). The frame will be constructed using a steel spaceframe design, and will be made using 4130 chrome-moly (Cr-Mo) steel.

7.1

Frame Prototype

Several wooden frame prototypes were constructed using initial CAD drawings of the frame. These frame mock-ups concentrated on the frame section from the main roll hoop to the front bulkhead, as the goal for these mock-ups was to focus on driver ergonomics, steering position, and overall dimensions of the vehicle. From the prototypes built, many improvements to the frame design could be made, and greatly assisted in creating the final design of the frame. Pictures of the first and second frame design iterations can be found in Figure 2.

> 2 Clearance Improved Driver Ergonomics Front Bulkhead

Figure 2: Frame Prototype Iterations

7.2

Final Iteration

A third and final prototype was constructed in order to verify that all the changes to the frame from the design of the other chassis subsystems did not affect the driver ergonomics and seating position. Many changes to the frame were necessary as the frame and suspension were to be designed simultaneously to ensure that each suspension member was at a node. During the suspension geometry optimization process, the spacing between the frame members and nodes required adjustment. In order to accommodate these changes, the frame nodes had to be changed and some members altered. From this process, the final frame design is much different than the initial iteration, due to these changes. The Dalhousie Formula SAE racing seat from Tillet Racing also arrived in the final few weeks, and the new prototype used the actual seat to verify all the dimensions. The final frame mock up can be seen in Figure 3 and the actual mock up can be found in the IC Engines Laboratory, Room C155.

Figure 3: Final Frame Prototype The final prototype verified several critical clearances, dimensions, and positions which are listed below: The mandatory 2 of clearance from the drivers head to the line connecting the two roll hoops. Positions of the pedals as determined by the Formula SAE team. Adequate spacing for the drivers shoulders. Clearance for the steering wheel between the drivers knees. Attachment points for the drivers safety harness. Clearances and dimensions in the cockpit and nose area for the Formula SAE templates. Positioning of the fuel tank as determined by the Formula SAE team. Location of the steering rack. Driver comfort and ergonomics.

From this final frame mock up, the design group finalized the frame design as this frame meets all Formula SAE requirements, along with the groups design requirements. The final frame design can be seen below in Figure 4, and indicates some important features of the design.

Main Roll Hoop

Rear Engine Packaging

Front Roll Hoop Steel Spaceframe

Figure 4: Final Design CAD Steel Spaceframe

7.3

Manufacturing Selection

Manufacturing a steel space frame is a labour intensive process. To construct a Formula SAE frame, the tubes must be bent to the required specifications and the ends must be profiled to nest together at the nodes as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Profiled Tube Ends (Cartesian, 2010) 7

The frame is then jigged so that the tubes are arranged in the desired orientation for welding. A skilled welder must then weld the frame, keeping distortion to a minimum. It is of the utmost importance that the frame be as true as possible, as deviations from the desired geometry will move the suspension attachment points. Any variation from the intended design will make it difficult to properly align and adjust the vehicle suspension, thus resulting in reduced performance. Typically, the bending of tubes is done using a mandrel bender and dies with the appropriate bend radii for the design. The profiling of tube ends is then done by hand using a combination of tools to achieve the desired result. In general, the CAD file used to generate the design will be used to create 2D drawings of the tube ends, which can then be used to cut each individual tube. Profiling tubes by hand is a time consuming process, with a large source of error. An alternative to shaping the frame tubes by hand is to have them CNC machined or laser cut to the appropriate profile. The Formula SAE Chassis Design Group approached VR3 Engineering Ltd. Cartesian Tube Profiling in Richmond, Ontario with regards to having the frame tubes profiled. VR3 Engineering Ltd. manufactures precision cut tubing and tube kits for a variety of applications. Their tube profiling process uses a custom CNC machine to notch both end profiles of a tube simultaneously within tolerances of 0.005 (Cartesian, 2010). This process simplifies welding through better fitment of tubes, reduces manufacturing time, and improves the overall quality of the final product. The Formula SAE Chassis Design Group elected to use the services of VR3 Engineering Ltd. Cartesian Tube Profiling to manufacture the 2011 Formula SAE frame. VR3 Engineering Ltd. has manufactured many Formula SAE frame tubes in the past and provides guidelines to teams desiring to use their process, which can be found in Appendix B. The team determined that the time saved in the manufacturing process would allow them to concentrate their efforts on the design and perfection of the various components of the Formula SAE Chassis. In addition, the use of VR3 Engineering Ltd. Cartesian Tube Profiling services is considered an in-kind sponsorship of the Formula SAE team. The frame has been sent to Cartesian Tube for manufacturing, and the design group is expecting a three week turnaround, awaiting the return of the frame early January. Upon receiving the frame, assembly will begin immediately, with full construction to be completed by early February.

