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



2

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.



















3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ................................................................................................................................2
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................3
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................5
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................7
List of Graphs ......................................................................................................................7
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................8
Background ..........................................................................................................................9
1 Research Phase.......................................................................................................10
1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................10
1.2 Study of Previous Frame/Suspension Designs ............................................10
1.3 Study of Previous Drive Train Designs .......................................................11
1.4 SAE Rules and Regulations .........................................................................15
1.5 Conclusions ..................................................................................................16
2 Design Phase ..........................................................................................................17
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................17
2.2 Suspension Design Process ..........................................................................17
2.3 Frame Design Process ..................................................................................32
2.4 Drive Train Design Process .........................................................................35
2.4.1 Drive Train Design Calculations .................................................................35
2.4.2 Shaft Design .................................................................................................38
2.4.3 Bearings .......................................................................................................39
2.4.4 Drive Train Design Modeling ......................................................................41
2.5 Conclusions ..................................................................................................45
3 Analysis Phase .......................................................................................................46
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................46
3.2 Suspension Analysis ....................................................................................46
3.3 Frame Analysis ............................................................................................50
3.3.1 Vibration Test ..............................................................................................51
3.3.2 Frontal Collision Load Case ........................................................................52
3.3.3 Rollover Collision Load Case ......................................................................54
3.3.4 Side Impact Collision Load Case .................................................................56
3.3.5 Torsional Rigidity Load Case ......................................................................58
3.3.6 Results Explained.........................................................................................60
3.4 Drive Train Analysis ....................................................................................62
3.5 Conclusions ..................................................................................................66
Cost Considerations ...........................................................................................................67
Summary ............................................................................................................................69
Current Baja Status ............................................................................................................69
References ..........................................................................................................................70
I. Frame and Suspension References ...............................................................70
II. Drive Train References ................................................................................70


4

Appendices .........................................................................................................................72
1 Appendix I: Lotus Suspension Data .............................................................73
2 Appendix II: Drive Train Calculations .........................................................74
3 Appendix III: Reference Equations ..............................................................75
Updated Gantt Chart ..........................................................................................................79






















5

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Current Frame Design ....................................................................................11
Figure 2: Chain Reduction Failures ...............................................................................12
Figure 3: Single Reduction Gearbox ..............................................................................13
Figure 4: Gaged Gx8 CVT ..............................................................................................13
Figure 5: Differential .......................................................................................................14
Figure 6: Drive Shaft Process .........................................................................................14
Figure 7: Primary and Secondary Frame Members ....................................................15
Figure 8: Spindle Design .................................................................................................18
Figure 9: Control Arm.....................................................................................................18
Figure 10: Weight Distribution.......................................................................................19
Figure 11: Roll Axis Inclination......................................................................................20
Figure 12: Camber Orientations ....................................................................................21
Figure 13: Positive Caster ...............................................................................................21
Figure 14: Ackermann Geometry...................................................................................22
Figure 15: Complete Suspension Side View ..................................................................24
Figure 16: Complete Suspension Top View ...................................................................24
Figure 17: Complete Suspension Front View ................................................................24
Figure 18: Complete Suspension Isometric View .........................................................25
Figure 19: Suspension Positions in Bump ......................................................................26
Figure 20: Front Bump Camber Change.......................................................................26
Figure 21: Rear Bump Camber Change ........................................................................26
Figure 22: Suspension Positions in Roll .........................................................................28
Figure 23: Front Roll Camber Change ..........................................................................28
Figure 24: Rear Roll Camber Change ...........................................................................28
Figure 25: Front Suspension in Steer Lock to Lock .....................................................30
Figure 26: Final Frame Design .......................................................................................34
Figure 27: Frame Design Comparisons .........................................................................34
Figure 28: Double Reduction Gearbox ..........................................................................37
Figure 29: Angular Contact Bearing..............................................................................40


6

Figure 30: Bearing Stress Analysis .................................................................................40
Figure 31: Gearbox Case .................................................................................................41
Figure 32: Gear Train Design .........................................................................................42
Figure 33: 2
nd
Gear Render .............................................................................................44
Figure 34: Mid-Shaft Render ..........................................................................................44
Figure 35: Casing Render 1 ............................................................................................44
Figure 36: Casing Render 2 ............................................................................................45
Figure 37: Static Free Body Diagram ............................................................................47
Figure 38: Full Bump Compliance .................................................................................48
Figure 39: Upper Wishbone FBD ...................................................................................48
Figure 40: Lower Wishbone FBD ...................................................................................48
Figure 41: Spindle FBD ...................................................................................................48
Figure 42: Tie Rod FBD ..................................................................................................48
Figure 43: Rear Swing Arm FBD ...................................................................................49
Figure 44: Rear Lower Link FBD ..................................................................................49
Figure 45: Rear Upper Link FBD ..................................................................................49
Figure 46: 1
st
, 2
nd
, and 3
rd
Modes of Vibration..............................................................52
Figure 47: Front Collision Load Case ............................................................................53
Figure 48: Front Collision Displacement Plot ...............................................................53
Figure 49: Front Collision Bending Stress Plot .............................................................54
Figure 50: Rollover Collision Load Case .......................................................................55
Figure 51: Rollover Displacement Plot ..........................................................................55
Figure 52: Rollover Bending Stress Plot ........................................................................56
Figure 53: Side Impact Collision Load Case .................................................................57
Figure 54: Side Impact Collision Displacement Plot ....................................................57
Figure 55: Side Impact Collision Bending Stress Plot ..................................................58
Figure 56: Torsional Rigidity Load Case.......................................................................59
Figure 57: Torsional Rigidity Displacement Plot ..........................................................59
Figure 58: Torsional Rigidity Bending Stress Plot .......................................................60
Figure 59: Casing FEA Results .......................................................................................63
Figure 60: Shaft FEA Results .........................................................................................64


7

Figure 61: Gear 1 FEA Results .......................................................................................64
Figure 62: Gear 2 FEA Results .......................................................................................65
Figure 63: Gear 3 FEA Results .......................................................................................65
Figure 64: Updated Gantt Chart ....................................................................................79
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Competition Scoring Breakdown ......................................................................9
Table 2: Design Regiments ..............................................................................................16
Table 3: Suspension Design Parameters ........................................................................23
Table 4: Factor of Safety Results ....................................................................................39
Table 5: Material Properties of 4130 Chromoly ...........................................................50
Table 6: Frame Section and Corresponding Tube Size ................................................51
Table 7: Frontal Collision Results ..................................................................................54
Table 8: Rollover Results ................................................................................................56
Table 9: Side Impact Collision Results ..........................................................................58
Table 10: Torsional Rigidity Results ..............................................................................60
Table 11: Summarized Results .......................................................................................61
Table 12: Gearbox FEA Results .....................................................................................66
Table 13: Gearbox Cost Breakdown ..............................................................................68
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 1: Caster (Bump) .................................................................................................27
Graph 2: Toe (Bump) .....................................................................................................27
Graph 3: Caster (Bump) ................................................................................................27
Graph 4: Camber (Roll) .................................................................................................29
Graph 5: Toe (Roll) .........................................................................................................29
Graph 6: Roll Steer Coefficient (%) ..............................................................................29
Graph 7: Ackermann (%) ..............................................................................................31
Graph 8: Toe Angle .........................................................................................................31
Graph 9: Speed vs. CVT vs. Torque ..............................................................................36
Graph 10: Speed vs. Gearbox Ratio vs. Torque ............................................................36



8

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.







