OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY SAE BAJA DESIGN

TEAM ADVISORS: Dr. Abdelmageed Elmustafa & Dr. Sebastian Bawab Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

TEAM MEMBERS: Chad Chandler, Joe Cofer, Nathan Eramian, Francis Hauris, and Jeff Wong Department of Mechanical Engineering Old Dominion University

ABSTRACT
The SAE Baja design project requires a thorough analysis and optimization of the current frame, front and rear suspensions, as well as an implementation of an entirely new drive train assembly. The current engineering process for the design is documented in the following report, including problem definition, project scheduling, design research, design development, and design analysis. The overall objectives are to increase the total vehicle performance, quality, and overall honors received by the Old Dominion University Motorsports Baja Team.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ................................................................................................................................2 Table of Contents .................................................................................................................3 List of Figures ......................................................................................................................4 List of Tables .......................................................................................................................5 List of Graphs ......................................................................................................................5 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................6 Background ..........................................................................................................................7 1 Research Phase.........................................................................................................8 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................8 1.2 Study of Previous Frame/Suspension Designs ..............................................8 1.3 Study of Previous Drive Train Designs .........................................................9 1.4 SAE Rules and Regulations .........................................................................13 1.5 Conclusions ..................................................................................................14 2 Design Phase ..........................................................................................................15 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................15 2.2 Suspension Design Process ..........................................................................15 2.3 Frame Design Process ..................................................................................26 2.4 Drive Train Design Process .........................................................................28 2.4.1 Drive Train Design Calculations .................................................................28 2.4.2 Drive Train Design Modeling ......................................................................32 2.5 Conclusions ..................................................................................................33 Current Project Status ........................................................................................................34 References ..........................................................................................................................35 I. Frame and Suspension References ...............................................................35 II. Drive Train References ................................................................................35 Appendices .........................................................................................................................36 1 Appendix I: Lotus Suspension Data ............................................................37 2 Appendix II: Drive Train Calculations ........................................................38 3 Appendix III: Drive Train Equations ...........................................................39 Updated Gantt Chart ..........................................................................................................40

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Current Frame Design ......................................................................................9 Figure 2: Chain Reduction Failures ...............................................................................10 Figure 3: Single Reduction Gearbox ..............................................................................10 Figure 4: Gaged Gx8 CVT ..............................................................................................11 Figure 5: Differential .......................................................................................................12 Figure 6: Drive Shaft Process .........................................................................................12 Figure 7: Primary and Secondary Frame Members ....................................................13 Figure 8: Weight Distribution.........................................................................................17 Figure 9: Roll Axis Inclination........................................................................................17 Figure 10: Camber Orientations ....................................................................................18 Figure 11: Positive Caster ...............................................................................................18 Figure 12: Ackermann Geometry...................................................................................19 Figure 13: Complete Suspension Side View ..................................................................21 Figure 14: Complete Suspension Top View ...................................................................21 Figure 15: Complete Suspension Front View ................................................................21 Figure 16: Complete Suspension Isometric View .........................................................22 Figure 17: Suspension Positions in Bump ......................................................................23 Figure 18: Front Bump Camber Change.......................................................................23 Figure 19: Rear Bump Camber Change ........................................................................23 Figure 20: Suspension Positions in Roll .........................................................................24 Figure 21: Front Roll Camber Change ..........................................................................24 Figure 22: Rear Roll Camber Change ...........................................................................24 Figure 23: Front Suspension in Steer Lock to Lock .....................................................25 Figure 24: Final Frame Design .......................................................................................27 Figure 25: Frame Design Comparisons .........................................................................28 Figure 26: Double Reduction Gear Box .........................................................................31 Figure 27: Gear Train Design .........................................................................................32 Figure 28: Updated Gantt Chart ....................................................................................40
4

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Competition Scoring Breakdown ........................................................................7 Table 2: Design Regiments ..................................................................................................14 Table 3: Suspension Design Parameters ............................................................................20

LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 1: Speed vs. CVT vs. Torque ................................................................................30 Graph 2: Speed vs. Gear Box Ratio vs. Torque ..............................................................30