7.4

Materials Selection

The 2011 Formula SAE Rules specify the baseline steel tubing for the primary structure of the frame (Society of Automotive Engineers, 2011). These requirements outline the minimum dimensions of tubing to be used in the primary structure, and are based on mild steel. The use of alloy steel does not allow for deviation from the minimum dimensions, however from a design standpoint, that alloy steel could allow for a lighter frame of the same strength to a mild steel structure through careful design that eliminates unnecessary frame members. The selected manufacturer, VR3 Engineering Ltd. Cartesian Tube Profiling uses both 4130N (chrome-moly) and C1020 DOM tubing. In their Guidelines for Formula SAE and Mini Baja Projects (Cartesian, 2010) the manufacturer states the following: The preferred material is 4130N chrome-moly tubing. This material has excellent weight to strength ratio, weldability, formability, dimensional accuracy and is readily available in the widest range of tube OD and wall thickness sizes. For these reasons, it is also the most economical and preferred material for our profiling process. However, as part of the design process, it is important to determine whether or not 4130N tubing is the ideal material for the 2011 Formula SAE frame. In the Design Requirements Memo (Design Group 14, 2010), one of the constraints for the frame was that it must be 75 lbs or less. In addition, the frame provides a rigid connection between the front and rear suspensions. Therefore, it is desirable for the frame to be torsional rigid because relative motion between the front and rear suspension attachment points will result in inconsistent handling (Design Group 14, 2010). Since the design groups primary considerations for the frame material are the strength to weight ratio, the structural material properties of C1020 DOM and 4130N were compared to determine which steel is more suitable for the frame. Under ideal loading conditions, the frame is subject only to tensile and compressive loads at the frame-suspension attachment points. As a result, when comparing the material properties of C1020 DOM and 4130N the yield and tensile strengths are the primary concern. By comparing the values of 1020 plain-carbon steel in the untreated condition to 4130 Cr-Mo low-alloy steel in the normalized condition, we obtain the following results in Table 2. (Smith W. F., 2003).

Table 2: 4130 Cr-Mo vs 1020 Plain Carbon Steel Alloy Treatment Yield Strength (psi) Tensile Strength (psi) 4130 Cr-Mo Normalized (1600F) 63,250 97,000 1020 plain-carbon As-rolled 48,000 65,000

The density of both C1020 DOM and 4130N are identical (Matweb, 2010) and as a result, the strength to weight ratio is a function solely of the materials strength. From the structural material properties in Table 2, it can be determined that 4130N is the ideal choice for the 2011 Formula SAE frame, as its yield strength is 4 greater. 32 greater than that of C1020 DOM, and its tensile strength is

The Formula SAE Chassis Design Group has selected 4130N as the material for constructing the 2011 Formula SAE frame due to its structural material properties, and its status as the preferred material of VR3 Engineering Ltd. Cartesian Tube Profiling. The selection of 4130N will allow the team to design a frame that for a given stiffness is lighter than the comparable C1020 DOM frame. This material selection should aid the team in achieving the design constraint for the frames weight of 75 lbs or less (Design Group 14, 2010).

8.0

Suspension

Vehicle suspension is a system of springs, dampers, and linkages that connects a vehicle to its wheels (Harris, 2010). The main goal of a suspension system is to keep the tires in contact with the road surface as much as possible, as all forces acting on a vehicle pass through the contact patches of the tires. Suspension systems contribute both to the braking and handling of the car, while isolating bumps and vibrations, allowing for a smoother, more responsive ride. As you increase performance in one area of a suspension system, generally there is a decrease in another. Therefore, it is important to tune a suspension system to find the optimal balance between all subsystems, while at the same time meeting all the set design requirements outlined by the design group. Using the design groups ideation and brainstorming process from the Design Selection Report, the Non-Equal and Non-Parallel wishbone system was selected as the best suspension system to meet all design requirements for this project. This system can be seen in Figure 6. 10

Car Frame

Upper Control Arm

Wheel

Lower Control Arm

Instant Center

Figure 6: Non-Equal Non-Parallel Wishbones (Smith, Tune to Win, 1978) From the figure, it can be discerned that this suspension system consists of unequal length upper and lower suspension arms, which are not parallel to each other. This suspension system allows for greater adjustability of the many suspension design parameters, along with better integration of the suspension members with the frame with regards to mounting location. This figure also illustrates two important suspension design considerations: the roll center, and the instant center. These were two key design parameters the design group focused on while designing the suspension and will be further discussed in Section 8.2.