9

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 POINTS
STATIC 300
Design Report 50
Design Evaluation 100
Cost Report 15
Production Cost 85
Presentation 50
DYNAMIC 700
Acceleration 75
Pulling 75
Maneuverability 75
Rock Crawl 75
Endurance 400
TOTAL 1000





10

1 RESEARCH PHASE

1.1 INTRODUCTION
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.


11


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 gearbox.
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
gearbox. Also, having to do any repairs on it would be much simpler compared to
disassembling a gearbox. A disadvantage of a chain system is that it is not as strong as a
gearbox 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 gearbox has a similar advantage when
comparing it to a double reduction gearbox; 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.


12

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.


13


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


14

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
14.5N m 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 axle.
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 under-steer. Figure 5 below, is an actual differential that allows
steering to occur.

Figure 5: Differential Figure 6: Drive Shaft Process
In the drivetrain, the differential is located on the axle 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 above, 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.


15

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 (LDB), 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.

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


16

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











17

2 DESIGN PHASE

2.1 INTRODUCTION
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. The use of custom front spindles with a single degree of freedom about the
kingpin axis will allow for improved suspension kinematics and support urethane bushing
connections. Implementing oil impregnated bronze bushings in the spindle will allow for
easy rotation and large steering angles to improve the maneuverability of the vehicle.
Urethane bushings ultimately eliminate expensive heim joints, allow for double shear
connections, and provide some bushing compliance to help absorb shock loads from the
road. A rough model of both the wishbone and spindle design are shown in the Figures
below. Note the hidden lines in the spindle which represent the actual kingpin which is
threaded into the upper mount for assembly. The axle stub must be welded on the outer
kingpin sleeve in the proper orientation in order to properly mount the wheel hub. All of
these advantages go hand-in-hand and are essential for overall improvement.




18







Figure 8: Spindle Design Figure 9: Control Arm
The trailing arm rear suspension is also an upgrade due to the nature of the
geometry when 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
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. Other suspension characteristics such as the motion ratio,


19

dampening ratio, and ride frequencies can also be tailored towards an off-road
environment.
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 10, 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. The foundation of the suspension
design was based off of ODUs previous Baja total weight of 700lbs, which includes a
200lb driver. For design, an ideal-natural weight distribution was assumed and
considered.

Figure 10: 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


20

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 11 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 11: Roll Axis Inclination
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
12 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.


21


Figure 12: Camber Orientations Figure 13: 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 13 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.
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.


22

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 14 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 14: Ackermann Geometry
Additional consideration in establishing the suspensions motion ratios, bump, and
droop travel is vital and must be determined in order to properly design for ground
clearance, shocks, suspension travel, ride rates, and general handling characteristics. The
motion ratio is generally the ratio of the shock travel to actual wheel movement.
Variations in the suspension motion ratio will yield a variety of characteristics mainly
affecting roll/pitch stiffness, ride rate, suspension travel, and suspension dampening
ratios. As a designer, maintaining tire to ground contact throughout the dynamic limits of
the vehicle is key and by utilizing the power of LSA, ballpark values for dampening,
spring rates, and motion ratios can be estimated to achieve a desirable responsive


23

dynamic suspension system optimized for rough terrain. In general, motion ratios of
about 0.6 and a dampening ratio of about 0.1-0.2 times that of critical dampening will
result in desirable handling characteristics as the vehicle transverses rough terrain. It is
also noted that the spring center should be slightly behind the CG, meaning the rear
spring rate be slightly stiffer than the front. Establishing our ideal weight distribution
satisfies just that once the desired shock preload is set for a ride height.
Table 3: Suspension Design Parameters
SUSPENSION DESIGN PARAMETERS
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 700 lbs
Weight Distribution Bias (F/R) 45/55
Center of Gravity Height Low as possible
Lateral Track Width (F/R) 47/46 inches
Longitudinal Wheelbase 60 inches
Ride Height 10-12 inches
Tire Diameter 23 inches
Effective Tire Radius 11.38 inches
Static Camber Angle ~0 to -1 degrees
Static Caster Angle ~8 degrees
Scrub Radius 0.5 to 1 inches
Rack and Pinion Width ~10 inches
Toe change in travel Minimal
Roll Axis Inclination 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 15-18 below.


24


Figure 15: Complete Suspension Side View


Figure 16: Complete Suspension Top View


Figure 17: Complete Suspension Front View


25


Figure 18: Complete Suspension Isometric View
General suspension kinematics were determined by considering all three modes of
suspension motion including bump, roll, and steer. In bump, all major suspension
characteristics were considered. For stability and cornering predictability, it is important
to have similar front and rear camber profiles. Also, minimizing toe changes throughout
travel is crucial, particularly for the steering axle. Graphs on the following page show
the graphical positions of the suspension in bump for three intervals: full droop, static
equilibrium, and full bump. The subsequent plots show the important kinematic data for
both the front and rear suspension systems in bump. Note the front roll center migration
stability in Figures 20 and 21. Also note the static toe angles for the front and rear
suspension have been set to zero to minimize the rolling resistance. In bump, a slight toe-
in of the rear suspension is desired because it establishes vehicular straight line stability
where as a toe-out can produce unpredictable cornering characteristics which may result
in a loss of control or spin out. Similarly, a slight toe-in of the front suspension is desired
for stable steering and handling whereas a slight toe-out will cause the car to dart around
with what is known as bump steer. The caster plot is intended to show both the static
caster of about 8 degrees and stability as the suspension cycles.