INTRODUCTION
In an effort to establish Old Dominions Baja team amongst the elite who compete in the annual SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) Collegiate Baja Design Series competitions, a thorough inspection of our previous Baja was conducted and compared to other highly competitive Baja teams in prior competitions. Considering the top five teams in all dynamic events over the past several years, a rough outline of all strong design characteristics were compared to Old Dominions last competitive design. This process immediately exposed our current weaknesses in need of improvement. To accomplish goals involving increased overall vehicle performance, half of our team is focusing on designing a new and revamped drive train, while the other half focuses on improvements to both the current frame and suspension. Both of our teams are going through three major phases during the overall design process. The first phase of this process is the research phase, which includes learning valuable background information, determining what issues have been the most troublesome, and determining new design ideas to overcome these issues. Next, the design phase begins which includes modeling our frame, suspension, and gearbox in computer-aided programs such as Lotus Suspension Analysis (SHARK), AutoDesk Inventor, and SolidWorks in order to establish and perfect the overall design packaging. Lastly, an analysis phase takes place to determine the structural integrity and efficiency in our design. This will involve using finite element analysis tools including both MSC NASTRAN/PATRAN and SolidWorks software to ensure that our designs are strong and efficient to endure all SAE Baja events. Ultimately our team plans to provide Old Dominions Baja team with new design ideas that will establish our club amongst the elite in future SAE Baja competitions.

BACKGROUND
The SAE Baja series is intended to be a design competition in which universities are challenged to build a power-limited, single-seat all-terrain vehicle capable of taking punishment from all types of rugged conditions. These vehicles are to be presented as a prototype for a reliable, maintainable, ergonomic, and economic vehicle sized at 4000 units per year. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) annually holds three competitions in the United States as well as several other international competitions where universities from around the world gather to compete and participate in both dynamic and static events. During each competition, teams are scored based on their vehicles performance relative to the other competitors in events such as acceleration, towing, maneuverability, rock crawls, endurance, design reports, cost reports, and overall design presentation. The teams that receive the highest overall score receive the highest honors. A breakdown of event scoring is shown below in Table 1.

Table 1: Competition Scoring Breakdown

EVENT
STATIC Design Report Design Evaluation Cost Report Production Cost Presentation DYNAMIC Acceleration Pulling Maneuverability Rock Crawl Endurance TOTAL

POINTS
300 50 100 15 85 50 700 75 75 75 75 400 1000

1
1.1 INTRODUCTION

RESEARCH PHASE

The first phase of our Baja design project involves extensive research of all areas relevant to our project goals. This includes studying previous frame, suspension, and gearbox designs from both Old Dominion as well as other competitive universities. Consequently, we were able to compare the strengths and weaknesses of all designs and incorporate these ideas into our model while coherently following all necessary guidelines in the 2012 SAE International Baja Rule Book. 1.2 STUDY OF PREVIOUS FRAME/SUSPENSION DESIGNS In past years, Old Dominion Baja has utilized unequal length, parallel double wishbone coil-over suspension systems for both the front and rear. Currently the front uses a pre fabricated rack and pinion steering assembly and Honda 400ex ATV spindles. Using pre fabricated front uprights significantly limits suspension design flexibility because you are limited to a small window for camber, caster, toe characteristics, scrub, and overall mounting orientations of the components. We also tend to use 1-0.12 wall 1020 CD steel tube for majority of the structural members along with MIG welding fabrication techniques for all components of the frame and suspension. Our research has proven that Old Dominions current Baja design is significantly heavier than a majority of the top ranking teams. In a power limited competition, similar to professional racing (NHRA), optimizing the power to weight ratio is extremely vital. Most importantly, reducing the unsprung to sprung weight ratio will significantly improve our performance. Currently, our Baja design is approximately 420 pounds at vehicle curb weight (VCW), where most competitive cars are roughly 100 pounds lighter. This design flaw requires immediate attention and can be easily corrected using effective engineering practices. Our current frame design shown in Figure 1 below is bulky and doesnt challenge the boundaries in the SAE rule book necessary to be competitive.

Figure 1: Current Frame Design Additional research was conducted to better understand the center of gravity of a human sitting in the driving position. It was determined that in general, a human body can be modeled so that their center of gravity lies along the belly button axis. 1.3 STUDY OF PREVIOUS DRIVE TRAIN DESIGNS In order to be able to design a competitive drive train, we needed to research past designs to learn more about strengths and weaknesses of different models. Some previous designs include single reduction chain driven and a single reduction gear box. Advantages of the chain driven system is the simplicity of it as well as the cost effectiveness. Having only two gears and a chain is much cheaper than building an entire gear box. Also, having to do any repairs on it would be much simpler compared to disassembling a gear box. A disadvantage of a chain system is that it is not as strong as a gear box and breaks more often. You are also not able to get as good a performance from it due to issues with the chain. A single reduction gear box has a similar advantage when comparing it to a double reduction gear box; it can be cheaper in price. But you have to deal with more stresses being put on the gears due to only being single reduction. If you are willing to pay the cost, double reduction is the best choice because of the reduced stresses and more consistent performance.
9