8.1

Suspension Design Parameters

With the suspension system chosen, several design parameters were selected to begin the iteration process. Through research, the following values were used as the preliminary target values: Wheelbase Track Width Roll Center Scrub Radius Caster Camber 1575 millimetres 1200 millimetres 1 inch off the ground 10 millimetres 4 degrees 1 degree

There were several other design parameters that the design group placed an importance on while designing the suspension, including: the roll axis, the pitch axis, and the front and side instant centers. The front view instant centers control the roll center of the vehicle, along with camber change and steering parameters (Milliken & Milliken, 1995). It is desired to have the front ICs as low to the ground as possible to prevent rolling of the vehicle. The roll axis is the point about which 11

the vehicle will rotate about laterally from side to side. It is desired to have the roll axis along the center of gravity of the vehicle in order to prevent the vehicle from rolling over. The side view instant centers control the amount of anti-dive and anti-squat of the vehicle. It is desired to have the side ICs between the ground and the center of gravity of the vehicle, and to have comparable amounts of both anti-dive and anti-squat to prevent one or the other. The pitch axis is point about which the vehicle will rotate from front to back. It is desired to keep this axis as close to the middle of the vehicle as possible in order to prevent more anti-dive or anti-squat. The design group is using these parameters as the focus of the suspension design and an iterative design process has been used to create the most effective suspension system, integrated with the selected frame design.

8.2

Iterative Suspension Testing

The design group is using a suspension modelling software called OptimumK as an iterative tool to assist in finalizing the suspension geometry. Using OptimumK along with the set design requirements, the design group was able to fine tune the suspension system to achieve optimal results with regards to the suspension design parameters outlined in Section 8.1. The following is a brief overview of the iterative suspension design process. Using the initial frame CAD design, preliminary suspension geometry for the front and rear suspension systems was modelled in OptimumK. After designing the preliminary suspension geometry, OptimumK allows users to input a motion of roll, pitch, heave, or steer to examine the effects of this motion on vehicle performance parameters. As part of the analysis of this process, the design group plotted the various design parameters against the given motion to investigate how these parameters were affected by the motion. From these plots, the design group was able to make necessary changes to the suspension geometry in OptimumK. This iterative design process allowed the design group to achieve an optimal location of the suspension mounting points on the frame. During this optimization process, the frame and suspension were designed simultaneously to ensure that the optimal location for the suspension mounting point on the frame would correspond to reinforced nodes on the frame. The steering was also designed and iterated throughout this process to ensure proper functionality. After much iteration, the suspension design was finalized based on the results from OptimumK, which can be seen in Figure 7.

12

Figure 7: Final Suspension Design Results Figure 7 shows the input motion used to analyze the performance of our final suspension design; a worst case scenario of one inch bump and dip was used as the input. From the frame design, there is one inch of clearance from the ground to the bottom of the frame, therefore this is the most the vehicle would be able to travel without interference. Figure 7 also illustrates three examples of parameters that were plotted against the motion: wheel camber, wheel toe angle, and front and side instant centers. The camber change of the front left wheel was examined and it was determined that the wheel rotates a total of 1 degree under a one inch bump or dip. These results agree with those presented in Multibody Systems Approach to Vehicle Dynamics, which states that for a one inch bump, the camber angle change should be approximately 1 degree (Blundell & Harty, 2004). Furthermore, Automotive Engineering: Powertrain, Chassis System and Vehicle Body states that 13

camber change should be no more than 4 degrees under full wheel jounce (Crolla, 2009). Given that this is a worst case scenario, this is an excellent result and falls within the amount of camber change expected. The toe angle of both the front and rear left wheel was also plotted against the motion, with 0.5 degree change for a bump or dip. This change was deemed to be quite small and the design group felt this was acceptable. Finally the movement of the front and side instant centers was also examined. The front and side instant centers move approximately 125 and 30 mm respectively in the vertical direction. Under the given worst case scenario, these values seem reasonable. From the iteration process using OptimumK and the subsequent results, it was determined that this suspension geometry was successful in meeting the suspension design requirements. A model of the final suspension system can be seen in Figure 8 with all suspension components labelled. A further discussion on each component can be found in Section 8.3.

