Critical Design Review 1. Formatting (5 points) a. Cover page You have the freedom to design the cover page.

. Project name/title, Team members, Group leader Technical advisor information, and the Date of submission should be on the cover page. Well designed cover page with nicely laid out information is required. (Just needs to be edited to fit the project) b. Verification Statement

The Formula SAE Suspension Team (Team Redline) has verified that the UCF Formula car suspension is in need of a new design for the May 2013 Formula SAE Competition that will be held in Michigan. To fully comply with these requirement, Team Redline had identified key areas in which the project will need to make improvements, such as: tire data comprehension, replacing all heims (rod ends) with spherical bearings, and improvement of lighter and stronger material use on the control arms (A-arms) and uprights.
c. Table of Contents d. List of Tables - if any e. List of Figures if any f. List of Drawings if any Select an appropriate font and font size for b, c, d, e and f. 2. Summary/Abstract (5 points)

Formula SAE is an international, collegiate, engineering competition that challenges teams of students to conceive, design, fabricate, develop and compete with small, open-wheel formula car. We will be developing the suspension system for the upcoming car. This requires many aspects of engineering, including kinematics, vibrations, and machine design. Some of the objectives include, compete against other Universities from around the world and place well. To better understand how the car reacts in dynamic conditions. Maximize performance of tires through tire data and kinematics (maximum lateral force into the tires). Minimize unsprung mass for a faster reacting suspension. Determining ride and roll rates of the suspension to better control weight transfer and vibrations. Design and fabricate components of the suspension. This report will cover all of the aforementioned aspects of the suspension system as well as detailed designs, variables and constraints,
3. Project Overview/Background Information /Introduction (5 points) The goal for Team Redline is to design a suspension system for the 2013 UCF Formula SAE race car. The team intends to complete a design and analysis, followed by the completion of a prototype in Fall 2012. Formula suspension design involves a collaboration effort with teams working on different systems. The goal for Team Redline is to deliver suspension mounting points to the chassis team so they can build a system that is compatible. Other factors to be discussed and optimized include weight, robustness and performance characteristics. Through previous experience of the UCF FSAE team, Team Redline can review previous successes and failures to design a system that will provide superior performance in multiple aspects of the competition. The annual international Formula SAE competition provides

a success metric for teams abilities ranging from design ingenuity to manufacturing to driving skill. Team Redline will design and manufacture the majority of the components of the suspension system. This review aims to identify which components will be created as well as outline their specific required properties and alternative materials. Each component will be reviewed in detail to determine a factor of safety as well as ensure optimization has taken place to allow for ideal performance. Any components not being manufactured by the team will be evaluated to be sure they meet the requirements for the project. At the time of this review, all major component designs and dimensions are tentatively complete. Further changes will be based on any interference with the teams requirements for the car or if any shortcomings are found within components. 4. Design History provide a brief description of the work done in previous design phases. Previous attempts for UCF Formula SAE teams have involved similar designs and concepts to the present project. The ultimate factor in building a successful suspension system that will improve upon previous years attempts will be optimization. Details such as the change from multiple bolted together components to the use of a single manufactured assembly will reduce compliance and show a clear advantage during judging at competition. A strong effort will be made to reduce overall suspension mass. Reducing mass on a vehicle is a universally accepted performance strategy that will be advantageous for cornering and acceleration. In addition to the material and machine design elements of the suspension, team Redline will be focusing on improving the kinematic geometry of the moving components. Every dimension and mounting location of the suspension components will be decided based on desired handling characteristics. A clear advantage is evident for teams that focus on having a properly designed suspension for the given track conditions. The UCF Formula team has been striving to build a competitive car. With knowledge from past events, team Redline can build a suspension system to correct some flaws and present new advantages in suspension design for the Formula SAE competition. Parametric Design ( 30 points) a. Problem Formulation i. Problem Definition Parameters The goal of this project will be a fully developed suspension system much like those used in previous SAE competitions. The suspension system design should provide optimum track performance. Since the competition involves over a hundred competing teams, a suspension that allows for superior handling and delivers reliability will be key. In order for the suspension system to be successful, the car must in turn be successful in the two events of the competition; static and dynamic. The static events are comprised of the presentation, engineering design and cost analysis. The cost analysis portion is dependent on the cost and budget of the vehicle. The suspension must be presentable for the presentation section. The design, assembly and structural analysis of the suspension system will be crucial in earning points in the engineering design event. (Change to table once added to Word) The maximum possible scores in the static events are: Technical Inspection No Points Cost and Manufacturing 100 Points Presentation 75 Points

