1

Introduction
SAE Mini Baja is a team inspired project that encompasses design, fabrication, and
analysis. Teams have to start from scratch to create a feasible vehicle that can complete set
obstacles such as rough terrain, jumps, maneuverability, and endurance. The Society of
Automotive Engineers hosts several competitions all over the nation and each competition is
unique. The Manhattan College Mini Baja team chose the Rochester competition, which
involves a new challenge, as the car must float through water. Jasper Racing is registered to
compete in the Rochester event and using the knowledge gained from the Alabama competition
last year, will be a competitive team in 2010. Jasper Racings criteria of success are centralized
around proper design, analysis, testing, and fabrication techniques. The team has managed to
gain money through student government, which was a main concern for this year. This along
with the help of sponsorships, the team is on its way to a sufficient budget. As the vehicle is
made up of three proprietary assemblies, it is necessary to give an exposition of each assembly,
to help fully understand the project at hand.
Firstly, the rollcage is the basis for the entire design. It will allow the other design teams
to know the critical lengths, placement, and orientation for their assemblies, while ultimately
keeping the driver safe. Incorporating each design team into the rollcage is crucial to being
successful, otherwise the subsequent assemblies wont fit correctly. Driver safety is the main
aim of SAE and the 70+ page rule book is a testament to this. This is not a mere guideline to
building but rather a strict checklist that must be passed in order to compete.
As previously stated, the Rochester event has a floatation competition. Each vehicle
entered in the competition must traverse a large body of water. Since no Manhattan College Mini
Baja team has entered a competition that involved floatation and water propulsion in recent
history, this problem presented uncharted territory for all members of the design process. Since
there will be little or no opportunities to test the vehicle in the water before the competition, the
design had to be perfect. Because of this, the principles of marine engineering and fluid
dynamics were extensively researched, and very carefully applied, in order to provide a design
with no chance of failure.

2
Having a vehicle that can steer and handle correctly is crucial to any vehicles efficacy,
whether in a race or normal driving conditions. With this in mind, the steering team set out to
design the most efficient, durable, and easily repairable steering system that could be created
while staying within boundaries of the budget and manufacturing capabilities. By combining
high quality standard parts, simple manufacturing processes, and sensible designs, the team was
able to accomplish this with money and time to spare.










3

Rollcage Design
Robert Fuchs, Anthony Cuccaro, and Peter Kane

Design Concepts
The success of Jasper Racing in the 2010 competition relies on a good rollcage. Last
year the team made the mistake of trying to accommodate the whole team in the design, which
led to a very oversized, heavy, and difficult to fabricate rollcage (Fig. 1).


Figure 1: Rollcage from 2009

Using this previous rollcage as a benchmark, coupled with the knowledge from the
Alabama competition, Jasper Racing knew that the rollcage should encompass the front
suspension mounts and steering. This would leave the rear of the vehicle up to the rear
suspension / drivetrain group, depending on the placement of the engine, transmission, and
trailing arms. Besides incorporating the entire vehicle into the rollcage, its imperative that the
frame isnt too heavy. By sizing the rollcage around an average-sized team member not only
will SAE specifications be met, but it will allow an opportunity for most team members to drive
the vehicle in competition. Rough sketches were done by hand to get an idea of just how the
4
team wanted the rollcage to look and with the aid of Solidworks, Jasper Racing was able to make
a basic CAD version of the rollcage. This design can be seen in Figure 2.


Figure 2: Rollcage First Design

Design Analysis
After getting a basis for design, it was feasible to perform stress analysis for three impact
scenarios; side impact, head-on collision, and roll-over impact. In order to determine appropriate
loads for each scenario, Jasper Racing referenced Mini Baja Vehicle Design Optimization (2005)
by Jonathon Hastie, a student from Northeastern University, whose honor thesis was on a Mini
Baja roll cage design. Figure 3 shows side impact before any triangulation was added to the
rollcage.