Push Rod Spring & Damper

Rear Wheel s Front Wheels

Bellcrank Non-Equal Non-Parallel Wishbones Pitch Axis Steering Rack

Roll Axis

Figure 8: Final Suspension Design Model 14

The final suspension design consists of four pairs of non-equal non-parallel suspension arms. Each pair is attached to the vehicle with one being the upper arm and one being the lower arm. A pushrod is mounted to the lower control arm, and it attached to the frame through a bellcrank, pivoting about a predefined axis. As vertical forces are applied to the wheel, the forces are transmitted to the pushrod, which actuates the rotational motion of the bellcrank. The bellcrank rotates and compresses the spring/damper, absorbing the vertical force from the wheel, allowing for a smoother ride and increased vehicle handling.

8.4

Final Suspension Design

Figure 9 shows the completed suspension design on the frame with several components labelled.

Bellcrank

Spring & Damper

Push Rod

Non-Equal Non-Parallel Wishbones

Figure 9: Final Suspension Design The Formula SAE Chassis Design Group has elected to use 4130 Steel tubing due to the availability in the desired size. The tubing was chosen to be x 0.065 for all the suspension members including pushrods. One of the reasons the design group has chosen pushrods is that they are much easier to implement due to packaging constraints. Drafts for the suspension members can be found in Appendix C, and are budgeted in the overall budget included in Appendix D.

15

8.4.1 Rod Ends and Bearings The rod ends and spherical bearings have been sourced from Aurora Bearings which can be seen in Appendix E. The rod ends require a thread of 5/12-24 UNE, with a bore of . The spherical bearings have been selected with the required bore of . 8.4.2 Bellcranks The design group has selected a preliminary bellcrank design, which can be seen in Figure 10. This bellcrank design was chosen due to its simplicity and its ability to convert the motion of the pushrods into compression of the springs. The location of the bellcranks for both the front and rear suspensions can be seen in Figure 9. The bellcranks will be made from 7075-T6 Aluminum and are expected to be made in house with assistance from the Dalhousie University Mechanical technicians. All four of the bellcranks will be identical to allow for a simple manufacturing process. The drafts of the bellcranks can be found in Appendix C, and the budget details are in Appendix D.

Figure 10: Bellcrank Design

8.4.3 Uprights A comparative Finite Element Methods (FEM) analysis has been conducted between the upright of last years vehicle and the upright design for the vehicle this year. Each upright was meshed, loaded, and analyzed, with the area of concern being the webs in the center of the upright. These webs are the thinnest members, therefore it was determined that this was the area that would potentially fail first. A worst case loading scenario was used in the analysis of the uprights, as it was 16

assumed that the vehicle was cornering and that one wheel was taking the full force of the vehicle. In this case, the hub in the middle of the upright was constrained, while a bending scenario of 2 gs of force was applied at the top and bottom suspension mounting tabs. The results of this FEM analysis can be found in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Upright Design Finite Element Analysis (Gill, 2010) After successfully validating the two upright designs, there are several recommendations that have been proposed. Compared to the upright from last years vehicle, it has been determined that the new upright can be reduced in both height and weight (McKenna, 2010). It is also proposed that the new design be symmetrical in order to more evenly distribute the forces throughout the upright 17

(Gill, 2010). From these suggestions, the new upright design meets all the requirements and all stresses remain well below the yield stress of the material. The uprights will have spacing between mounting points and will be manufactured at Velocity Machining using 7075-T6 Aluminum (Gill, 2010). Although the upright has been designed, the design group has not finalized the design as small adjustments of any of the suspension components will influence the upright final design. This analysis was performed to determine whether the overall dimensions could be reduced and if changes are required, they will be incorporated into the design. 8.4.4 Hubs The hubs are designed to mate with the new 13 OZ racing wheels that the Formula SAE team has purchased for this year. It is essential to design the hubs to withstand the torque applied by both the wheels and the brakes. As such, the hub will be manufactured from 4340 Steel, and fabricated with the help of Dalhousie University Mechanical Engineering technicians. Finite Element Analysis will also be necessary to confirm the design. A floating hub design was selected over a fixed hub design as this allows for more design freedom and eliminates the need for splines, simplifying and reducing the overall weight of the design. A preliminary CAD design is shown in Figure 12 along with detailed design drawings in Appendix C.