26



Figure 19: 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 20: Front Bump Camber Change Figure 21: Rear Bump Camber Change


27


Graph 1: Camber (Bump) Graph 2: Toe (Bump)


Graph 3: Caster (Bump)
The second mode to be considered is suspension roll. Generally, ideal
characteristics in roll include a linear relationship between roll angle and camber gain.
Vehicle roll stiffness is also in interest, generally related with the roll moment produced
from the inertial forces acting through the CG with respect to the roll axis. Typically
when a vehicle yaws into a corner, the vehicle tends to roll away from the turning
direction creating additional weight transfer to the outer most wheels. This additional
weight transfer causes steering lag which when in excess produces sluggish handling and
is usually treated by adding a sway bar to increase the overall roll stiffness. As you can
see, the slope of the roll axis indicates a slightly higher rear roll stiffness favoring over-
steer. Also, positive rear roll steer also favors over-steering characteristics from the
camber thrust force which acts in the same direction as the top of tire lean or opposite of


28

the cornering direction. The figure below shows the motion of 10 degrees of roll which is
a large value and slightly exaggerated. The subsequent plots show the important
kinematic data for both the front and rear suspension systems in roll.

Figure 22: Suspension Positions in Roll

Figure 23: Front Roll Camber Change Figure 24: Rear Roll Camber Change



29


Graph 4: Camber (Roll) Graph 5: Toe (Roll)

Graph 6: Roll Steer Coefficient (%)
The steering kinematics must be analyzed to give desirable steering
characteristics in both low speed and high speed environments. Since Baja is mainly an
off road application, the effect of perfect steering kinematics is limited on overall vehicle
performance however it still must be considered. Perfect Ackermann geometry has little
to no effect on high speed cornering responsivity especially in an off road environment
where maintaining a neutral weight distribution is far more important for successful
handling.
General low-speed steering performance can be improved with correct geometry
but with a low mass vehicle like Baja, the steering forces required to steer the vehicle are
small and effects are essentially unnoticeable. More emphasis on increasing the tire slip


30

angle and decreasing turning diameters to improve overall vehicle maneuverability along
with minimizing bump steer were top priorities. Optimizing the steering kinematics was
iterative to ensure both bump and steer were desirable. Unfortunately, 100% Ackermann
was unobtainable with the current configuration utilizing rack and pinion in front of the
wheel stub. However, this is justifiable for the obvious reasons stated above as well as
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 or kingpin center. 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 making it
obsolete.
Our final kinematic design utilizes an off the shelf 11 inch mini sand rail rack and
pinion unit with about 25% Ackermann geometry, which is perfectly suitable and
typically unnoticeable in an off-road environment. Figure 25 below shows a top view of
the front suspension in pure steer lock to lock (-x axis is front of vehicle). The subsequent
plots show the important kinematic data for the front suspension system in steering
modes.







Figure 25: Front Suspension in Steer Lock to Lock


31


Graph 7: Ackermann (%) Graph 8: Toe Angle
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 heim joints at the frame. Incorporating heim 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 for all connections. This is mainly
due to the flexibility and tuning available when heim joints are used. 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.
After a general model of the suspension kinematics was produced, numerous
shock options were investigated including both coil-over and air springs. Traditional coil
over shocks provide an advantage over newer style air shocks because they do not have a
variable spring rate and will not change significantly throughout a race from heat or
fatigue. Air shocks on the other hand, have variable spring rates, so they are capable of
unwantedly varying spring rates with temperature.
For our particular application, Fox Float R air shocks have proved to be the best
option all around for a number of reasons. First, Fox Float R shocks feature an infinitely
adjustable, progressive air spring with velocity sensitive dampening control and external


32

rebound dampening. Because they are infinitely adjustable, there is no need to purchase
multiple spring sets during the testing/tuning phase, thus lowering the overall costs
required for the Baja program. This can also be advantageous during dynamic events
where small adjustments in pressure can easily lower the ride height or soften the
suspension when desired. The progressive spring rate gives the shock a bottomless feel,
so harsh bottom-outs that destroy these cars are reduced significantly. In addition, the
Float R provides independent bump velocity control and rebound dampening
adjustments, which when maneuvering over rough terrain can increase driver control
tremendously. In Baja, we typically need softer/faster bump than droop mainly because
the shocks will need to absorb more energy landing jumps or traversing harsh terrain. A
softer bump and stiffer rebound motion will allow the vehicle to skip over obstacles
while maintaining traction. Lastly, the Float R shock is a light-weight design at only 2lbs
per shock adding more weight saving at an affordable university-discounted price of
$596.00 per set.
To emphasis its importance, the greatest improvements over previous designs can
be achieved by strictly keeping the unsprung weight to an absolute minimum along with
minimizing the sprung mass as much as possible. For our design purposes, realistic
values of our university Baja car were used, but significant developments in overall
performance can directly be improved by a strenuous weight analysis on the vehicle.
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


33

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
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.


34


Figure 26: 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 200lb 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 26. Differences in this years frame design can be seen
in the comparison Figure 27 below.

Figure 27: Frame Design Comparisons
NEW
NEW


35

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
modeling 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
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


36

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 9 and 10 below summarize important trends
found through our spreadsheet calculations.

Graph 9: Speed vs. CVT vs. Torque

Graph 10: Speed vs. Gearbox Ratio vs. Torque
0.000
50.000
100.000
150.000
200.000
250.000
300.000
350.000
400.000
450.000
500.000
0.000
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
35.000
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000
T
o
r
q
u
e

(
f
t

l
b
f
)

S
p
e
e
d

(
M
P
H
)

CVT
Speed vs. CVT vs. Torque
Torque vs. CVT
Speed vs.
CVT
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
800.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
S
p
e
e
d

(
M
P
H
)

T
o
r
q
u
e

(
f
t

l
b
f
)

Gearbox Ratio
Speed vs. Gearbox Ratio vs. Torque
Torque vs. Gear Box
Ratio
Speed vs. Gear Box
Ratio
35


37


Figure 28: Double Reduction Gearbox
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 28 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 gearbox and gearbox 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 S
ut
= 365 MPa or
52.9 kpsi and S
y
= 305 MPa or 44.2 kpsi.


38

2.4.2 SHAFT DESIGN
The design of the shafts used in the gearbox first required the knowledge of what
type and size gears to be used. Once this had been determined, the use of the DE-ASME
Elliptic theory in Shigleys Mechanical Engineering Design book was employed to find
the proper shaft diameter and material. All equations and information from tables also
referenced this book. The following procedure is a step-by-step discussion of the Elliptic
theory performed first with 4130 Chromoly, second with AISI 1010 steel, and thirdly
with AISI 1018 steel.
1. Using the known torque and horse power of the Briggs & Stratton engine
provided for the Baja car, the torque and forces transmitted to each gear were
determined.
2. The max bending moment is calculated at each location.
3. Information from table 7-1 using the Retaining ring groove selection was
gathered.
4. Equation 6-32 is used to find Kf and Kfs
5. Reduce the max equation 7-15 with the unknown diameter (d).
6. Solve for (d) using equation 7-16
7. Using this diameter as a basis, solve equation 6-18 for Se
8. Plug all known variables into equation 7-11, the DE-ASME Elliptic equation, and
solve for the diameter (d). This is the first iteration.
9. Now recalculate steps 7 and 8 above using d, solving for d. This is the second
iteration.
10. If there is minimal difference between d and d then the diameter of the shaft is
solved for. If not continue the iterations until this is true.
11. Steps 1 10 are performed for each type of material chosen as an option.
Several iterations were performed in order to determine the correct material and
dimensions. The shaft material of choice is the AISI 1018 annealed steel and the shaft
diameter will be one inch. The factors of safety results from all iterations are shown in
Table 4 below.