5


Figure 3: Side Impact

To determine the necessary loads for such a collision, the team met with Dr. Bonilla, as she has
experience with automotive crash testing. After research, it was found that the human body can
withstand ten times the force of gravity before passing out due to stress. Equation 1, Newtons
First Law, was used to analyze this value.


(1)
F is the force applied, m is the mass of the vehicle, and a is the acceleration of the vehicle.
Using that information, along with the weight of the vehicle to be about 700 lbs (a factor of
safety of 1.2), and traveling speed of the vehicle to be 30 mph, it was determined the impact
force would be 7000 lb
f
. This number is much larger than any impact the car will likely endure,
thus making it a good indication of the cars safety. In building off of the initial rollcage design,
some additions were made. Triangulations were added to give more protection to the driver.
Figure 4 shows the stress analysis with triangulation (note the scale).


Figure 4: Side Impact with Triangulation

6
By being able to perform this analysis, not only is it apparent where the stress concentrations are
located, but it also allows the deformation to be viewed. This is important as the driver doesnt
want to be crushed if the vehicle were to be in any collision cases. Lastly, the impact location is
shown as a high stress area, thus gussets will be welded to these locations to strengthen the joint.
One problem that Jasper Racing encountered during the stress analysis portion of design was not
being able to perform a dynamic analysis of the collisions. Since only static analysis was
performed due to software constraints, this analysis magnifies the amount of deformation
sustained because the rollcage was a fixed object. The team is very confident that the rollcage is
capable of withstanding all impact scenarios, without failing and with much less deformation
than which is demonstrated in Figure 4. Appendix A contains the two other cases and
subsequent triangulation. Figure 5 is an excellent example of why stress analysis should be
performed prior to testing the vehicle.


Figure 5: Roll Hoop Overhead Failure

This picture is of Cornells car after a roll-over. Note the twisted roll hoop and broken roll hoop
overhead members. The Manhattan College Mini Baja team realizes that this must be avoided at
all costs and is why such intense analysis has taken place.
With the rollcage analyses completed, the design was critiqued by the entire team to
determine if it was feasible to build the vehicle as per the CAD model. With no foreseeable
problems in fabrication, it was logical to estimate the amount of tubing for the rollcage. Looking
7
at documentation from last year, and comparing the size of the 2009 rollcage to the 2010
rollcage, it was determined that 150 feet of Chromoly tubing would be more than sufficient to
fabricate the rollcage. The reason for using Chromoly, as opposed to 1018 steel, is that it is
lighter and stronger. Calculations are necessary to prove that the diameter and wall thickness of
the Chromoly is equivalent in strength to the required 1018 steel per SAE spec. This is
accomplished by the use of Equations 2, 3, and 4.

(2)

(3)



(4)

M is the moment, is stress, I is moment of inertia, C is the distance from the centroid to the
point of interest, D is the outer diameter, and d is inner diameter. These equations yielded a
necessary O.D. of 1.25 and wall thickness of .065. These calculations can be seen in
Appendix B.
Final Design
Combining the knowledge gained through stress analysis with the drawing of a CAD
model, the rollcage design could be completed. The finalized structure can be seen in Figure 6.
8

Figure 6: 2010 Rollcage

As Figure 6 depicts, the rollcage tapers in to the nose, as the driver doesnt need to have their
legs spread apart to use the brake and gas pedals. Also, the rear roll hoop has a bend allowing
the widest part of the rollcage to be positioned where someones shoulders would be.
Besides these criteria, it was important to keep the SAE rules in mind. These are not
guidelines but rather strict limitations on the location of members, angle of bends, and size of
materials. Constantly referencing the rulebook allowed the design to fit these criteria, while
allowing the team to utilize its own rendition of just how the rollcage should look and perform.
Figures 7 and 8 compare the SAE specifications and the 2010 rollcage.









9

Figure 7: SAE Bend Angle Specification











Figure 8: 2010 Bend Angle

It can be seen that the angle of bend for the roll hoop overhead member (RHO) is 41.23, which
meets the specification for the bend being less than 45. The other dimensions can be seen in
Appendix C.