Figure 12: Hub Design 18

8.4.5 Shocks The design group has selected a standard spring/damper with a length of 206 millimetres. This length was chosen mainly due to packaging constraints within the frame. For the rear suspension, the shocks will be attached to the rearmost point of the frame, while for the front suspension the shocks will be mounted in between the front bulkhead and the front roll hoop. The location of the shocks can be seen in the current suspension design in Figure 9. The shocks will be purchased from Kaz Technologies and a picture of the shocks can be seen in Figure 13. Detailed catalogue specifications including the dimensions and features of the shocks can be found in Appendix E.

Figure 13: Spring/Damper Selection (KazTechnologies.com, 2010)

9.0

Steering

In the Design Selection Report, it was determined that a front-steering system is most appropriate for this years vehicle. This section outlines the progress made on the front wheel steering system design.

9.1

Ackerman Geometry

The amount of desired Ackerman geometry is a function of lateral load shift while cornering (Milliken & Milliken). The expected lateral load shifts in cornering were determined and from this, 80% Ackerman was chosen as it is the best balance of minimizing tire scrub and maximizing vehicle stability on corner exit. The design team chose a range of 50-90% Ackerman, and the amount of 19

Ackerman in the steering was simulated using OptimumK. The desired range was determined using lateral load shift calculations and a comparison with similar racing vehicles. The results of the load shift calculations can be seen below in Figure 14.
450 400 100.0% 350 Vertical Load (lbs) 300 250 60.0% 200 150 100 20.0% 50 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0.0% 40.0% Outside Front Vertical Load Outside Rear Wheel Loading Weight Shift (%) 80.0% 120.0%

Acceleration (g)

Figure 14-Lateral Load Shift Calculations The optimal amount of Ackerman was determined by considering several factors. The amount of lateral load shift expected during cornering shows how important the inside wheel angle is during cornering. If there is a large amount of lateral load shift, the angle of the inside wheel is unimportant since there is little weight on it. The less weight transfer there is, the more important having Ackerman steering is. The amount of lateral load shift was plotted versus the amount of lateral acceleration experienced during cornering as shown in Figure 14. From this graph, it can be determined that at the maximum expected lateral acceleration, which is 1 g, a value of 50% load shift is expected. This is a small amount of load shift compared to professional racing and warrants the use of Ackermann versus anti-Ackermann or parallel steering. Optimum K was used to simulate slow-speed cornering. The program does not account for the tire slip angles at higher speeds. During medium to high speed cornering, the slip angles increase the amount of Ackerman being experienced. Therefore, if the system is designed for under 100% Ackerman at low speeds, better Ackerman can be expected at high speeds.

20

As well, it was considered that a compromise is needed between having perfect Ackerman and having good packaging in the vehicle. A small amount of tire slip can be beneficial since it keeps the tires warm, increasing the traction of the tires.

9.2

Final Steering Design

Using the Ackerman geometry results, the final steering has been designed. In order to meet the constraint of having a turning radius of less than 15 feet, the wheels must be able to turn a predetermined angle. This angle was found using the following formula: Equation 1-Wheel Angle Calculation

2 Where, is the inner wheel steering angle L is the wheelbase R is the turning radius T is the track width A safety factor of 1.3 was used to ensure the design group achieved a satisfactory turning radius. From this calculation, the minimum angle was determined to be 29. This angle was used in determining the rack requirements along with ensuring no interference occurred between the suspension arms and the wheel when turning. 9.2.1 Rack and Pinion A rack and pinion from Woodward Steering was chosen as the best option due to its cost and weight. The rack can be seen in Figure 15.

Figure 15-Woodward Steering Rack (woodwardsteering.com) 21

The appropriate rack and pinion ratio can be determined using the following formula: Equation 2-Calculating C-Factor

(Milliken & Milliken, 1995) Where the c-factor is the steering ratio of the rack and pinion. The appropriate ratio was determined to be 6.4:1 (inch/rev). This will be used to determine the total steering ratio. The total steering ratio can be determined using the following formula: Equation 3-Steering Ratio Calculation

360 (Milliken & Milliken, 1995) From this, the steering ratio for the vehicle was determined to be For the steering rack, the following specifications will be used: Pivot center distance: 16 inches Total rack travel: 2.5 inches Rack travel per revolution: 4 inches/180 (degree/degree).