39

Table 4: Factor of Safety Results
Iteration Factor of Safety
1
st
7.6
2
nd
2.9
3
rd
6.7

In the effort to design a shaft that provides the strength and durability we need as well as
stay cost effective, we decided on the AISI 1018 steel with a factor of safety of 6.7.
2.4.3 BEARINGS
In the gearbox, bearings are needed to allow the shaft and gear to rotate without
applying concentrated loads and friction to the casing. A bearing is comprised of an outer
and inner cylindrical shell with small round objects that rotate freely between the two
shells. These round objects allow the inner cylinder to rotate freely and only possess
rolling friction rather than surface friction. The bearing reduces the friction and the wear
from high rotational shaft velocities. Rolling friction reduces the amount of interference
for the shaft to spin, instead of the surface area of the tube rubbing against the shaft. The
ball bearings are used specifically for reducing sliding friction from the shaft. Some
categories of ball bearings include angular contact, radial, and thrust ball bearings.
Angular contact bearings, shown in Figure 29, are used for radial and thrust loads, which
are applied tangent to the rotation of the shaft and also along the shaft itself. Radial ball
bearings are for loads along the rotation of the shaft mainly dealing with high speed
rotation. Lastly, thrust ball bearings are designed for loads that are applied perpendicular
to the cross-section of the shaft. For our gearbox, the shafts will have radial loading and
also thrust loading from the gears forcing the shaft to bend. Therefore, angular contact
bearings will be needed to support the shafts in our design. Figure 30 shows the stress
concentration inside a ball bearing due to an applied load as the balls rotate inside.



40






Figure 29: Angular Contact Bearing Figure 30: Bearing Stress Analysis
To determine the bore diameter of the angular contact bearing, the first step is to
calculate the forces that are acting on the gears of the shaft. The force for the third gear
was determined using the torque from the wheels. Using a 20 angle of contact on the
gears, we determined the forces on the gears along the two other shafts. Once these forces
were determined, a moment on each shaft was implemented to calculate the force at each
end. The force results on the ends of each shaft enabled us to calculate the bore diameter
of the bearing. The force was inserted to the catalog load rating equation, along with
reliability, life rating, and rotational speed. The estimate for reliability was 90 percent
with a design life of 40000 hours.
The catalog load rating for the pinion gear shaft had 485 pounds for the CVT side
and 357 pounds for the non-CVT side.
For the middle-shaft, the catalog loading rate on the CVT side was 4361 pounds
and 1043 pounds on the non-CVT.
The gear with the differential leading to the tire axles has a force of 3264 pounds
on the CVT side and 535 pounds on the non-CVT side.
Using this information the bore diameter can be selected from a chart. The calculations
for the catalog loading rate did not include the thrusting because there is not a definite
way to determine this without doing an experimental test. The catalog load rating is also
called the dynamic loading rate, which can be searched on many bearing websites. For
designing the bearings of the shaft the larger bore diameter would be considered because
that is the breaking point for when the bearing would have the most fatigue. The bearing


41

also depends on the shafts, since the shafts should be able to fit inside the bearing to
allow rotation of the gears.
2.4.4 DRIVE TRAIN DESIGN MODELING
We chose to use SolidWorks 3D 2010 to model our gearbox 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. Figures 31 and 32 below show our
current drive train design in SolidWorks.

Figure 31: Gearbox Case


42


Figure 32: Gear Train Design
The first step in the SolidWorks CAD process was to make the gears using gear
stress calculations and differential dimensions. As the first gear profile was drawn, the
two dimensional geometry was constrained with gear profile formulas from the Shigleys
design book. These formulas were all stored in the SolidWorks Equation List and driven
by the number of teeth and the pitch diameter dimensions. The involute gear tooth profile
was constrained using the equation driven curve function and is driven by the pitch
diameter. This curve was then reflected around a radial construction line to complete the
gear tooth. The profile was then extruded to a width of 1.125. The tooth was extruded
separating from the core and then arrayed equally spaced around the core cylinder to the
set number of teeth. This process effectively made a gear generator. The other three gears
were generated by adjusting the pitch diameter and teeth numbers in the governing
equations used for the first gear and then saved under different names. On the third gear,
a simplified but accurate cylindrical representation of the differential was drawn to find
and confirm the correct clearances of gears and casing. Also, each gear had a spline cut
into the bore in order to successfully fit onto the shaft.
Next, the diameter of the shaft was determined using stresses from the gears. The
interaction between the shaft and gears were splined to maximize allowable loads and


43

torque. A square spline profile was used to increase manufacturability and consistency.
In order to secure shaft fixtures, 2mm wide grooves were positioned along the shaft for
retaining rings. The shaft length has a clearance of 0.01 inches from the retaining grooves
and 0.01 inches for each bearing.
The first iteration of the case focused on optimizing interior space while
maintaining higher safety factors throughout the design. This meant meeting minimum
clearances all around. For the side case profile, tangent lines were drawn between circles
at shafts centers that had 0.125 inch greater radii for a gear-case clearance of 0.125. The
shaft length and bearing clearances were 0.01 inches for the case wall. These design
criteria gave us a final dry weight of 30lbs without the differential.
The first iteration had a low safety factor of 6 at gear 2. However, in order to
optimize space and weight, the lowest acceptable safety factor is 4. Therefore, the second
iteration was thinner and lighter. The gear widths changed from 1.25 to 0.75 and the
case wall thickness was thinned from 0.375 to 0.25. This gave a new weight of 19.3lbs
but a safety factor of 2.6 on gear 2. This meant a third iteration was required to
compromise between the first two. The 0.25 aluminum case held a safety factor of 11
which is acceptable but lowering it farther seemed irresponsible because of puncture
potential. Consequently, the primary change to the gears was altering the width to 1.
Extra parts were obtained from the SolidWorks content center and tool box to maintain a
realistic representation. These parts included bearings, retaining rings, bolts, and nuts.
Lastly, one final feature used within SolidWorks was the Photoview option. This
enabled us to create 3-D JPEG images of the final product for each component providing
us with images incorporating proper materials and dimensions. Below are some
renderings of the case, mid-shaft, and 2nd gear.