Manufacturing
The entire rollcage of this years car will be manufactured within the teams shop, made
from scratch. Each piece of tubing will be cut to the specific measurements based on the detailed
drawing of the rollcage. A problem that the team had encountered last year was to determine
which method of welding should be used for the rollcage. The preferred method in the industry
for welding Chromoly tubing is tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding. Since the team last year did
not have access to a TIG welder, or have anyone on the team proficient in that form of welding,
it was a concern whether metal inert gas (MIG) welding would be sufficient. Even though the
welding did pass inspection last year, the team is taking advantage of a new team members
skills with TIG welding and doing the majority of the welding that way.
10
Another problem that Jasper Racing encountered last year was the inability to notch
tubing effectively. After doing research and experimenting, the team has found a way to
effectively notch tubing using a chop saw. This method is being used to limit the number of
broken hole saw blades, as was an issue last year. Another important factor in the design of this
years vehicle is to incorporate as many bends as possible. By using more bends, the structure of
the rollcage is much greater because the team does not have to cut and weld the tubing as much.
It was estimated that the rollcage will use about 150 feet of tubing. The tubing purchased
came out to about $10.00 per foot with shipping. Thus, the total cost for the rollcage materials is
about $1500. Based on the other components of the vehicle, the rollcage is fairly inexpensive.
With improved methods of fabrication, and an earlier head start, it can be estimated that the
rollcage will be completed prior to the end of the fall 2009 semester. Figure 9 shows the
progress that Jasper Racing has made in the past few weeks fabricating the rollcage. With the
rollcage completed, the rest of the car can be built in the time leading up to the competition.


Figure 9: Rollcage Fabrication Progress

11
Floatation Design
Peter Kane & Michael Zinn

Design Concepts
The floatation design team began its design process by researching the different methods
of floatation used by other teams who have had success in the water competitions over the past
years. The most commonly used material was determined to be closed-cell foam. This is because
closed-cell foams, like polystyrene or polyethylene, consist of completely sealed air pockets
within the foam. Instead of absorbing water like a sponge, closed-cell foams displace water like a
solid material. Most of the teams that had success in the water competitions used closed-cell
foam buoys that were fixed to either side of the vehicle, between the front and rear wheels. This
orientation assures that equal buoyant force is created on the left and the right sides of the
vehicle to prevent rolling or capsizing. Two completed designs are shown below in Figures 10
and 11.

Figure 10: Union College Floatation Design Figure 11: Montreal Floatation Design
Having looked at past successes and failures of other teams, the next task that had to be
accomplished was to create a conceptual design that could meet the goals of the Floatation
design team. These goals were to design a buoy system that would keep the vehicle afloat and
stable without a substantial loss in ground clearance or maneuverability. The initial conceptual
12
design that was produced was a foam buoy consisting of two equally sized buoys on either side
of the roll cage. These buoys would lie between the front and rear wheels leaving enough
clearance for the front and rear wheels. In the past, Union College has had success with a
surfboard type design. In this design, there is a layer of foam that extends under the floor
boards of the vehicle, and connects the two side buoys. This concept was integrated into the
Jaspers design, providing additional foam to reduce the necessary size on either side of the
driver. Also, this surfboard design will cause the vehicle to float higher in the water because
more foam will be submerged. The initial floatation design is seen in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Conceptual Floatation Design
With this conceptual design in mind, the next task that had to be accomplished was to
determine exactly how much foam would be needed in order to make the 2009-2010 Manhattan
College Mini Baja vehicle neutrally buoyant. This was done using the basic principle of density.
One simple way to determine whether or not something will float is to compare its density with
that of the fluid in which it will be placed in. An objects density is defined as its mass divided
by its volume. In order to make the calculations as conservative as possible, it was assumed that
no buoyant forces were generated, by either the tires or the frame. The mass of the vehicle was
calculated by adding up the weights of all of the vehicle components. A list of all of the
components and their weights is shown in Table D-1 in Appendix D. Even though the total
13
calculated weight was approximately 560 pounds, for calculating purposes the weight used was
600 pounds. This is because 2 pounds per cubic foot is the highest specific volumes for the
closed-cell foams that would be used in this design. Using all of these assumptions, the equation
yielding the vehicle density for each cubic foot of foam added is shown in Equation 5 below.

