Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES
2002-01-3308
Motorsports Engineering
Conference & Exhibition
Indianapolis, Indiana
December 2-5, 2002
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.
For permission and licensing requests contact:
SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax:
724-772-4028
Tel:
724-772-4891
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
2002-01-3308
ABSTRACT
SUSPENSION DESIGN
CONTROL ARMS
The purpose of the control arms is to secure the
wheel assembly to the chassis. Coupled with the
suspension geometry, the control arms play a key role in
determining the kinematics of the car such as camber
rejection and roll stability. [1] The control arms also
provide a means for tuning the suspension for specific
courses.
OVERVIEW
In designing suspension components for the
2001 Lawrence Technological University Formula SAE
vehicle, safety and durability were the top priorities. In
order to ensure the safety of the suspension system, the
loads acting on every component were extensively
studied by utilizing strength of material calculations and
Finite Element Analysis. Another measure used to
ensure the safety of the suspension system was that
every suspension fastener was put into double shear
and was either safety wired or secured with a locknut.
Weight was another important consideration
while designing and manufacturing the suspension
system on the 2001 Lawrence Technological University
Formula SAE car. In order to achieve a weight reduction
over previous Lawrence Technological University
Formula SAE vehicles, Finite Element Analysis was
utilized to remove the maximum amount of material from
every suspension component while maintaining a critical
safety factor of two. Also, chrome moly or 7075-T6
aluminum was used for every suspension component
depending on which material was more practical
considering
any
compatibility
and
dimensional
restrictions. These materials were chosen due to their
superior strength to weight ratios. The suspension load
paths were also extensively studied to ensure that they
were fed into the suspension system and frame in a
robust manner.
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
UPRIGHTS
The main function of the uprights is to provide
an interface to connect the upper and lower ball joints
with the spindle. It is crucial to minimize the weight of
the uprights because they are unsprung mass, and the
shocks have to control this weight in bump. [3]
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
SPINDLES
Front Upright FEA Results
Loading Case
Max Stress
(MPa)
Deflection
(mm)
Safety Factor
Cornering
123.35
.363
Braking
179.66
.044
2.8
Cornering and
Braking
205.10
.409
2.45
Deflection
Combined
Cornering
and Braking Stress
Rear Uprights
Many design iterations were performed on the
rear uprights to maximize their strength while minimizing
their weight. Finite Element Analysis was performed on
the rear uprights in cornering, braking, and a
combination of both of these situations. To simulate
cornering on the rear uprights, the center hole was
rigidly constrained, while forces of 781.3 N were applied
to the upper ball joint and toe bar mounting location and
a force of 2227.0 N was applied to the lower ball joint in
the opposite direction of the upper ball joint force. (See
Appendix) To simulate braking, a force of 2224.1 N was
applied to the upper and lower ball joints in the
longitudinal direction, while the center hole was fixed.
Finite Element Analysis results showed that
triangular pockets proved to be the most effective means
to reduce the weight of the rear uprights without
compromising strength. The resulting safety factors of
the rear upright were 4.3 in cornering, 3.3 in braking, and
3.1 in combined cornering and braking.
Cornering
Stress
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
S pindle F E A R esults
Loading Case
M ax Stress
(psi)
D eflection
(in)
Safety F actor
Cornering
324.05
.150
2.8
Braking
35.21
4.32 x 10 -4
25.8
Cornering and
Braking
343.90
.155
2.63
Cornering
Cornering
Stress
D eflection
Front Hubs
The front hubs are manufactured from 7075-T6
aluminum due to its superior strength to weight ratio.
Also, in order to minimize weight without compromising
strength, the front hub utilizes a four-leaf clover pattern
to hold the lugs and brake rotor fasteners. The brake
0
rotor and lug four-leaf clover patterns are offset 45 from
each other to allow for ease of pressing lugs into the hub
and installation of brake rotors. Also, a 10.16 mm high
step that is 19.69 mm wide is designed into the inside
center of the front hub to keep the bearings apart from
each other and to dissipate heat from the bearings.
Another key function of the front hubs is to allow
the brake rotors to float freely. This is accommodated
through a slot in the brake rotor fingers. Floating rotors
provide maximum stopping force by allowing both brake
pads on the caliper to grip the rotor evenly. Also, the
slot in the brake rotor fingers allow the brake rotor
fasteners to be put into double shear as a safety
feature. [6]
Cornering
Stress
Rear Hubs
The main function of the rear hubs is to connect
the driveline to the wheels through the halfshafts and
constant velocity (CV) joints.
The rear hubs are
manufactured from 4340 steel because they must be
compatible with the outer CV joints that are splined to
accept a hub.
The rear hubs also utilize a four-leaf clover
design to minimize their weight. To reduce friction from
the rotating hub, bearings are placed in between the
upright and the shaft on the hub. As a safety feature, a
spindle lock nut is applied on the end of the CV joint to
prevent the hub from becoming disengaged from the
driveline.