A single reduction chain driven setup is a very simple choice of gear design. It is exactly what you will find on a bicycle. You have the pinion gear, or driving gear, which is driven by the output shaft of the engine or CVT (depending on set up). Then you have the axle gear, or driven gear, which is driven by the pinion gear using a chain to connect them together. Only having one set of gears working together is what gives you the single reduction. This configuration is not the most optimum choice due to a variety of reasons. First, the chain is prone to breaking due to the very small components put together as seen below in Figure 2. Second, it can cause problems due to stretching and slipping. Slack in the chain also allows for an imperfect meshing of the gears creating poor performance.

Figure 2: Chain Reduction Failures While a single reduction gearbox shown in Figure 3 is still not the best design choice, it is a much better design than the chain driven because it eliminates most of the problems associated with the chain itself. Rather than having a chain connecting the gears, you simply have the gears meshing with each other directly. This creates a much smoother and consistent operation. However, having only single reduction means you have unnecessary stresses added to the gears. With one small gear spinning one large gear (pinion gear spinning the axle gear), there are greater stresses introduced to the gears causing more wear and a much shorter life. Also, depending on the total reduction ratio, the overall size of the gears will be larger taking up valuable space within the packaging availability of the vehicle.
10

Figure 3: Single Reduction Gearbox Another important research topic the drivetrain team focused on was the continuously variable transmission (CVT) pictured in Figure 4 below. The continuously variable transmission (CVT) is installed between the engine and the gearbox. A CVT allows a vehicle to go through a range of speeds and torque loads while maintaining high rpms and power output. This is accomplished by a variable reduction belt drive that has two spring loaded cones moving in and out to change reduction. As the vehicle undergoes high torque conditions, the cones come together pushing the belt outward and creating higher reduction and maintaining max rpms from the engine. When the vehicle increases speed, the torque on the gear train lessens the cones separate from centrifugal force which lowers the CVT reduction into the overdrive ratio.

Figure 4: Gaged Gx8 CVT

11

Next, the drive train team focused on studying the engine of the current Baja vehicle. The current Briggs & Stratton ten horsepower engine has a gross torque of 14.5 that outputs to a 1 x 2-29/32 crankshaft. The engine weighs 52 pounds without holding 4 quarts of fuel. There is a top revolution per minute (RPM) of 3800 in the shaft exiting from the engine, which applied a torque to the wheels of the vehicle after passing through the transmission, gearbox, and differential. The revolution of the wheels is not the same as the RPMs from the engine because gears between the engine and the wheels reduce the rotation so the torsional stress does not fracture the axial.
Lastly, the differential was studied to ensure all areas of the drive train were taken into account. The differential in the drive train is used to help optimize steering of the vehicle

by reducing understeer. Figure 5 below is an actual differential that allows steering to occur.

Figure 5: Differential

In the drivetrain, the differential is located on the axial next to the driving gear. The torque spins the left and right wheel at the exact same rate. On a turn, the inner wheel needs to spin slower than the outer wheel, which is when the differential comes in to play. The differential splits the two wheels so they can turn at different rates. Shown in Figure 6 below, the drive shaft that comes from the engine spins the crown wheel which then spins the half shaft. The wheels that are attached to the half shaft can spin separately because the planet pinion lets the axial rotate freely.

12

Figure 6: Drive Shaft Process

1.4

SAE RULES AND REGULATIONS In order to prepare for the design phase of our project, all SAE rules and

regulations need to be noted and followed accordingly. SAE requires all Baja vehicles to use a Briggs & Stratton 10HP OHV Intek engine governed at 3800 RPM. Major restrictions for the overall design include a maximum vehicle width of 64 inches, a minimum helmet clearance of six inches, and a minimum driver exit time of five seconds. For primary frame members, which include the rear roll hoop (RRH), the roll hoop overhead members (RHO), the front bracing members (FBM), and the lateral cross member (LC), all must be made with circular steel tubing, have an outside diameter of 25.4mm, a wall thickness of 3mm, and contain a carbon content of at least 0.18%. Secondary frame members include the lateral diagonal bracing (LBD), the lower frame side (LFS), the side impact members (SIM), the fore/aft bracing (FAB), the under seat member (USM), and any other required cross members. Each secondary member must be steel tubing with a minimum wall thickness of 0.89mm and a minimum outside diameter of 25.4mm. Figure 7 shows a view of most major primary and secondary frame members.