(5)
Because the competition is taking place in water at standard temperatures, the density of
the water that the car will float in is 60 pounds per cubic foot. The graph in Figure 13 shows how
the vehicles density changes with each additional cubic foot of foam added. It also shows how it
compares to the density of water. As Figure 13 shows, the vehicle becomes neutrally buoyant
after approximately 10 to 11 cubic feet of foam is added.


Figure 13: Vehicle Density vs. Foam Added
The amount of foam needed to achieve neutral buoyancy is important because it
represents the volume of foam that will be submerged in water. Since there are many important
components that must stay dry during competition, it is also important to design the foam buoys,
such that the water line will be below anything that can be damaged by water. These
components are mostly located in the drivetrain compartment which is behind the driver. The
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50
D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
l
b
/
f
t
3
)
Volume of Foam Added (ft
3
)
Density vs. Volume of Foam Added
Vehicle Density
Water Density
14
floatation team had to design a foam buoy that would keep the car afloat and sit high enough in
the water to keep the water sensitive components, such as the engine and transmission, dry.
This conceptual design accounts for the necessary 11 cubic feet of foam in the side buoys
and surfboard. The side buoys are tapered out so that the bottom of the floatation device is
wider than the top of the device. This was done so that more of the foam would be lower,
allowing the vehicle to ride higher in the water and thus keeping the water sensitive components
above the water line.
Design Analysis
While the foam buoy is not expected to experience any failures due to stress, there were a
significant amount of calculations that had to be performed in order to make sure that the foam
buoy design was adequate. It must keep a 600 pound vehicle buoyant, while being stable enough
to keep the car from capsizing. Research showed that the most applicable method of analysis for
the roll stability of the Baja car was the theory of metacentric stability. Metacentric stability is
defined as a vessels tendency to produce a moment that will either return the vessel to the
upright position or cause it to capsize depending on the distance between the vessels center of
buoyancy and center of gravity. Figure 14 shows a vessel at two different angles of rotation, with
center of gravity, center of buoyancy, and the metacenter labeled appropriately.

Figure 14: Metacentric Stability of a Sea Vessel
In order to locate a vessels metacenter, shown by M in Figure 14, a vertical line is drawn
through the center of buoyancy that intersects the vessels upright center line. The vessel shown
15
in Figure 14 is considered metacentrically stable because the metacentric height, M, is above the
center of gravity. If the vessel were rotated to an angle where the center of gravity were above
the metacenter, the vessel would create a moment that would cause it to capsize, or turn over,
rather than return to its upright position.
In order to meet SAE safety regulations, the car must be able to right itself after being
rotated to an angle of 30 degrees from the upright position. For this reason, the floatation design
team decided to design the foam buoy system to be metacentrically neutral, or in a position
where it will not right or capsize itself at an angle of 35 degrees. This was calculated using
Equation 6, obtained from the Fluid Dynamics textbook by Dr. Pritchard.

(6)