Design

150 Points

Total 325 Points Table 1: Maximum Scores in Static Events The dynamic events are comprised of acceleration, skid-pad, autocross, fuel economy and endurance. A little under half of the points can be earned in the endurance race so the suspension system must have an adequate fatigue limit. The suspension must keep all four tires in contact with the road surface at all times, and maintain the vehicles center of gravity at its lowest point in order to aid the vehicles acceleration capabilities. The vehicles traction will be key in the skid-pad event so the suspension must aid and not hinder the performance. For the autocross event, a combination of all elements of the suspensions capabilities must be taken into consideration. Keeping unsprung mass low will aid in performing well in the fuel economy event. (Change to table once added to Word) The maximum scores in the dynamic events are: Acceleration 75 Points Skid Pad 50 Points Autocross 150 Points Fuel Economy 100 Points Endurance 300 Points Total 675 Points Table 2: Maximum Scores in Dynamic Events

(include system requirements. i.e Turning Radius, dimensional limits, Ackermann, )

i. Design Variables Important design variables include the mass, mass distribution ratio of front and rear, wheelbase, track width, and spring rates for the springs and the entire suspension, all of which are adjustable. Changes to the suspension spring rate can be made by changing the diameter of the rods as well as that of the manufactured parts. Changing these dimensions can have a drastic effect on the characteristics of the system. Changing the spring rates and masses will change the natural frequency for the vehicle, which will have an effect on its response to inputs from the road. ( Diameters of rods and manufactured parts. Dimensions of parts that is a variable to the entire system setup. If dimension is changed it can affect system. ) ii. Constraints The constraints of the suspension system is primarily dependent on the 2012 Formula Society of Automotive Engineers Rules. The rules set requirements on wheel travel, the vehicles track, wheelbase, and tilt rating. The vehicle is allowed a maximum wheel travel of two inches on all four wheels. The smaller track of the vehicle (front or rear) must be no less than 75% of the larger track. The rules also state that the car must have a wheelbase of at least 1525

mm or 60 inches. The wheelbase will be measured from the center of ground contact of the front and rear tires with the wheels pointed straight ahead. Finally, the vehicle must pass a 60 degree tilt test in order to compete in the competition. Some other constraints are dependent on our budget, which as an example, can limit the options of advanced materials that we can use. (Insert Table of Constraints Here) Table 3: Table of Constraints iii. Solution Evaluation Parameters The effectiveness of the suspension system assembly parts will be determined using kinematic analyses, finite element analyses, bearing optimization and spring and damper feedback. Upon completion of these evaluations, key problem areas will be brought to light. These evaluation methods will be key in preventative measures taken to avoid failures in the system. The kinematic analyses is used to determine the key placement of the upper and lower A-Arms onto the chassis of the vehicle, as well as push and pull rod dimensions. Finite Element Analysis or Simulations is performed on each component and subassembly to determine their structural limits and strengths. The majority of these part simulations will be performed using SolidWorks. Bearing Optimization is created to highlight the optimal bearing requirements for use in the hubs and uprights. A variety of SKF Bearings are analyzed to ensure that costs are kept minimal as well as the mass of the bearing itself. The smallest bearing with best life and ability to withstand impact forces is ultimately selected. Spring and Damper Feedback is performed to determine the response and vibrations of both the front and rear suspension. An impulse force is applied to the front suspension with known mass and acceleration and the response on both the front and rear suspension is measured and comparisons can be determined based off of spring and damping ratings. iv. Plan for Solving the Problem Problems arising from kinematic analyses will be addressed as they arise. These problems are corrected simply by adjusting the dimensions of the components and re-evaluating the kinematics. This will be performed until a successful kinematic is performed. Finite Element Analysis will help determine the weak areas of each part and subassembly. These key areas will be addressed by editing the model to account for the lack of material, excess material, or design flaw. Also, fillets, chamfers or rounds can be added to account for weak areas along edges and corners. Problems in the spring and damper feedback portion can be addressed by adjusting the spring and damper ratings. These changes are key in determining the correct spring and damper setup for the race vehicle. All problems arising from preliminary part and assembly evaluations will be key in the research and development portions of the suspension system design. The early identification and correction of key problem areas will aid in reducing overall cost of the system, avoiding manufacturing errors, and the development of a well performing suspension setup. b. Alternative Designs/Design Candidates (Include alternative designs that are same concept but dimensions are off resulting in incorrect Ackermann, Camber, etc.)