13

Figure 7: Primary and Secondary Frame Members For the drive train, SAE requires all rotating parts such as belts, chains, and sprockets to be shielded to prevent injury to the driver and bystanders. All powertrain guards must be designed with AISI 1010 steel at least 1.5mm thick or equivalent. It is important to mount all powertrain guards with sound engineering practices, in order to resist vibration issues. For a complete listing of SAE rules and regulations see Reference 1. 1.5 CONCLUSIONS After completing all necessary research, our Baja team was able to create an outline of how to revamp all areas in need of design upgrade. Table 2 below shows our design regiments along with priority level for the overall project. Table 2: Design Regiments CRITERION PRIORITY 14

DESIGN REGIMENTS Unsprung to sprung optimization Favorable weight distribution Low center of gravity Congruent suspension kinematics Great power to weight ratio Efficient gear-train Low GVW CNC fabricated frame Accurate finite element analysis Simplistic design Less joints Multipurpose beams

Handling

Essential

Agility Reliability Manufacturability

Essential High Desired

2
2.1 INTRODUCTION

DESIGN PHASE

The second phase of our Baja project involves utilizing the information researched by designing front and rear suspension systems, a space frame, and a drive train assembly using computer aid. First, front and rear suspension kinematics were modeled using Lotus Suspension Analysis (LSA) software. LSA is a very useful tool, allowing the user to edit virtually any 3D kinematic suspension point graphically while simultaneously providing solutions to any desirable suspension characteristic. LSA allows the user to cycle a suspension system through bump, roll, and steering motions that all need to be considered for our Baja car. Once the kinematics were fine-tuned, a space frame and all suspension components were generated in Autodesk Inventor. 2.2 SUSPENSION DESIGN PROCESS Starting the design phase, it was determined that the new Baja would utilize an unequal length double wishbone coil-over front suspension and a trailing arm with upper and lower rear link coil-over rear suspension. To improve upon past designs, the front suspension would consist of more double shear connections incorporating urethane bushings. Using urethane bushings ultimately eliminates expensive heim joint connections, allows for double shear connections, and provides some bushing compliance to help absorb shock loads from the road. All of these advantages go hand in hand and are essential for the overall improvement. The trailing arm rear suspension is also an upgrade due to the nature of the geometry compared to a double wishbone setup. A trailing arm suspension can better transverse an obstacle at speed. This is due to the shear geometry difference. As the rear wheel first hits an obstacle, the forward trailing link experiences virtually no bending stresses. Conversely, the double wishbone setup used in the past mainly experiences forces of bending. This can be seen at the motorsports lab where we have had several yielded heim joints due to bending. The trailing arm suspension is also another great candidate because it allows for convenient shock mounting location to mandatory

15

members of the space frame, and also allows for the ability to generate very desirable suspension characteristics by simply adjusting the two rear links. Once the suspension types were decided, it was then critical to prioritize parameters to be considered. In general, suspension design can be extremely complicated when dealing with the handling of on-road vehicles. Luckily, Baja is focused more on off-road ruggedness and is limited on available power so many critical suspension characteristics traditionally considered can be ignored. Performance, simplicity, and efficiency become critical and therefore the top suspension design regiments were chosen as follows: wheelbase, track width, ground clearance, weight distribution, roll center heights, static camber, static caster, scrub radius, travel in droop, travel in bump, and steering Ackermann. Wheelbase, or the longitudinal measurement from the center of the front hub to the center of the rear hub, is important and must be optimized to yield desirable weight transfer characteristics and turning diameters. Track width, or the lateral measurement from the tire centerlines, is also important and must be optimized to yield desirable characteristic in roll and tilting threshold. Ground clearance, or the vertical distance from the ground to the bottom of the chassis, is also critical and must allow for significant clearance over obstacles without violating the vehicles break-over angle. Weight distribution, shown in Figure 8, refers to the individual wheel weights relative to the overall and is generally considered front to rear in most two-axle cases. The weight distribution is extremely important because it is used to locate the longitudinal center of gravity (CG) of the vehicle. For design, an ideal weight distribution was assumed and considered for the overall Baja.

16

Figure 8: Weight Distribution Roll center of the suspension is defined by SAE as the point in the transverse vertical plane through any pair of wheel centers at which lateral forces may be applied to the sprung mass without producing suspension roll (Reference 1). This is another important parameter, but in our Baja project we are only interested in the roll center height relative to the front and rear axles, or the roll axis. The roll axis is the basic way to determine the cornering characteristics of the vehicle and can be done graphically. Figure 9 shows the general variation of roll axis inclination along with its respective handling characteristic. Ideally for Baja, a neutral to slightly oversteering vehicle is preferred mainly due to the tight cornering found in majority of the maneuverability events.