This decision would ensure that the vehicle would pass safety tests at the competition site, while
not using an excessive amount of foam. This will keep the driver safe without over exerting the
budget.
A simple trigonometric analysis showed that a balance has to be found between the
amount of foam used and the distance between the center of gravity and center of buoyancy.
Using the powerful modeling and calculating capabilities of SolidWorks modeling software
shown in Figure D-2 of Appendix D, the center of gravity for the floatation device was found.
This center of gravity for the foam can be assumed to be at the location of the center of
buoyancy. By using this information, and similarly finding the center of gravity of the
completed car, the meticenter can be calculated. This calculation is also shown in Appendix D.
With this information the design could be finalized.
The costs that will be incurred for the floatation design would be the cost of 15 cubic feet
of marine foam billets, the cost of U-bolts, and the steel for the ribs. The foam that will be
purchased is four pieces of Styrofoam buoyancy billets, 7 x 20 x 48 in size, each at a cost of
$64. For attachment, 30 U-bolts will be purchased at $3 apiece. The steel ribs will be made from
plate steel that is left over from the previous designs. The total cost will be $346 for the
floatation device.
16
Final Design
After examining the metacentric analysis data, it was determined that extra foam needed
to be added to the rear of the car. This extra foam was necessary because of the weight that is
concentrated in the drivetrain compartment at the rear. The weight of the engine, transmission,
and drive axle had to be balanced out by a larger foam buoy attached to the rear of the car. The
surfboard was also extended back to this buoy, keeping the floatation device one integrated
piece. The final floatation design is shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15: Final Floatation Design
Manufacturing
In order to make the manufacturing of the foam buoys as simple as possible, large foam
sheets or billets will be ordered from an online marine supply store that specializes in ultra-
buoyant foams for the construction of floating docks. Once these large sheets are received, they
can be cut and glued together creating the exact shape of the entire floatation system. Another
option that was discussed was to use two-part expanding spray foam. However, that would
require the construction of a wooden mold and the spray process could lead to dangerous air gaps
and cavities created within the foam buoys. By using solid foam, the buoys are guaranteed to be
17
uniform and water-tight. The buoys will be attached to the car by placing thin steel bars on the
bottom of the foam buoys and bolting the bars into the floor of the car. Similarly there will be
steel ribs impregnated in the side buoys to add stability to those sections of the float. These bars
will not only support the foam structure, but will provide additional protection from any
hazardous items due to rough terrain on the land competitions.











18
Steering Design
Christopher Brewer, Michael Infantino, & Michael Zinn
Design Concepts
The first important decision that the steering design team had to make was whether a
recirculating ball steering system or a rack and pinion system should be used. A recirculating ball
system operates by feeding a series of ball bearings through a worm gear which advances the
gear to either the left or the right, as shown in Figure 16 below. A rack and pinion system
consists of a small pinion gear that is mated to a geared rack. As the pinion is rotated, the rack
moves laterally as shown in Figure 17. As the rack moves laterally, the wheels will be turned.




Figure 16: Recirculating Ball





Figure 17: Rack and Pinion
19

Recirculating ball systems are widely used in large trucks and vehicles without power steering
because they are very powerful and provide large gear ratios. However, they have many
mechanical parts that can fail or break during competition. For that reason, the team decided to
use the rack and pinion system. Rack and pinion steering provides a much smaller gear ratio but
because the Baja car is light, it is not necessary to have a lot of power in the steering system.
Since the only moving components in the system are the pinion gear and rack, it is very simple
and more importantly, very durable.
With the decision being made for the rack and pinion, the next step was to design how the
team wants the rack and pinion setup designed and to figure out what design would give optimal
performance. Key factors that had to be looked at within the rack and pinion design were the
gear ratio, travel of the rack, turning angle, and the angle that the tie rods make with the wheels.
After taking measurements and performing research, the steering team found out that the gear
ratio of the rack and pinion assembly was 12 to 1. The concern with the rack travel was
immediately forgotten once the team discovered that the rack travelled about 4 inches in both
directions. When the wheel was fully turned, it created a turning angle of 45 degrees. All these
factors were sufficient. The big issue of last years design dealt with the angle between the tie
rods and the wheels. The angle between the tie rods and the wheels brought stress, resistance,
and vertical forces on the joints and members of the system. In coming up with conceptual
designs, the steering team came up with two possibilities that would minimize this angle, making
the car as efficient as possible.
Design concept 1, as seen in Figure 18, is the ideal concept. This figure shows the
steering assembly from the front view. The tie rods come out of the rack perfectly horizontal.
This completely corrected last years problem, in that there is no angle between the position of
the tie rod and the wheel. This was accomplished by lowering the rack and pinion assembly so
that they are in line with the steering knuckle and wheel. This would eliminate the extra stress
and friction in the system and its joints. The easier the movement in the joints, the easier it is to
turn the wheel. This was an ideal design because the rack and the tie rods should be perfectly
20
horizontal, though that can not be guaranteed. The ideology behind this design, was as long as
the angle has been decreased from last year, the steering will be much more effective.






