Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
I. INTRODUCTION
The objective of the study is to design a safest vehicle for
driver. The roll cage is being strictly designed in accordance
with SAE BAJA 2014 rule book. 3D Assembly of whole
vehicle & Line model of the roll cage is modelled in PTC
Creo 2.0. Finite element analysis (FEA) is carried out on line
model of roll cage in cases of front collision, rear collision,
rolling, front bump & Rear bump analysis in Ansys. FEA of
suspension arms was carried out in Catia & FEA of Braking
mechanism in Solidworks. Based on the result obtained from
above tests the design is modified accordingly.
The Centre of Gravity was tried to keep in middle of the
vehicle & closest to the ground for optimum stability. The
length of the vehicle was kept small so as to reduce weight and
maintain a desired center of gravity, while the width of the
vehicle was keep the most to maintain stability in turns.
AISI 1020
ASTM A 106 Grade B
IS 2062
A comparative study of the chosen material was done for
our use. The methodology for material selection followed by
us are as follows.
Consideration
Priority
Availability
Necessary
Carbon Content
Necessary
Strength
High
Cost
High
Weight
Necessary
Carbon
Content
Tensile
Strength
(MPa)
Yield Strength
(MPa)
AISI 1020
0.20%
394.7
294.8
ASTM A 106
Grade B
0.30%
415
240
IS 2062
0.22%
410
240
7.7-8.03
Poissons ratio
0.27-0.30
190-210
415
240
Elongation (%)
20
48
Hardness (HRB)
100
Outside Diameter
(mm)
Wall
Thickness
(mm)
XS
26.7 (Secondary
Member)
3.91
XS
21.3 (A-arms)
3.73
C. Frame design
The crucial objective of the frame is to provide a safe
driving environment to the driver keeping in mind the weight,
151
CONSIDERATI
ON
PRIORITY
REASON
Light Weight
Necessary
A light weight
Buggy is fast
Must not deform
during rugged
driving
Majority of frame
fabrication done in
College
Meet
Requirements
Essential
Simple Frame
Essential
Attractive Design
Desired
Cost
Low
Car needs to be
within budget
Manufacturability
High
Manufacturing is
done in the College
Easier to sell an
aesthetically
pleasing vehicle
D. Analysis results
After completion of design of the roll cage we need to find
that our roll cage will perform well in field so we performed
analysis in Ansys.
Fig 4. Rear impact Analysis (Von Mises stress= 53.79 MPa)
152
S.
N
O
Force
Applie
d
7000N
Factor
of
Safety
2.14
2 Rear
Impact
Analysis
7000N
3.9
No
Yielding
3 Front
Impact
Analysis
7000N
4.89
No
Yielding
4 Front
wheel
Bump
Analysis
5 Rear
wheel
Bump
Analysis
1500N
15
No
Yielding
1500N
No
Yielding
1 Roll
over
Analysis
E. Conclusion
Hence for design purposes force is taken to be 7000N.
Also, design output is for no plastic deformations. The
vehicle should remain in the elastic region.
The Safety of the driver in case of crash is taken care of
by safety equipment which includes special helmets,
foam padding on bars and seat belts.
The Design Factor of Safety, FS d is taken as 2. This
relatively high value is taken to account for the
uncertainty in the nature of forces.
TEST
153
Result
Remark
No
Yielding
Slight
tilt
in
RHO
and
effect on
FBM
Safe and
impact
is taken
by LSM
Safe and
impact
is taken
by LSM
Bump is
taken by
FAB
Bump is
taken by
rear
bracing
Camber
Caster
8 degree
Scrub Radius
90 mm
14 inch
9 inch
111mm(from ground)
Shock Absorber
X axis- 667mm
Y Axis-300mm
Z Axis-217mm
Rear Suspension
A. Design Selection
A1 * V1 = A2* V2,
11542.75 *50 =7310.11 * V2
V2 =78.95 km/hr
Output Velocities at different speeds
V1
(km/hr
)
A 1/ A 2
V2
(km/hr)
15
1.579
23.69
25
1.579
39.48
40
1.579
63.16
50
1.579
78.95
Sr. No
VI. SUSPENSION
Due to functioning of vehicle in all terrains, the suspension
should be robust. The methodology followed by us is.
154
CONSIDE
RATION
Simplicity
PRIORITY
REASON
Essential
Light
Weight
Shock
Absorbing
Essential
Side Impact
Desired
Compatibili
ty with
Steering
Wheel
Alignment
Parameters
High
Essential
High
Fig 13. Knuckle Analysis (Von Mises stress= 5.13* 106 N/m2)
VII. BRAKING SYSTEM
The methodology followed by us in designing of braking
system is as follows.
On the above factors we decided to install a hydraulic disc
brake for all four tires. .
A. Specification
PEDAL RATIO
PEDAL EFFORT
MASTER CYLINDER BORE
CALLIPER BORE SIZE
TIRE SIZE
ROTOR SIZE
B. Calculation
Braking torque (front)
Braking torque (rear)
Stopping distance
Frictional force (front)
Frictional force (rear)
Vertical forces
: 6:1
: 75lbs
:
: 0.12
: 21
: 9.5
2
3
4
5
: 8278.76N
: 17857.83N
: 11.19M
: 31.04N
: 66.95N
: 280N
CONSIDERATION
WEIGHT OF THE
VEHICLE
COST OF THE
VECHICLE
BRAKING TORQUE
CLAMPING FORCE
THERMAL
CAPACITY
AVAILABILITY
PRIORITY
MINIMUM
MINIMUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
EASILY
AVAILABLE
D. Analysis
155
Priority
High
Light Weight
Essential
Low Steering
Ratio
Ackerman
Geometry
Less turning
radius
Essential
High
High
Reason
Easy to repair
Minimize weight to
maximize power to
weight ratio
Quick Steering
response
Reduction in tread
wear of wheel
Consumes less time
& take lesser space
Approximate Values
11 Feet
8
17:1
76 mm
IX. TRANSMISSION
Engine mounting : Tranverse
Engine coupling
: Key coupling
X. CONCLUSION
Torque
(N-m)
R.P.M
Vehicle
Speed
(km/hr)
Tracti
ve
Effort(N)
4.6
2.733
1.67
1.115
8.05
(Reverse)
86.25
51.1875
31.3125
20.906
825.944
1391.702
2275.057
3407.526
12.1638
20.4959
33.5052
50.1827
2208.226
1311.9744
808.6821
535.2548
151.125
471.383
3.9671
6779.2227
The chosen design was the safest & the most reliable car for
any long terrain. All the parameters like Safety, Cost,
Reliability, Performance, Durability, aesthetics, Standard
dimensions & material were also taken in consideration on the
same time. Where ever possible finite element analysis was
done on the regularly loaded parts & modifications were done
accordingly to avoid any type of design failure. In case of
rolling front curved members and rear curved members
(Behind the drivers seat) take the side load equally not like in
other designs where only the rear curved members were made
to bear the side rolling loads.
156
157