Figure 9: Roll Axis Inclination

17

Camber, or the angle of the tire with respect to the vertical plane, is also extremely critical. The positive and negative orientations of camber are shown in Figure 10 below on the left. Since the tires are responsible for the grip of the vehicle, the suspension must be designed so the tires remain oriented properly in all modes of motion. Unlike a typical road car, Baja uses ATV tires which are rounder and have less contact area making camber less critical. However, a cambered tire creates camber thrust which generally pulls the bottom of the tire in the direction the top is leaning. Keeping the camber in the slightly negative range will ensure desirable handling characteristics in bump, and must be examined more closely in roll to account for possible roll steer developed by this force.

Figure 10: Camber Orientations

Figure 11: Positive Caster

Caster, or the angle in side elevation of the kingpin axis with respect to the vertical plane, is another characteristic that is essential to any suspension design. Typically, positive caster implies the kingpin axis is rearward. Positive caster is shown in Figure 11 above on the right. Creating the correct amount of caster in the suspension design creates a center steer restoring force while driving, which compliments and supports stability at high speeds of acceleration and braking. We choose to rake the entire front suspension eight degrees giving eight degrees of caster. Consequently, the front suspension can better absorb and transverse obstacles at speed.

18

Scrub radius, or the distance between the kingpin inclination axis and tire contact point, is imperative and will add to the feel of the vehicle. Typically a positive scrub radius is one where the kingpin inclination lies inside of the tire contact point and ranges in value depending on tire size. Adding scrub to any suspension dramatically increases the feedback the driver feels at the steering wheel and aids in reducing steering wheel effort at low speed maneuvering due to caster. Another suspension characteristic that must be noted and is somewhat controversial on its importance in an off-road setting is steering Ackermann. Ackermann geometry is most easily described by considering Figure 12 below and noting that Ackermann geometry is one where the inner and outer steer angles comply with the geometry shown below. Steering Ackermann is a function of the wheelbase, track width, and steering geometry. Vehicles designed with Ackermann geometry are said to have favorable natural steering characteristics because the steer torques increase linearly with steer angle.

Figure 12: Ackermann Geometry

19

Lastly, establishing the suspensions bump travel (in compression) and droop travel (in decompression) is vital and must be determined in order to properly design for ground clearance, shocks, suspension travel, and general handling characteristics. In Baja, we typically need more bump than droop mainly because the shocks will need to absorb more energy during jumps or extremely rough terrain. The bump to droop ratios will be more thoroughly examined once the proper shock combination and motion ratios are selected.

Table 3: Suspension Design Parameters SUSPENSION DESIGN PARAMETERS Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) Weight Distribution Bias (F/R) Center of Gravity Height Lateral Track Width (F/R) Longitudinal Wheelbase Ride Height Tire Diameter Effective Tire Radius Static Camber Angle Static Caster Angle Scrub Radius Rack and Pinion Width Toe change in travel Roll Axis Inclination 520 lbs 45/55 Low as possible 47/46 inches 60 inches 10-12 inches 23 inches 11.38 inches ~0 to -1 degrees ~8 degrees 0.5 to 1 inches ~10 inches Minimal Neutral to Slightly Oversteering

Using the tabulated suspension design parameters in Table 3 above, and after performing numerous iterations of trial and error using LSA, the following final design suspension kinematics are shown in Figures 13-16 below.
20

Figure 13: Complete Suspension Side View

Figure 14: Complete Suspension Top View

Figure 15: Complete Suspension Front View

21

Figure 16: Complete Suspension Isometric View

General suspension characteristics were determined by noting all three modes of suspension motion including bump, roll, and steer. When considering suspension motion in bump, all major suspension characteristics were considered. It is important to have similar front and rear camber profiles to yield predictable corner handling characteristics. Also, keeping toe change minimal through travel is crucial, particularly for the steering axle. Figures on the following page show the graphical positions of the suspension in bump for three intervals: full droop, static equilibrium, and full bump.

22

Figure 17: Suspension Positions in Bump Below, front views show the camber change for the front and rear as the suspension cycles. Note the front roll center migration stability.

Figure 18: Front Bump Camber Change

Figure 19: Rear Bump Camber Change

23

Suspension roll is the second mode to be considered. Generally ideal characteristics in roll include a linear relationship between roll angle and camber gain. Throughout roll, it is critical to keep the camber as negative as possible. The figure below shows the motion of 10 degrees of roll which is a large value and slightly exaggerated.