Figure 18: Steering Design Concept 1
Design concept 2 had a similar idea to the first concept. It is once again being looked at
from the front view. The difference in this design, as seen in Figure 19, would be an addition of
two vertical rods coming out of the rack. These vertical rods would attach to the horizontal tie
rods. With this design, the angle between the tie rods and wheel would still be very small, but
there would be more room for other components under the rack, such as pedals.






Figure 19: Steering Design Concept 2
21
The steering team had to make a decision and weigh the pros and cons of each design.
The final decision was made to choose design concept 1. Concept 1 was not only very simple,
but could also be extremely effective. This concept contained less parts, a less chance of failure,
and could be repaired much more easily. The big issue with concept 2 was that there was
confusion on how to connect the vertical rods to the rack and pinion, so that the movement of the
rack and pinion would not be affected. The main benefit of the second design concept was
thrown out because it is too complex to manufacture and there will be plenty of room, with either
design, for components such as the pedals and miscellaneous items of the Baja car, even if the
first design is used. The next step for the steering system was to look at this concept and start the
analysis.
Design Analysis
In order to ensure that the rack and pinion design concept is in fact the ideal steering
mechanism for the purposes of a Mini Baja vehicle, various tests and calculations had to be
performed.
The first and most important criterion for success, as listed in the previous section, was
durability. For this reason, the tie rods need to be able to withstand the forces incurred during an
off road race. After looking into different failure modes of tie rods and similar components, the
only realistic method of failure would involve the tie rod buckling like a column under large
forces applied on the side of the wheel. Since the car is traversing an off road course, a
significant amount of bump-steer, or jerking due to the ground surface will be encountered, so
this failure method is very realistic and must be prevented. The steel selected for the tie rods was
calculated to withstand a force of over 8000 pounds as shown in Appendix E. The design team is
satisfied with this amount and is sure that no greater force will be incurred during the race. Also,
if the tie rods were to experience a force of this magnitude, the driver would likely lose his grip
on the steering wheel and the rack would move to help reduce the force of impact.
Another important criterion for success was a large turning radius for the vehicle. Since
the track width of this years car has been increased, compared to cars entered in previous years,
it was important to maintain the ability to turn in a tight radius by increasing the turning angle at
22
the wheels. Figure 20 shows a detailed image of one of the steering knuckles with a tie rod
attached.

Figure 20: Steering Knuckle with Tie Rod Close Up
As the tie rod pushes the back of the steering knuckle laterally, the tire will rotate around
a central axis. The displacement of the rack creates a simple right triangle that can be used to
calculate the steering angle. For two inches of lateral displacement, the steering orientation
produces a turning angle of approximately 63 degrees.
The third criterion that had to be tested was the vertical travel capabilities of the tie rods.
Due to inferior ball joints, the tie rods on the 2008-2009 vehicle would lock and jam after only a
small vertical displacement of the wheel. Since better components have been chosen for this
years vehicle, this problem should not occur again. The vertical displacement of the tie rods also
creates a simple right triangle. Using the fifty degree maximum rotation of the ball joints chosen
and the eighteen inch length of the tie rods, the total allowable vertical travel of the tie rods was
calculated to be fourteen inches. This is much greater than the maximum expected vertical wheel
displacement of four inches, so the joints on the tie rods should not lock or incur stress due to
excessive rotation.