44


Figure 33: 2
nd
Gear Render Figure 34: Mid-Shaft Render


Figure 35: Casing Render 1


45


Figure 36: Casing Render 2
2.5 CONCLUSIONS
Both teams were able to finalize 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 front collision, vehicle
rollover, side impact, and torsional rigidity. 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.











46

3 ANALYSIS PHASE
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The third and final phase of our Baja project involves analyzing our suspension,
frame, and drive train designs using finite element analysis software. The analysis phase
was critical in our overall project to ensure that all of our designs are both optimal and
reliable for Baja SAE competitions. First, suspension components were analyzed using
AutoDesk Inventors finite element tools. Next, the frame underwent major finite element
analysis using MSC NASTRAN/PATRAN. To ensure that our frame design was ideal for
competition, we performed five sets of test simulations including a vibrational analysis, a
front impact collision, a vehicle rollover simulation, a side impact collision, and even a
torsional rigidity load case. Each test allowed us to determine the magnitude and location
of maximum vehicle deflection and bending stress. Lastly, the drive train components
were analyzed using SolidWorks finite element tools in order to validate the strength of
our gearbox components.
3.2 SUSPENSION ANALYSIS
The suspension analysis phase for our project purposes will be brief yet complete
with the help of both Inventor FEA simulations and LSA compliance solver. In order to
analyze our proposed suspension design, further analysis of the geometry included
solving a free body diagram of both the front and rear suspension systems. Once the static
free body diagram was known, additional assumptions were made to run finite element
analysis on select suspension members to ensure adequate structural efficiency. Once a
generalized tubing size was selected from the results, the remaining suspension
components were assumed to be the generalized size.
Fortunately, LSA software has a built in 3-D compliance solver that produced an
accurate free body diagram with only a few additional inputs needed. These assumptions
essentially account for both suspension and tire stiffness, which allowed the program to
calculate the necessary shock preload for the desired ride height. In an effort to make the
model more realistic, the following assumptions were made in order to simulate the
correct FBD:


47

GVW [N]: 3114
Weight Distribution [%F/%R]: 45/55
Spring Rate [N/mm]: 17
Free Length Spring [mm]: 462.3
Vertical Tire Stiffness [N/mm]: 35
The following Figure below shows the free body diagram of the entire suspension
system at a static ride height giving the vehicle 11-12 inches of ground clearance. With
these results, the maximum loads the suspension may absorb under bump and other
modes can be considered and implemented to insure that each suspension component can
elastically endure the loads.

Figure 37: Static Free Body Diagram



48


Figure 38: Full Bump Compliance






Figure 39: Upper Wishbone FBD Figure 40: Lower Wishbone FBD







Figure 41: Spindle FBD Figure 42: Tie Rod FBD


49




Figure 43: Rear Swing Arm FBD Figure 44: Rear Lower Link FBD




Figure 45: Rear Upper Link FBD
Note that in Figure 38 shown above, the addition the suspension compliance solver
incorporates both suspension and tire deflections resulting in a better model. The proper
suspension preloads, spring rates, weight distribution, and other suspension
characteristics can be calculated as desired.
The free body diagrams of each suspension component are also shown above at
full bump. This illustrates the forces the chassis will be subjected to during a full bump
scenario such as landing from a jump that requires full compression of the suspension.
With the use of Fox Float R shocks, the harsh bottom outs during these types of events
are eliminated and the actual forces endured are similar to what is shown. Therefore they
can be used as a baseline for determining the necessary material needed for linear elastic
recoverable deformation.








50

3.3 FRAME ANALYSIS
In order to begin the frame finite element analysis, we first had to upload our
AutoDesk Inventor design into MSC PATRAN. Therefore, we began by converting our
AutoDesk wireframe design into an IGES file in order to perform the proper upload.
Once this step was completed, we began transforming our wireframe geometry into a
finite element model. The first step in this process was the mesh generation. Mesh seeds
allowed us to define the number of elements for each member of our frame design. We
created mesh seeds at every half inch on our model to provide detailed data. After setting
the mesh seed locations, we generated the actual mesh in order to turn all geometry
components into elements. Establishing elements is necessary in order to set up material
and dimensional properties for our design. The next step in our analysis involved material
selection. This meant inputting properties to create a structural material that constitutes
our elements. For our Baja frame, we chose to use 4130 normalized chromoly tubing.
Therefore, we entered material properties including an elastic modulus, poissons ratio,
and density that corresponded to that of 4130 chromoly. Table 5 below shows a summary
of our material properties.
Table 5: Material Properties of 4130 Chromoly
PROPERTY INPUT
Elastic Modulus 29 x 10
6
psi.
Poisson Ratio 0.285
Density 0.284 lb/in
3

Following the material property selection, we began setting the element dimensional
properties in order to turn all of our elements into beams with specific tube sizes. Some
areas of the frame required specific tube sizes mandated by SAE rules and regulations,
while other areas incorporated sizes with less restriction. The Table below shows the
diameter and wall thickness of each tube size that was incorporated into our design.



51

Table 6: Frame Section and Corresponding Tube Size
FRAME SECTION DIAMETER/WALL THICKNESS
Main Frame Members 1.25 in. / 0.065 in.
Engine Rack Members 1 in. / 0.065 in.
Bracing Members 1 in. / 0.049 in.
Side Impact Members 1 in. / 0.035 in.
Lateral Cross Members 1 in. / 0.035 in.
Other Support Members 0.75 in. / 0.035 in.

After establishing all material and element properties and dimensions, the next step was
to ensure that all of the nodes in our design were in the correct locations. The main areas
of concern were all of the connections involving two or more elements. If any node is not
connected properly, the results for any type of load testing would be completely
inaccurate. Therefore, we performed a detailed check of all the connections in our design,
moving and splitting nodes as necessary to eliminate any singularities.
3.3.1 VIBRATION TEST
Once the initial check for singularities had taken place, we were ready to begin
testing our Baja frame in order to determine if our design is strong enough for
competition and manufacturing. Before establishing any boundary conditions or load
cases, we ran an initial vibration test in order to confirm that we had not missed any
element singularities that may have been overlooked initially. Figure 46 below shows the
first three mode shapes from the normal mode analysis. With deflection values ranging
between 0.2 and 0.4 inches, we were able to confirm that our frame contained no
singularities preventing further testing.