In considering options for the design of the hub, there are a few different ideas that can be adapted for wheel mounting, bearing sizing/type and the mounting method to the upright. Since the hubs primary design is to allow for rotation of the wheel in a fixed axis, displacement and bending are the primary concerns. At the same time, the team desires a light weight assembly, hence the use of a hollow cylindrical shaped hub. This allows for less material to be used and allows for changes to be made with regard to bearing size. The next major option is wheel mounting method. The previous years UCF FSAE team used a center-lock design, utilizing a single concentric nut at the center of the wheel. While impressing the judges, it also requires extra material and could end up having a higher overall mass. For the tentative Team Redline design, three wheel bolts are being used around a wheel aligning portion of the hub. The alternate design candidate for the upright incorporated the steering tie rod attachment into the side of the upright opposite of the brake attachment. This attachment point for the steering rod would be fixed. Therefore if camber or Ackermann changes were desired the only way to do so is to remodel the upright and remanufacture the entire component itself, which would increase cost and time. The alternate upright design requirement would also have a C-shaped opening at both the top and bottom for attachment of the upper and lower A-Arms. Another consideration for an alternate design was for the bell crank. The design currently being considered has much of its inner mass extracted to lower weight, with a compromise in stability and factor of safety. However, another idea would be to use a solid piece instead, which would be more stable, and could be done feasibly with aluminum while still not weighing as much as a steel piece that has been extruded in the same fashion. However, since weight is among the most important factors, the current design for the bell crank is the one that best meets our goals, so far. The A-Arms are also have alternate design. Currently the A-Arm are made out of carbon fiber, but are still trying to optimize them to each reduce the weight of the carbon fiber. It is also possible to switch the material to steel, but due to weight it might be light to use steel, do to it higher strength, meaning the diameter of the tube (wall thickness) is smaller. Another consideration is the the inserts for the A-Arms will be used to hold spherical bearing. This will eliminate all the heims in the A-Arms and remove rod-end in bending. The inserts are currently made out of aluminum, but if the A-Arms material switch to steel, then inserts will be made out of steel and just the cup itself be made out of steel. These are just a few design consideration for the A-Arms. c. Feasible Designs

(final selected design specifications)

The feasible design for the hub is a simple cylindrical shape for the bearing mounting surface. This surface is then transitioned to a lip which becomes the mounting flange for the brake rotor. The diameter is then reduced (to reduce mass) up to the wheel mounting flange, which utilizes three bolts to attach the wheel to the hub. This design uses dimensions driven by bearings, brake disks and wheels. The currently used dimensions are based on previous dimensions used by the FSAE team and is considered a tentative design. The design may see minor changes before final production. In the case of the bell crank, the feasible design currently considered is a pair of aluminum triangular plates, connected and supported by a bearing, which attaches to the pushrod on the bottom near the bearing and the springs up top. The design has had

much of its inner mass filleted out to a point where the structure is much lighter in weight, but still retains the necessary rigidity. The only question that remains is whether aluminum will stand up to the consistent operational loads applied to the suspension as the car moves, and in that case the material for the rocker will be steel instead, despite the disadvantage in weight. The feasible design for the upright would eliminate the extruded steering tie rod attachment and create a steering rod attachment component. This component would then be assembled to the the upright itself and allow the Formula SAE team the flexibility of adjust the component to match desired performance without the rebuilding of the entire upright itself. The upper A-Arms attachment area was changed to have drill points where an upper A-Arm Attachment component will be assembled. The upper A-Arm Attachment will also allow tuning of the suspension performance. The lower A-Arm attachment area is changed to a rectangular opening to provide an improvement in structural integrity. d. Evaluation of Feasible Designs and Selection of the Best Design Candidate Provide a description of methods and processes to identify best design candidate. Choosing the best design candidates will initially depend on the predictions given by modeling the design in SolidWorks, with attention paid to the weight of the part and the factor of safety when a load is applied. The parts are also intended to conform to a desired overall wheelbase, track width, and weight distribution. With regard to the hub design, the major considerations are weight and strength. The best option is to create the hub from aluminum, which will provide strong rigidity and strength, but with a relatively low mass. Aluminum is easily machinable and is cost effective. The method of utilizing a plate or disk to lock the hub into the upright will provide an inexpensive and light method for keeping the hub in place. The dimensions of the inner diameter of the hub will be determined analytically in order to determine the requisite strength needed. For the brake disk, the decisions will be made once the brake team within the FSAE team communicates their requirements. The bell crank design is required to withstand fatigue from operational loads for the duration of the event at the very least, and a fatigue test will have to be either simulated or performed on a prototype to make sure aluminum is a feasible material for the rocker. It is already known that steel is capable of sustaining these loads, and it therefore remains the backup plan in case aluminum is not up to the task. Requirements from the upright show that the team needs the flexibility to adjust parameters of the suspension. This was taken into consideration with the removal of Cshaped openings at the upper A-Arm attachment area and the replacement of it with an Upper A-Arm attachment. This Upper A-Arm attachment would allow the capability to adjust camber. The replacement of the lower A-Arm C-shaped attachment area with the rectangular opening allowed for strengthening of the region and a wide range of movement. Simulations of stresses applied to the lower A-Arm C-shaped attachment area showed that it is an area of concern due to its weakness and tendency to cave into itself. The addition of the Steering Tie Rod attachment component would allow the Formula SAE team to make finite changes to each wheels responsive nature. Weighted rating method/Use of customer satisfaction curves (insert house of quality and mention it) e. Optimization of the Best Design Candidate Once each individual component is designed and modeled, an assembly of the completed suspension system will be carried out in finite element evaluation software. Forces will be applied in directions mimicking that of bumps, turns, braking and other i.