9.2.2 Steering Wheel The steering wheel from the 2009-2010 team is a 10 inch diameter model from Pegasus Racing. It has been evaluated and deemed reusable for the 2010-2011 team. A CAD model of the steering wheel can be seen in Figure 16.

22

Figure 16: Pegasus Racing Steering Wheel 9.2.3 Steering Shaft The steering shaft has been designed using simple hollow shaft shear stress formulas. Based on the Cockpit Control Forces document distributed to FSAE teams, the steering shaft should withstand 120 N*m (Fox, 2010). The steering shaft will be made with 4130 steel tubing 0.5 OD, 0.05 wall thickness. The steering shaft was designed using shear stress in a circular hollow rod with the following equations. Equation 4-Maximum Shear

Equation 5-Polar Moment of Inertia

23

Where T = torque from driver J = polar moment of inertia c0=outer radius ci=inner radius A maximum input torque was taken from the FSAE article listing experimentally measured torque (Formula Student, 2010) and used in these calculations. The shaft will be constructed from 4130 Steel due to its availability, along with its ability to ensure that the shaft is light weight, strong, and inexpensive. A double universal joint was selected since the angle from steering wheel to rack is 55 degrees and single universal joints are rated to 35 degrees. As well, using two offsets at 90 degrees eliminates velocity error. 9.2.4 Rod Ends Rod ends are required to connect the steering to the uprights. To simplify manufacturing and repair, the same rod ends will be used as the suspension A-arms which can be seen in Appendix E. 9.2.5 Bearings Bearings for the steering shaft are chosen based on the shaft diameter. Timken has supplied bearings to past Dalhousie Formula SAE teams and will be used as the supplier for the current team. Two 1/2 bore bearings will be used to secure the steering shaft in front of the driver. With all the information gathered, the steering system was entered into OptimumK and modelled with the frame and suspension. It was important for the design team to check the effects of bump steer on the system, meaning the effects on the system when the car hits a bump. From the modelling software, bump steer was tuned, and through iterative design it was determined that the bump steer was 0.1 degrees/inch of suspension travel. The bump steer results can be seen in Figure 17.

24

Figure 17-Bump Steer Curve From this graph, the design group was able to determine that the effects due to suspension bump/drop were negligible, and as such, it was deemed that the steering design is an acceptable system.

10.0 Summary of Completed Work

The following is an overview of the work completed to date for the Formula SAE Chassis.

10.1 Frame
The frame design has been completed and finalized. The frame has been verified by means of several prototypes, and CAD models. The frame was sent on November 30th 2010 for manufacturing. VR3 Engineering estimates a three week turnaround for the frame, and the frame should be received and ready for assembly by the first week of January.

25

10.2 Suspension
Suspension geometry has been finalized. Multiple simulations have been run in OptimumK to confirm the motions and reactions of the suspension with the full chassis, including the steering. The following suspension components have been designed: bellcranks, uprights, hubs, springs, dampers. These are preliminary designs, and they will need to be confirmed before manufacturing. Further Finite Element Analysis will be performed on the components to ensure they meet the design groups requirements. Various model simulations for the suspension have been performed to optimize design. Using these simulations, both the frame and the suspension systems have been designed iteratively with the frame, allowing for the best possible integration.

10.3 Steering
Steering geometry has been finalized and the major components have been designed. Those components that require purchasing have been sourced and are to be ordered as soon as funding has been approved. Similar to the suspension, many model simulations for the steering have been performed to optimize design.

11.0 Path Forward

To date, the design group has progressed very well in the project. Only some small suspension and steering designs are to be finalized, while the remaining work consists of fabrication, assembly, and testing of the final design. The following is a summary of the remaining work to be completed.

11.1 Frame
The frame has been sent out to VR3 Engineering Ltd, on November 30th, 2010 for manufacturing. Once the design group receives the frame, the design group will require the assistance of the Dalhousie Mechanical Engineering Technicians to weld the frame members together.

11.2 Suspension
The suspension geometry has been finalized along with many components of the suspension system. Further testing of the full suspension assembly is required to validate the effectiveness of the design. Areas of focus for this testing include the uprights, the hubs, and the rockers. It is possible that these designs may be altered based on the results of the simulations. Spring and damper coefficients will also be determined based on the results of the simulations. Anti-roll bars will also be incorporated once the full suspension system has been finalized. Bearings for the

26

system have yet to be confirmed. Once these parameters have been selected, the suspension arms will be manufactured at Dalhousie University and welded onto the frame. Testing and tuning of the constructed suspension system will then be performed.