Figure 20: Suspension Positions in Roll Below, front views show the camber change for the front and rear as the suspension cycles. It should be noted that 10 degrees of roll is excessive so the actual roll characteristics of the suspension closely mirror the desired.

Figure 21: Front Roll Camber Change

Figure 22: Rear Roll Camber Change

24

Finally, the steering kinematics were analyzed to give Ackermann geometry while balancing toe changes in bump simultaneously. This is an iterative process that involves toggling from both bump and steer modes. Unfortunately, 100% Ackermann was unobtainable with the current configuration utilizing rack and pinion in front of the wheel stub. However, this is justifiable when you consider the free body diagram of the tie rod as it transverses obstacles at speed. Consider a steering rack in front of the wheel stub. When the tire hits a severe bump, the tie rod is subjected to pure axial tension. Conversely, if the steering rack is behind the wheel stub the designer must account for buckling. Therefore, our final kinematic design utilizes a front steering rack with about 25% Ackermann geometry, which is perfectly suitable and typically unnoticeable in an off-road environment. Figure 23 below shows a top view of the front suspension in pure steer lock to lock (-x axis is front of vehicle).

Figure 23: Front Suspension in Steer Lock to Lock Lastly, the hard points of the suspension were exported to excel so that the suspension links could be modeled in Autodesk Inventor. All suspension data is available in Appendix 1. The main design criteria of the front suspension include a custom spindle with a kingpin, urethane double shear connections at the spindle and lower control arm, and an adjustable upper control arm with spherical helm joints at the frame. Incorporating helm joints in the top control arm allows for fine adjustment and accounts for any minor uncertainty in fabrication. The rear suspension will also utilize spherical heim joints but
25

for all connections. This is mainly due to the flexibility and tuning available when heim joints are used. Final dimensions for all the suspension components are still undecided but will be determined with further analysis in PATRAN finite element simulations. Estimated values of suspension components were used so a general model of the front and rear suspensions could be shown in the figures seen above. 2.3 FRAME DESIGN PROCESS Once the suspension pivot points were determined, numerous hand iterations of the frame were drawn and then modeled as a wire frame using Autodesk Inventor. One of the main goals of this years design was to have a triangulated space frame that contained far less tubes, more multipurpose tube runs, and longer continuous runs all weighing less than 50 pounds. This eliminates a lot of excess joints, decreases welding and fabrication time, and keeps costs down. Using 4130 normalized chromoly tubing is another design method that will provide benefits over traditionally used cold drawn steel. With chromoly tubing, individual tubes with a thinner wall profile can be just as effective and in some cases stiffer than cold drawn steel of a thicker thickness. These benefits are critical to an extremely low sprung weight and must be employed throughout the design. When considering the front portion of the frame, the main design goal was to successfully locate and support all critical suspension points without having unnecessary members. The general geometry had to account for mounting locations of the control arm mounts, upper shock mounts, pedal assembly, steering column, and the steering rack. The middle section of the frame was generally straight forward and good engineering practices were used to triangulate the side impact members. The under seat members were designed to accommodate a composite, low-rise Tillett racing seat within the boundaries of the rules. Using the Tillett seat is another improvement over the previously used Kirkley bucket racing seat because it positions the driver extremely low, stays tighter to the frame, and is significantly smaller saving about seven pounds. While designing the rear section of the Baja frame, it was important to account for the gearbox/engine packaging so many iterations were required to yield a desirable result. The rear of the frame was grossly simplified in anticipation of a double reduction

26

gearbox, which in turn allows for the engine to be mounted low on the frame further lowering the center of gravity. This eliminated a significant amount of material resulting in additional weight loss. The back half was then checked to insure that the engine is accessible and all mechanical assemblies are maintainable while remaining compact and tight to each component. Conveniently, laying the rear roll hoop 20 degrees back from the vertical allows for great flexibility between the motor and firewall. This space is great for an addition of a rear anti-roll bar to counteract under steer if need arises during the testing stage.

Figure 24: Final Frame Design The final design was then checked to insure that no SAE rules were violated and then outfitted with main weight bearing items such as the driver, the engine, and the gear reduction box. In this case our driver was modeled off a 61 180 lb man wearing a helmet and was oriented so the overall CG was in ideal position. Lastly, the frame was looked over for flaws and places for improvement to boost driver comfort, ergonomics, and structural efficiency. After numerous iterations of trial and error our final frame design is shown above in Figure 24. Differences in this years frame design can be seen in the comparison Figure 25 below.