Finite Element Analysis proved that the rear
hubs design was adequate for its application. A safety
factor of 4.9 was obtained when a torque of 697.0 N-m
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Cornering
Stress
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Rocker
FEA Results
Suspension
Mechanism
FEA Results
Stress
Displacement
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
APPENDIX
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
RUCA
TOTAL WEIGHT
14.30o
RPR
RLCA
1445.7 N
556.0 N
4.13o
CONTROL ARMS
FRONT CONTROL ARM AXIAL FORCES
15.45o
+
FPR
FLCA
1445.7 N
556.0 N
28.06o
)
+
M = 0 = (1445.7)(381) + (R
LCA
R LCA = 2,267.3N
RUCA = 1,060.5 N
R PR = 2,088.0 N
+
BUCKLING CALCULATIONS
M = 0 = (1445.7)(381) + (F
LCA
Pcr =
2 EI
L2
E = 206.84GPa
I = 1723.20 10 12 m 4
PMAX = 52,167.90 N
28.03o
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
SF =
)(
52,167.90
= 2.65
19,660.26
Rear Arm
2 206.84 109 1723.20 1012
Pcr =
(0.442)2
Pcr = 18,006.34 N
52,167.90
SF =
= 2.90
18,006.34
)(
)(
Rear Arm
2 206.84 109 1723.20 1012
Pcr =
(0.550)2
Pcr = 11,629.06 N
52,167.90
SF =
= 4.49
11,629.06
)(
)(
Rear Arm
2 206.84 109 1723.20 1012
Pcr =
(0.497)2
Pcr = 14,241.55 N
52,167.90
SF =
= 3.66
14,241.55
)(
)(
Rear Arm
2 206.84 109 1723.20 1012
Pcr =
(0.543)2
Pcr = 11,930.82 N
52,167.90
SF =
= 4.37
11,930.82
)(
MOMENT CALCULATIONS
M=Fd
Bending Moment due to Vertical Force
Front Upper Control Arm
M = (VF )(d ) = 278.0 cos 25.45 0 0.413 cos 25.45 0
M = 93.61N m
M = 131.45 N m
)(
)
)
M = 101.14 N m
)(
)(
M = 107.97 N m
)(
(
(
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
STRESS CALCULATIONS
S=
My
I
I = 1723.20 10 12 m 4
y = 9.525 10 3 m
Bending Stress due to Vertical Force
Front Upper Control Arm
(93.61) 9.525 10 3 = 517.43MPa
S=
1723.20 10 12
1206.58
SF =
= 2.33
517.43
SPINDLES
FATIGUE ANALYSIS
Maximum Vertical Force = 2891.2 N
Minimum Vertical Force = 0 N
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
I=
0.019 4 0.014 4 = 7.22 10 8 m 4
4
UPRIGHTS
FRONT UPRIGHT CORNERING FORCE
FUBJ
Maximum Stress
My (237.08)(0.019)
S max =
=
= 62.39MPa
I
7.22 10 8
FLBJ
1445.7 N
Minimum Stress
My
(0)(0.019) = 0MPa
S min =
=
I
7.22 10 8
Mean Stress
Sm =
Average Stress
S
S min 62.39 0
S a = max
=
= 31.20MPa
2
2
r
+
)
+
F = 0 = 1445.7 F F
M = 0 = (1445.7)(0.142) + F
y
UBJ
LBJ
UBJ
(0.239) = 0
FUBJ = 859.95 N
SUT = 825MPa
FLBJ = 2304.65 N
S YT = 701.25MPa
S1000 = 742.5MPa
S e = 412.5MPa
Soderberg Approach
Sm Sa
+
=1
S YT S e
FUBJ
31.20 31.20
+
=1
701.25
Se
FLBJ
S e = 32.65MPa
= 10 b
1445.7 N
z
(S e )1 / b
b=
1 S1000
log
3
Se
1 742.5
=
3 log 412.5
b = 0.085
c = log
(S1000 )2
Se
= log
c = 3.126
N
3.126
= 10 0.085
19
N=1.39X10
(32.65)1 / 0.085
cycles
(742.5)2
y
r
+
)
+
F = 0 = 1445.7 F F
M = 0 = (1445.7)(0.147) + F
y
UBJ
LBJ
UBJ
412.5
FUBJ = 781.32 N
FLBJ = 2227.02 N
(0.272) = 0
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
PULLRODS
HUBS
TENSILE STRESS
P
A
FUL
FLL
1445.7 N
z
y
r
+
)
+
F = 0 = 1445.7 F F
M = 0 = (1445.7)(205.0) + F
y
LL
UL
UL (98.0)
FUL = 3024.17 N
FLL = 4469.87 N
RUL
RLL
1445.7 N
z
y
r
+
)
+
F = 0 = 1445.7 R R
M = 0 = (1445.7)(205.0) + R
y
LL
UL
UL (98.0)
RUL = 3024.17 N
R LL = 4469.87 N