52


Figure 46: 1
st
[104.8Hz], 2
nd
[163.2Hz], and 3
rd
[252. 8Hz]Modes of Vibration
After completing the vibration test, our team was able to begin testing the frame under a
variety of applied load cases. However, in order to obtain both safe and accurate results
for our analysis, we first had to establish the proper approximate loading that the vehicle
would see during each type of collision. For the front impact collision, the rollover
collision, and the side impact collision, we assumed that the maximum load the vehicle
would undergo was approximately 3Gs. We also assumed that our Baja gross vehicle
weight would be around 700 pounds based on previous designs. Under these
assumptions, we calculated the applied load needed for each case with the equation listed
below.

3.3.2 FRONTAL COLLISION LOAD CASE
The first load case to be completed simulated a frontal collision with a stationary
object. Because this load case is slightly more dangerous, we decided to incorporate a
slightly spiked case of approximately 3.6Gs as the assumed loading. This is equivalent
to a 2500lbf load on the vehicle. Therefore, we applied a load of 1250 pounds at two
nodes in the front of the vehicle in the negative X direction as shown in Figure 47 below.
The final step required for this load case was to establish the proper boundary conditions.
For a frontal collision, we constrained the rear suspension mounting locations, enabling
free rotation and eliminating all translation.


53


Figure 47: Frontal Collision Load Case
After running the front collision load case in MSC NASTRAN, we were able to obtain
the following displacement and bending stress plots shown in the Figures below along
with the results shown in the corresponding Table.

Figure 48: Front Collision Displacement Plot


54


Figure 49: Front Collision Bending Stress Plot
Table 7: Frontal Collision Results
Magnitude Location
Maximum Deflection 0.718 in. Node 2071
Maximum Bending Stress 59,100 psi. Node 1959

3.3.3 ROLLOVER COLLISION LOAD CASE
The next load case in our analysis phase was designed to evaluate the stress on the
frame caused by a vehicle rollover. The applied load for this case was 2260 pounds,
which is equivalent to 3.2Gs of force. For this case we applied 560 pounds at the four
corners of the vehicle that would hit the ground first during a frontward rollover. This
also required a combination force vector directed at a 45 angle in the negative X and Y
directions. The boundary conditions for rollover included constraining the front and rear
suspension mounting locations, in the same manner used in the front collision test. The
following Figures and Table show the loading and results obtained.


55


Figure 50: Rollover Collision Load Case

Figure 51: Rollover Displacement Plot


56


Figure 52: Rollover Bending Stress Plot
Table 8: Rollover Results
Magnitude Location
Maximum Deflection 0.275 in. Node 1101
Maximum Bending Stress 59,200 psi Node 105

3.3.4 SIDE IMPACT COLLISION LOAD CASE
The third case in our analysis phase simulated a side impact collision. For this
load, we applied 1100 pounds at the two widest nodes on the Baja frame in the positive Z
direction. The boundary conditions utilized in this loading involved constraining the
frame completely at the front suspension mounting locations but only the backmost half
of the rear suspension locations. This ensured that the entire middle section of the frame
that would undergo stress during a side collision was unconstrained and thus able to
deform. The initial loading and results are shown in the Figures and Table below.


57


Figure 53: Side Impact Collision Load Case

Figure 54: Side Impact Collision Displacement Plot


58


Figure 55: Side Impact Collision Bending Stress Plot
Table 9: Side Impact Collision Results
Magnitude Location
Maximum Deflection 0.424 in. Node 1543
Maximum Bending Stress 62,100 psi. Node 1541

3.3.5 TORSIONAL RIGIDITY LOAD CASE
The final test of our analysis phase dealt with vehicle torsional rigidity. Although
results from this test are not as important as the other three cases, we still felt it was
necessary in our overall analysis. For this load case, we constrained the back half of the
frame, prohibiting any translational movement. We also incorporated a 5000lb in torque
on the front portion of the frame as shown in the Figure below, using RBE2 multi-point
constraints. This was done by applying the torque to the master nodes in the center and
allowing the force to be distributed to the four slave locations. The torsional rigidity was
calculated with respect to the bottom of the rear roll hoop which is initially horizontal.
After the load was applied, we obtained a torsional rigidity of 377 ftlb/deg. This value
will improve once the gearbox and engine are mounted because this process will stiffen


59

the back half of the frame. Please also note that this test has not been done on past
analysis, so our result could not be compared.

Figure 56: Torsional Rigidity Load Case

Figure 57: Torsional Rigidity Displacement Plot


60


Figure 58: Torsional Rigidity Bending Stress Plot
Table 10: Torsional Rigidity Results
Magnitude Location
Maximum Deflection 0.785 in. Node 208
Maximum Bending Stress 30,700 psi. Node 105

3.3.6 RESULTS EXPLAINED
In order to have optimal results for our analysis phase, we focused on keeping our
frame light-weight while maintaining stress states that did not produce yielding under
each of the four load cases tested. The following Table summarizes our results after all
four load cases were finalized.






61

Table 11: Summarized Results

Force
Applied
Maximum
Deflection
Maximum
Bending
Stress
Allowable
Yield
Stress
Optimizations
Made
Front
Collision
3.6G

2500lbs
0.718 in. 59,100 psi. 63,100 psi. N/A
Rollover
3.2G

2250lbs
0.275 in. 59,200 psi. 63,100 psi. N/A
Side
Impact
Collision
3G

2100lbs
0.424 in. 62,100 psi. 63,100 psi.
Increased tube
size on side
members from
(1/0.035) to
(1/0.065)
Torsional
Rigidity
5000lb in 0.785 in. 30,700 psi. 63,100 psi. N/A

Each load case had a maximum stress less than the yielding stress of 4130N
chromoly. This confirms that our analysis is in fact linear-elastic and complies with
Hookes law undergoing fully recoverable elastic deformations. The value of 63,100 psi
is also considered as the minimum yield strength, meaning that any result stress level
from our analysis that is lower should be considered reliable and safe. The only test that
required optimization was the side impact collision. Under the original design, we
obtained a stress value of 83 ksi, which is almost 20 ksi above the yield. In order to
account for this design flaw, we decided to change the tube size of the most critical side
impact members. We first changed the tube size from (1/0.035) to (1/0.049), but still
found the results were 10 ksi above the maximum allowable limit. Consequently, we
changed the tube size once more from (1/0.049) to (1/0.065). These results were found to