27

NEW NEW

Figure 25: Frame Design Comparisons

2.4

DRIVE TRAIN DESIGN PROCESS In order to design the appropriate drive train for our Baja project, our team broke

the design process into two phases. First, we focused on calculating all hand calculations relevant to our design. Once that stage was completed, we began our three dimensional model in SolidWorks. 2.4.1 DRIVE TRAIN DESIGN CALCULATIONS In the process of determining the optimal gear ratio for the drivetrain, the team first needed to find the minimum torque required to push the vehicle forward. The team approached the process with dynamic equations to calculate the amount of force the vehicle needs to have a positive motion on both flat ground and up an incline. Knowing that torque is the cross product of the wheel radius and the force on the ground, the team calculated the force on an incline because the force due to friction and the weight of the vehicle parallel to the plane would oppose forward motion. The angle the team used was a 33 degree incline because it seems reasonable to double the force for which the completion was going to be testing for, since the vehicle needs upward motion to get over
28

the tested hill. The repelling force came out to be 334 pounds from using a 600 pound vehicle, which includes a driver that weighs 200 pounds. The torque from the force is the theoretical minimum that the engine needs put out to accomplish the goal of having the vehicle climb over a 33 degree incline. Next, we took into account all necessary performance criteria that affected our optimal total reduction. Because we are limited by a 10hp engine, our main focuses will be on optimizing speed and torque. Based on past top performing Baja teams currently, a top speed of 35 mph is usually competitive. To calculate top speed we must consider engine rpms governed at 3800, total reduction, wheel diameter, and final CVT ratio. The wheels we picked out are 23 inches in diameter, and the final CVT ratio is 0.9:1. We calculated a total reduction of 8.29. With that reduction, our max torque available at the axle is 468.8 ft-lbs. We then compared that to our dynamics design test incline required torque at 33.33 degrees to get a torque design factor of 1.45. This also gives us a top speed of 11.7 mph on the incline. All formulas used in our design were programed into our Baja excel spread sheet so that we can adjust our conditions if necessary. This is especially useful when studying dynamics on an incline or using alternative gear ratios to compare theoretical performance. Graphs 1 and 2 on the following page summarize important trends found through our spreadsheet calculations. .

29

Speed vs. CVT vs. Torque

500.000 450.000 400.000 350.000 Torque (ft lbf) 300.000 250.000 200.000 150.000 100.000 50.000 5.000 15.000 10.000 Torque vs. CVT Speed vs. CVT 35.000 30.000 25.000 Speed (MPH) 20.000

0.000 0.000 4.500 4.000 3.500 3.000 2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 CVT

Graph 1: Speed vs. CVT vs. Torque

Speed vs. Gear Box Ratio vs. Torque

500 450 400 350 Torque (ft lbf) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 9.5 9 8.5 8 7.5 7 6.5 6 5.5 5 Gear Box Ratio 5.000 0.000 Torque vs. Gear Box Ratio 25.000 Speed (MPH) 20.000 15.000 10.000 35.000 30.000

Graph 2: Speed vs. Gear Box Ratio vs. Torque

30

Figure 26: Double Reduction Gear Box Next, based on the gearbox total reduction of 8.29, the optimal gear sizes, tooth numbers and gear widths were determined. First, the minimum pitch diameter for the pinion gear was calculated. Using the diameter of the pinion gear and the individual gear ratio from the total reduction, allows calculations for the first gear. The diameters of the second and third gear were designed, so they are large enough to not interfere with the differential. The differential is on the same shaft as third gear, so the interference of the diameter of the second gear need to be in consideration. After the gear diameters were determined in the gearbox, the teeth of the gears were all calculated by using the ratio of the individual gears and the corresponding the diameters. In Figure 26 above, gear D has a larger diameter so the gear can rotate gear C without gear B touching the differential, which would be on the same shaft as the gear D. The differential is an important component in the gearbox to rotate the wheels at different rates when the vehicle is turning. Once the gears diameters were found, the minimum thickness needed to be determined. The thickness is calculated using the diametral pitch. The thicker the gear is then less stress is applied to the teeth of the gears. Along, with designing the best performing gear box and gear box components, we have to be confident that the shafts the gears are rotating on are an optimum choice of material and size. Using AISI 1010 steel in our calculations we have a Sut = 365 MPa or 52.9 kpsi and Sy = 305 MPa or 44.2 kpsi.