dynamic vehicle loads. At this point, any potential weaknesses or undesired stress concentrations can be identified preemptively. This allows the team to make changes such as increasing the thickness of a material if necessary, or decrease the thickness if excessive material is being used for a certain part. For machine components such as bearings, screws or shafts, individual component evaluation would be advantageous as it allows for simplistic and accurate calculations. This strategy would allow the team to be able to assign a factor of safety to particular components and confidently allow the car to enter competition. 5. Detail Design (35 points) a. Decisions i. In-house made items/components/parts We have the facilities to machine and manufacture the parts listed below. Through the use of manufacturing machines such as the CNC, mill, and lathe, we have decided to produce the following components: Uprights A-Arms Bell Cranks Push/Pull Rods Hubs ii. Externally purchased Parts and Components The following will be externally purchased because they are not within the scope of what we are capable of making. They also require an extraordinary amount of engineering that we would not be capable of for this project. 1. Springs will be purchased from Penske Formula SAE Specific supplies 2. Dampers will also be purchased from Penske Formula SAE Specific supplies. b. Engineering Drawings i. Detail Engineering Drawings ADD Detailed Engineering Drawings from SolidWorks to Critical Design Review IN PROGRESS Folder in Dropbox ii. Assembly Drawings Include only important drawings in the main body. All other drawings can be included in an appendix. ADD Detailed Assembly Drawings from SolidWorks to CDR IN PROGRESS Folder c. Manufacturing Processes and Quality Management Uprights The Uprights will be CNC milled using the machine on the shops Top Well (B5WKV) A-Arms Cut and sanded to length and used a flat plate with drilled holes to align holes, and epoxy the arms to the aluminum inserts to combined them together. If the A-arms are made out of steel the a-arms and inserts which are made out of steel will be weld using a TIG (tungsten inert gas). Bell Cranks CNC milled on the plate using the CNC machine or water jetted from another company, while the rocker cup will be made on a hand lathe due to it does not need to be massed producing only need a total number of four. Push/Pull Rods

Are using the same method as the A-Arms. Expect if made out of carbon it will be made out of unidirectional carbon, which mean that is will be slightly lighter than one section of the A-Arms, but not a strong though, unless made out of steel.

Hubs Are the same process as the uprights (CNC milled) on the Top Well All of these components will be connected by aluminum spacer and bolts with lock nuts and washers to allow for minimal compliances with zero to no vibration. To assure quality management more than one part will be made to insure that if any defect and showed in the part are made they will be replaced if there is no fail in the UCF Formula SAE Suspension. d. Bill of Materials (if not provided in engineering drawings) (In an EXCEL FILE COPY PASTE) 6. Conclusions and Recommendations (10 points) Team Redline believes that the suspension design phase has generated a high quality concept that will yield positive results in application. The initial phase of design was focused primarily on desired changes from previous attempts at competition. The team has identified the areas in which previous designs are lacking either innovation or optimization and has addressed the issues in this new design. The next phase involved a close look at the budget for the project and its intended use to make sure a quality product will be the result. Since a major portion of the suspensions success involves endurance, the team felt that generating a high quality product that will be cost effective was a high priority. This led to a detailed analysis of components and rendered a budget required for quality. With these particular aspects taken care of, the team moved to designing each individual part, optimizing both mass and robustness. The final product is a vehicle sub-system that Team Redline feels will provide the UCF Formula SAE team with the suspension needed to be competitive at the international 2013 FSAE event. 7. Acknowledgements ( 5 points) Team Redline acknowledges the previous years Formula SAE teams for their input with regard to improvements needed and changes desired. The overall success of the UCF Formula SAE team is built around the concept of passing knowledge from one group of students to the next, so they may learn and improve. Also, the UCF SAE program for the use of the location and tooling required to build components and prototype systems.Acknowledgements also goes to the teams Technical Advisor, Dr. Tuhin Das, for his assistance in the technical aspects of the final design. We would like to thank all sponsors for their contributions to the suspension system and the UCF SAE teams in general. 8. Supporting Documents/References (5 points) Add Reference Links Appendices Lengthy calculations, user manuals, maintenance and service manuals can be included in appendices. Note: Since the requirements of each project and project solution can be expected to be different, the reporting needs can also be expected to vary from project to project. If the above outline is not appropriate for your project, consult with your group leader /technical advisor before writing the report.