62

be just within the yield limit, and were considered to be safe for two different reasons.
First, a side impact collision is most likely to be a secondary type of collision so an
impact of 3Gs is not likely to ever occur in competition. However, we felt it necessary to
test our frame based on the worst possible scenarios and what has been done in the past to
ensure driver safety. Secondly, as mentioned earlier, the value of 63,100 psi is a
minimum value for the yielding stress of chromoly, so we were able to conclude that
62,100 psi was a satisfactory result for this load case.
Our last significant analysis step involved determining the weight of our Baja
space frame. Using MSC PATRANs mass property tool, we found that our original
design weighed only 50 pounds. After completing all necessary optimizations, we
obtained a frame weight of 51 pounds. Once the frame has been fully fabricated, welded,
and fitted with all necessary mounting tabs we expect the total weight increase of 4-6lbs
conservatively, resulting in a final frame weight of 55 pounds. This result met our
original goals of engineering a space frame considerably lighter than Old Dominions
previous designs (75 to 90 pounds), while still maintaining an extremely high strength to
weight ratio. The previous designs also produced deflection data ranging from about 0.3
to 0.6 inches, which is very similar to the results we obtained from our finite element
analysis. Therefore, we have successfully designed a space frame that is much lighter, but
just as strong if not stronger than past designs sent to Baja SAE competitions.
3.4 DRIVE TRAIN ANALYSIS
One of the last steps required for the gearbox team was to run finite element
analysis (FEA) on all components to ensure they will withstand the stresses created while
at maximum engine RPMs. Because all gearbox components were created using
SolidWorks, we implemented the Simulation Xpress Analysis Wizard to run the FEA.
The FEA process required a few preliminary procedures in SolidWorks. First, we
established the appropriate units for our design. Then we were able to assign any
necessary constraints needed for each component. For example, with shafts that will be
subjected to torsion, we wanted to assign fixtures to each end allowing the shaft to twist
when forces were applied.


63

The next step involved assigning forces to each component. The forces should be
assigned so that the result simulates what will happen in real time. Again, for shafts in
torsion, the force should create a twisting motion. The Simulation Xpress Analysis
Wizard also plays a video animation showing the result of the fixtures and forces you
have assigned. The last step required was to assign material properties to each
component. Once all of these preliminary measures were accounted for, we were able to
start the finite element analysis.
The FEA wizard created all required meshing and analysis for each component
based on the fixtures and forces that were assigned. At this point, we simply waited for
SolidWorks to run the full analysis. After completing FEA for each gearbox component,
we were able to confirm all of our dimensions and materials used in our design. The
Figures and Table below show FEA results of the casing, shaft, and gears 1, 2, and 3.


Figure 59: Casing FEA Results


64



Figure 60: Shaft FEA Results


Figure 61: Gear 1 FEA Results







65





Figure 62: Gear 2 FEA Results




Figure 63: Gear 3 FEA Results








66

Table 12: Gearbox FEA Results

Force
Applied
(lbs.)
Safety
Factor
Yield Strength
(psi.)
Max Tensile
Stress (psi.)
Max
Deflection
(in.)
Gear Pinion 166.9 11.1 26,106 2355 6.40E-05
Gear 1 162.1 18.9 26,106 1374 7.30E-05
Gear 2 150.6 5.8 26,106 4465 5.80E-05
Gear 3 150.6 11.8 26,106 2219 3.50E-05
Pinion Shaft 56.9 19.3 26,106 1349 4.20E-06
Mid-Shaft 162.1 7.6 26,106 3417 1.10E-05
CVT Side Case 149.1 11.9 3,999 335 3.90E-32
Non-CVT Side 35.7 11.9 3,999 338 3.80E-32

Forces are transmitted to the gears through the CVT and shafts. Using the known max
power of the engine we were able to calculate the torque and forces applied to each gear
and shaft throughout the gearbox. An excel spreadsheet was created that implemented
these formulas and calculates each force and torque by simply imputing the desired gear
ratio. Once these results are known, they are used as the basis for running the finite
element analysis for the gears, shafts, and casing.

3.5 CONCLUSIONS
Our Baja team met regularly during the final analysis phase of our project in order
to complete all of our original goals outlined on the Gantt Chart. The frame team and the
gearbox team were able to successfully complete a detailed finite element analysis and
obtain results proving our designs to be strong and reliable.





67

COST CONSIDERATIONS

Cost estimates for the frame design were obtained through VR3
Engineering/Cartesian tube profiling company. Numerous universities currently
competing in SAE competitions work directly with VR3 Engineering due to their
reasonable prices, quality products, and ability to produce one off tube kits quickly. One
advantage of outsourcing our frame design is the high precision of CNC tube
notching/bending technologies that lead to extremely tight tolerances. These tighter
tolerances decrease the weight of the frame due to the ability to TIG-weld with far less
weld material, improving the overall quality. With a generous sponsorship package of
$750, VR3 can machine our current frame design for approximately $1250 using 4130N
Chromoly. Cost to fabricate our suspension design was not acquired due to the need for a
more in-depth structural analysis using FEA.
The quotes for the gearbox are comprised of the gears, shafts, seal rings, retaining
rings, and bearings. In our calculations of the gears, the team determined that getting the
gears custom made would cost an estimated $600 minimum for each gear. After seeing
the prices of the custom gears, it has been determined that buying stock gears would be
much more cost efficient. The stock gears would cost around $200 for all of the gears at
Applied Industrial Technologies, which is significantly cheaper. The only difficulty in
determining the stock gears that would be incorporated with our gearbox design involves
the teeth and diameter, as we have to avoid interference with the differential. The stock
gears are also not prime numbers, which would cause a repeat of wear points for when
the gear rotates. The stock gears were determined, and had one-eighth inch spacing
between the gear and the differential. The material of the shafts would be out of Grade
1018 zinc-finished, low-carbon steel. Grade 1018 carbon steel would work for the shaft
because it has good hardening properties and it is machinable. The carbon steel rod can
be purchased from Fastenal. The Retaining ring from Grainger would be clipped into the
notch in the shaft to keep the gear in place. The bearings for the shaft will be double
sealed angular-contact because the case would house oil for the gears and sealing the
bearings would prevent leaking. The grease sealing that will prevent leakage from the gap
between the bearing, shaft, and casing can be bought at Eastern Marine. The casing for


68

the gearbox would be made of aluminum because it is light and strong which Norfolk
Machine is capable of fabricating for $2000. The table below summarizes our cost
analysis.
Table 13: Cost Breakdown
Item Quantity Price Total cost
McMaster
Carr.com
Bearing 4 13.95 $55.80
Fastenal Snap-ring 10 $0.53 $5.33
Applied
Industrial
Technologies
Stock Gears 1 $199.00 $199.00
Norfolk Machine Casing 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Norfolk Machine
Keyed Stock
Gear/Shaft
1 $1,600.00 $1,600.00
Eastern Marine Grease Seal 3 $4.15 $12.45
Fastenal Shaft 1 $44.43 $44.43