11.3 Steering
The steering system design has been finalized, leaving only installation of the system and system tuning to be done. The steering system will be tuned using OptimumK in order to minimize bump steer. Several components are ready to be ordered and purchasing will begin before January. The assembly will require the assistance of Dalhousie University for the fabrication and installation of the steering system.

11.4 Potential Issues

Moving forward, there are some items regarding the project that the design group sees as potentially being problematic: Mounting the suspension to the frame with all points finalized, and frame mounts already in the frame. Clearance of the rear pushrods with the upper control arms. Front template clearance of the steering rack and front suspension. Packaging the upright and hub without having to change the outboard suspension points.

In order to avoid these issues, it is important to ensure that all parts are designed around those which it is interacting with. Complete models and simulations will aid in verifying clearances and will help to eliminate any interference in components.

12.0 Budget
The design group has created a detailed budget for Formula SAE Chassis. The design group has sourced suppliers for the components they intend to purchase. In addition material cost estimates have been made for the components that will be manufactured by Dalhousie University and Velocity Machining. This budget outlines each component for the frame, suspension, and steering subsystems. A description of each component, the supplier, the quantity, the unit cost, and the total cost of each item is also included. This detailed budget can be found in Appendix D.

27

13.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, this report has outlined the design groups progress to date since the selection of the final design. Significant progress has been made and on all three main subsystems of the chassis. With the frame being sent to VR3 Engineering Ltd., the design group is focusing on finalizing all the remaining components. By following the design requirements of the project, along with the project budget and schedule included in this report, the Formula SAE Chassis Design Group is confident that this project will be successfully completed.

28

References
Auto-ware. (2010). Retrieved 9 2010, from Auto-Ware's Racing and Performance Tech Site: www.auto-ware.com Blundell, M., & Harty, D. (2004). Multibody Systems Approach to Vehicle Dynamics. New York: Elsevier. Car Theory. (2010). Car Theory. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from RC Car Seminar: http://www.rccarseminar.com/index.php?menutopic=Home&submenu=Home&hmenustr=Car%2 0Theory Cartesian. (2010). Retrieved September 11, 2010, from Cartesian Tube Profiling: www.cartesiantube.com Crolla, D. A. (2009). Automotive Engineering: Powertrain, Chassis and Vehicle Body. Burlington: Elsevier. Design Group 14. (2010). Design Requirements Memo. Halifax. Formula Student. (2010). Public Relations. Retrieved October 22, 2010, from News: http://www.formulastudent.de/public-relations/fsg-news/news-details/article/steves-box-oftricks/ Fox, S. (2010). Cockpit Control Forces. Warrendale: Chief Design Judge - Formula SAE. Gill, S. (2010). 2010-2011 Formula SAE Upright Analysis. Halifax. Gillespie, T. G. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics. Warrendale: SAE International. Harris, W. (2010). How Car Suspensions Work. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from HowStuffWorks: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-suspension4.htm Matweb. (2010). Retrieved Septembe 12, 2010, from Online Materials Information Resource: www.matweb.com McKenna, P. (2010). 2009-2010 Formula SAE Upright Analysis. Halifax. Milliken, W. F., & Milliken, D. L. (1995). Race Car Vehicle Dynamics. Warrendale: SAE International. Motor Era. (2010). Retrieved November 9, 2010, from http://www.motorera.com/ OptimumK. (2010). Retrieved October 14, 2010, from www.optimumg.com Rack and Pinions. (2010). Retrieved 10 20, 2010, from Woodward Steering: http://www.woodwardsteering.com/ Reimpell, J., Stoll, H., & Betzler, J. (2001). The Automotive Chassis: Engineering Principles. Warrendale: SAE International. 29

SAE International. (2010). About Formula SAE. Retrieved October 22, 2010, from SAE Collegiate Design Series: http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/about.htm Smith, C. (2004). Engineer to Win. Minneapolis: MBI Publishing Company. Smith, C. (1978). Tune to Win. Fallbrook: Aero Publishers. Smith, W. F. (2003). Structure and Properties of Engineering Alloys. McGraw-Hill. Society of Automotive Engineers. (2011). Formula SAE. Retrieved Oct 22, 2010, from SAE International: http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/ Staniforth, A. (1999). Competition Car Suspension. London: G. T. Foulis & Company. Warkentin, A., Hubbard, T., & Militzer, J. (2011). MECH 4010 / 4020 Design Project Handbook. Halifax: Dalhousie University.