31

2.4.2

DRIVE TRAIN DESIGN MODELING We chose to use SolidWorks 3D 2010 to model our gear box because of its finite

element analysis simulations. Using Shigley's Mechanical Engineering Design book, we modeled 2d gear profiles by hand and then extruded them to the corresponding widths. After making each of the four gears according to the shaft diameters (0.75) used last year for the CVT and axle, we opened an assembly to put them together. Using coincident, concentric, and parallel mates with offsets for the shafts, we were able configure the gear train correctly. We then used the mechanical gear mate for each gear set. For the pinion gear to gear 1, and gear 2 to gear 3, we used the ratio of teeth as our rotation ratio in order to synchronize the gear movements. For gear 1 to gear 2 we used a rotational ratio of 1:1 to represent them being on the same shaft. This mate will not be necessary after we spline the shafts and gears together because the shaft and gears will move together automatically. After the geometry and movement is all correct we implemented material properties mentioned earlier for each component. Figure 27 below shows our current drive train design in SolidWorks.

Figure 27: Gear Train Design

32

2.5

CONCLUSIONS Our Baja team has met regularly during the design phase in order to stay on track

and meet the Gantt Chart deadlines as necessary. Both teams are finalizing all necessary design steps in order to begin the analysis phase of the Baja project. This final phase will focus on the use of finite element analysis software from both MSC NATRAN/PATRAN and SolidWorks for efficiency verification. We intend to test the designs for cases including rollover, front bump, rear bump, and frontal collision. Also, it will be imperative to make sure each test has the appropriate constraints in order to have accurate results. Data from these tests will allow us to make any necessary adjustments to our current design in order to optimize our overall project.

33

CURRENT PROJECT STATUS

Currently our team has completed all necessary background research and is one pace with the design phase. The project Gantt chart is shown on the final page of the report in Figure 28. Our team meets frequently with our project advisor, Dr. Elmustafa, to keep him updated on our design progress. Thus far, the frame and suspension team has completed various hand iteration designs and formalized the final iteration into AutoDesk Inventor and Lotus Suspension Software. We our currently in contact with Don Van Raay from Cartesian Tube Profiling in order to have our frame manufacturing process outsourced. The next step for the frame and suspension team is to begin the analysis phase of the project using MSC NASTRAN/PATRAN. The gearbox team has finalized the optimal gear reduction ratio and all other necessary calculations relevant to the research phase of our project. The current focus of the gearbox team is to produce a 3D model of the gearbox design in SolidWorks. This design will incorporate new information regarding the continuously variable transmission (CVT) and the differential. Designing the gearbox in SolidWorks will make the future manufacturing process much easier, with detailed dimensions and sectional views. Thus far, the only setback the gearbox team faces is determining whether or not we can fabricate our own gears or if we are limited to outsourcing options that may require additional funding.

34

REFERENCES

I.

FRAME AND SUSPENSION REFERENCES 1. 2012 Collegiate Design Series Baja SAE Rules. August 2011. SAE International. October 2011. <http://www.sae.org/students/mbrules.pdf> 2. Dixon, John. Suspension Geometry and Computation. Great Britain: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2009. Print. 3. Gillespie, Thomas. Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics. Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers. Print. 4. Puhn, Fred. How To Make Your Car Handle. Arizona: H.P. Books, 1976. Print. 5. Getting Started with Lotus Suspension Analysis. Lotus Cars Ltd, 2008. Version 5.01. Print.

II.

GEARBOX REFERNCES 1. Budynas, Richard G., J. Keith. Nisbett, and Joseph Edward. Shigly. Chapter 13 Shigleys Mechanical Engineering Design. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2008. Print. 2. Budynas, Richard G., J. Keith. Nisbett, and Joseph Edward. Shigly. 16-7 Cone Clutches and Brakes. Shigleys Mechanical Engineering Design. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2008. Print. 3. Web. 17 Oct. 2011. <http://www.gagedengineering.com/dgx8.html>. 4. 3D Content Central. Free 3D Models, Free CAD Models. Web. 17 Oct. 2011. <http://www.3dcontentcentral.com/downloadmodel.aspx?catalogid=171>.

35

APPENDICES

36

APPENDIX I: LOTUS SUSPENSION DATA

37

APPENDIX II: DRIVE TRAIN CALCULATIONS

38

APPENDIX III: DRIVE TRAIN EQUATIONS

N: P: d: m: p: dp: R: Tcvt: Tax: Peng: Mw: a:

number of teeth diametral pitch pitch diameter gear ratio circular pitch diameter of pinion radius of tire torque from cvt Torque at axle power of engine mass of car acceleration

39

Figure 28: Updated Gantt Chart

40