Tax $176.27


Total $4,093.28
VR3 Engineering Frame Machining 1 $1250 $1250
ODU
Motorsports
TIG Welding 5 $40/hr. $200









69

SUMMARY
The fall 2011 Baja team was able to successfully complete all four phases of our
project including research and development, design, analysis, and documentation. Each
phase was a major step in the overall project, and each was necessary to produce our final
results. Our research phase enabled us to determine the strengths and weaknesses of past
designs, which incorporated heavily into our design parameters. The design phase,
assisted by computer aid such as AutoDesk Inventor, LSA, and SolidWorks, allowed us
to engineer a new frame, suspension, and drive train for Baja SAE future competitions.
Next, finite element tools from both MSC NASTRAN/PATRAN and SolidWorks were
implemented in our critical analysis phase. This stage helped us to optimize our designs
to achieve maximum strength, reliability, and performance. Lastly, our Baja team
completed the documentation phase of our project, which included finalizing our website,
constructing an in-depth project report, and presenting all of our progress to our advisors
and fellow peers.
CURRENT PROJECT STATUS
Currently, our Baja team has completed 100% of all project phases, and is starting
to set new goals involving fabrication of our completed designs. Due to a lack of funding
from Old Dominion University, our frame design will not be fabricated for the upcoming
Baja competition, but the completed designs will hopefully make their way into future
SAE events. The gearbox team has obtained price quotes from three different companies
including Martin Gear Distributor, Applied Industrial Technologies, and also Norfolk
Machine and Weld. We our currently negotiating a sponsorship package with Norfolk
Machine, and look forward to future discussions.







70

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/download-
model.aspx?catalogid=171>.




71

5. Applied.com Industrial Supply, Industrial Bearings, Material Handling,
Power Transmission, Fluid Power Products | Applied Industrial
Technologies | Applied.com | Applied.com. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.
<http://www.applied.com>.

6. Fastenal. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://www.fastenal.com/web/home.ex>.

7. "FEA Examples Overview." ITC Software - Advanced IT Solutions. Web.
3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.itcsoftware.com/general_finite-eg-
overview.htm>.

8. Grainger Industrial Supply - MRO Supplies, MRO Equipment, Tools &
Solutions. Web. 04 Dec. 2011.
<http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/wwg/start.shtml>.

9. NOMA Bearing Corporation - Single Row, Cartridge Width, Internally
Self-Aligning, Double Row, Felt Seal Ball Bearings - Home. Web. 1 Dec.
2011. <http://www.iksbearing.com/>.

10. Rush Gears Inc. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. <http://www.rushgear.com/>.

11. "Steel Specifications and Review - Engineers Edge." Engineers Edge -
Design, Engineering & Manufacturing Solutions. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.
<http://www.engineersedge.com/steel.htm>.

12. Trailer Parts Superstore Shopping Index. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.
<http://www.easternmarine.com/>.

13. United States of America. Department of Homeland Security. U.S.
Customs and Border Protection. The Classification of Ball Bearings,
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof. By Pearson S. Foresman. Jan. 2010.
Web. 1 Dec. 2011.
<http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/legal/informed_compliance_
pubs/ballbearings.ctt/ballbearings.pdf>.








72














APPENDICES














73

1 APPENDIX I: LOTUS SUSPENSION DATA
























74

2 APPENDIX II: DRIVE TRAIN CALCULATIONS




75

3 APPENDIX III: REFERENCE EQUATIONS

PRELIMINARY GEARBOX EQUATIONS
R : Tire Radius
T
cvt
: Torque from CVT
T
ax
: Torque at axle
P
eng
: Power of engine
M
w :
Mass of Vehicle
a : Acceleration
V : Velocity

E-1:
E-2:

E-3:
E-4:
E-5:

E-6:

E-7:

E-8:

GEARS
N : Number of teeth
P : Diametral Pitch
d : Pitch Diameter
m : Gear Ratio
p : Circular Pitch
d
p
: Diameter of Pinion


76


E-9:

E-10:
E-11:

E-12:

()

( )

E-13:

E-14:

SHAFTS
K
f
: Fatigue stress-concentration factor; Bending
q : Notch sensitivity; Bending
K
t
: Stress-concentration factor; Bending
K
fs
: Fatigue stress-concentration factor; Torsion
q
s
: Notch sensitivity; Torsion
K
ts
: Stress-concentration factor; Torsion

max
: Shear Maximum
n
y
: Yield Safety Factor
S
y
: Yield Strength
M
a
: Alternating Bending Moment
T
a
: Alternating Bending Torsion
M
m
: Midrange Bending Moment
T
m
: Midrange Bending Torsion
S
e
: Endurance limit
k
a
: Surface condition modification factor
k
b
: Size modification factor
k
c
: Load modification factor
k
d
: Temperature modification factor
k
e
: Reliability factor


77

k
f
: Miscellaneous-effects modification factor
S
e
: Rotary-beam endurance limit

E-15: ( )
E-16: ( )
E-17:

[(
()

(
()

E-18:

E-19:

[ (

E-20:

BEARINGS
F
e
: Equivalent radial load
v : Rotational constant
C
10
: Catalog load rating
L
d
: Life rating
r : Reliability factor
a
b
: Bearing constant

E-2:
E-22: (

( )

SOLIDWORKS GEAR PROFILE REFERENCES
n : Number of teeth
pitchd : Pitch diameter
pra : Pressure angle
basedia: (pitchd/2* cos( pra ) )*2


78

Diametrical Pitch(P): n / pitchd
Addendum (a): 1/ P
Deddendum (b): 1.25/ P
c: b - a
adia: a *2+ pitchd

SOLIDWORKS EQUATIONS
S-1: n"=43
S-2: "pitchd"=4.853
S-3: "pra"= 20
S-4: "based"=("pitchd"/2* cos( "pra" ) )*2
S-5: "P"="n"/"pitchd"
S-6: "a"=1/"P"
S-7: "b"=1.25/"P"
S-8: "c"="b"-"a"
S-9: "ad"="a"*2+"pitchd"
S-10: "bd"="pitchd"-"b"*2
S-11: "w"=10/"pitchd"/"n"
S-12: "dp"=pi/"P"
S-13: "t"="dp"/2
S-14: "bore"=1
S-15: "bore@Sketch1" = "bore"
S-16: "bd@Sketch1" = "bd"
S-17: "based@Sketch1" = "based"
S-18: "pitchd@Sketch1" = "pitchd"
S-19: "ad@Sketch1" = "ad"
S-20: "t/2@Sketch1" = "t"/2
S-21: "f@Sketch1" = "c"



79


Figure 64: Updated Gantt Chart