30

Appendix A Glossary of Terms

Ackerman Geometry Anti-Dive Anti-Roll Bar Anti-Squat Bellcrank A steering geometry where all wheels rotate about the same point The forwards motion of a car under braking A torsion bar to evenly distribute forces between sets of wheels The rearwards motion of a car under acceleration A crank which changes the upwards motion of the pushrod to compress the shocks Angle of the wheel relative to the vertical Angle from which the steering pivot is tilted from the vertical Upwards/Downwards motion of a car as it passes over bumps and potholes Center part of the wheel through which the shaft passes through The axis about which a car rotates about from front to back through a given motion The member through which compressive forces on a suspension arm are absorbed The point of the roll axis in the front view The axis about which a car rotates about from side to side through a given motion The distance between the steering axis and the contact patch in the front view The ratio between the turn in the steering wheel to the corresponding turn in wheels The distance between the left hand side wheel and right hand side wheel The member through which the suspension arms attach to the wheel The distance between the centers of the front tires and the center of the rear tires

Camber Caster Heave Hub Pitch Axis Pushrod

Roll Center Roll Axis Scrub Radius

Steering Ratio Track Width Upright Wheelbase

31

Appendix B VR3 Engineering Ltd. Drawing Standards

32

Appendix C - CAD Engineering Drawings

35

Appendix D - Formula SAE Chassis Design Group Budget Frame

Component Frame tubing Description The frame will be constructed by VR3 Engineering Cartesian Tube Profiling. The required 4130N tubing will be provided by the manufacturer. 36x1x1 1018 Steel 36x1x1x0.049 4130 Steel square tube Supplier VR3 Engineering Quantity 1 Unit Cost $2,000.00 Total Cost $2,000.00

Suspension mounts Engine mounts

McMaster Carr McMaster Carr

1 1

$29.45 $35.55

$29.45 $35.55

Suspension
Component A-arms and pushrods Bearing retainers Threaded tube inserts Rod ends Spherical bearings Steering rack Steering linkage Dampers Springs Bellcranks Bellcrank bearings Anti-roll bars Uprights Wheel lock-nut Hubs Wheel bearings 1 Fasteners Manufacturing Description 6 x 0.625 x 0.065 4130N Steel tube 12 x 4 x 5/16 1018 Steel 5/16 24 thread, 0.058 wall thickness PRXM-4T (5/16 UNF, 0.25 bore) PNB-4T (0.25 bore) Woodward MC Double-Universal Joint Penske 7800 FSAE Double Adjustable Damper Kaz Tech Chrome Silicon FSAE Spring 12x12x3/4 7075-T6 Aluminum TBD 6x1x0.095 2024 Aluminum tube 12 x 12 x 2 7075-T6 Aluminum 3x12 7075-T6 Aluminum rod 36 x 3 4340 Steel rod TBD Various fasteners Advanced machining services Supplier McMaster Carr McMaster Carr Pegasus Racing Aurora Bearings Aurora Bearings Woodward Co. Misumi Kaz Technologies Kaz Technologies McMaster Carr TBD McMaster Carr McMaster Carr McMaster Carr McMaster Carr TBD Fastenal Velocity Machining Quantity 8 1 36 36 12 1 1 4 8 1 4 1 2 1 1 10 unknown unknown Unit Cost $27.09 $22.91 $8.99 $650.00 $78.00 $675.00 $45.00 $196.95 $77.28 $309.84 $102.17 $262.89 $0.00 Total Cost $216.72 $22.91 $323.86 $350.00 $200.00 $650.00 $78.00 $2,700.00 $360.00 $196.95 $100.00 est. $77.28 $619.68 $102.17 $262.89 $250.00 est. $0.00 $1,000.00 est.

Total2
Frame Total Suspension Total TOTAL
1 2

$2,065.00 $7,510.46 $9,575.47

Fastenal is an official sponsor of the Dalhousie Formula SAE Team and will be providing fasteners free of charge. All prices verified 11/15/2010

58

Appendix E Rod End and Bearings Catalogue

59