23
Final Design
Because of the confidence that the stress and design analysis tests created, very few
changes were made to the initial conceptual design. In order to meet SAE safety regulations,
nylon lock nuts will be added to the ends of each tie rod in order to prevent the rod ends from
coming loose due to vibrations or impacts on the course. Other than that, the conceptual design
prevailed through the various steps of analysis and will be used for the final design. This final
design is portrayed in Figure 21.

Figure 21: Finalized Steering Design
Manufacturing
In order to make the manufacturing of the steering assembly as simple as possible,
standard or recycled parts were used frequently. The only parts that could not be found in a
standard size were the tie rods. Because of the added track width of this years car, it was
determined that the simplest solution would be to custom build the tie rods using thick-walled
steel pipe. The pipe would simply have to be cut to size and then threaded on the inner wall with
the use of a tap and die kit. This proved to be a very simple and effective method and the tie rods
24
were almost entirely completed within a matter of hours. A sample of the finished tie rod with
the ball joint inserted is shown below in Figure 22.

Figure 22: Fully Assembled Tie Rod with Ball Joints
Another benefit of this manufacturing process is that it is very environmentally friendly.
Since only hand tools must be used, no expensive machines have to run and no harmful
lubrications or chemicals are added to the environment. By using this design and manufacturing
process, the Steering Team has managed to reduce its environmental impact. Except for the truck
used to ship the items to Manhattan College, no sources of pollution or environmental damage
were used doing the manufacturing process of this design.
The entire Jasper Racing Design Team felt that because the manufacturing process was
so simple, it may be best to wait for some of the other parts of the cars construction to reach
completion before the final cuts were made on the tie rods and the thread was created. However,
once the front end of the roll cage is completed, the rack can be mounted properly and the exact
lengths of the tie rods can be determined, with the rest of the manufacturing steps to follow.
25
Due to the fact that the team is going to reuse the rack and pinion system, which was
purchased from Desert Karts last year, the price does not need to be taken into account for the
cost of the steering system. The Steering Team has also chosen to use the same steering wheel
from last year. It has a diameter of 12 inches. Still being debated is whether to use the UV-Joint
from last year, so that this cost does not have to be taken into account either. For the Steering
Teams design cost, the Aluminum pipe for the steering column cost approximately $36.00, the
steel pipe for the tie rods cost $38.00, and the 4 Ball Joints from McMaster-CARR cost $35.00
each. This adds up to a total of $214.00.















26


Drivetrain and Rear Suspension
Edward Bricker, Steven Bosco, & Evan LaCava

Design Concept
The SAE Mini Baja vehicle must undergo severe off-road abuse yet maintain an intended
path of motion, doing so in a timely manner. The race-course contains patches of rough terrain,
ramps that will launch the vehicle into the air, and turns that force the vehicle to defy gravity.
This type of abuse can be very demanding on a suspension system, and the components must be
durable enough to withstand the punishments for hours. Aside from abuse caused by the
treacherous course terrain, the drivetrain components are subjected to additional internal abuse.
At full throttle for extended periods of time, the engine transmits high levels of transient torque
and vibration throughout the entire drivetrain. The goal for the team in charge of the drivetrain
and rear suspension was to design these components to work together flawlessly throughout the
life of the vehicle.
There were two options available for a rear suspension configuration; either a solid rear
axle, or an independent rear axle. The implementation of an independent rear suspension (IRS)
system, and the benefits it offers, was unanimously decided upon as the optimum design. After
the initial decision to utilize an IRS, further design types needed to be contemplated. Conceptual
design one incorporated a dual A-arm suspension setup, which consisted of upper and lower A-
arms with a single monotube, coilover shock absorber as shown in Figure 22. This dual A-arm
design proved sub-optimal for the proposed vehicle for several reasons. As a dual A-arm style
suspension system compresses, the wheel and tire undergo severe amounts of negative camber,
leaving less tire contact with the ground. This would provide less than optimal traction and poor
handling characteristics on a two-wheel drive vehicle such as the Mini Baja. Another reason the
dual A-arm suspension type was not selected is the weight associated with all the components.
27
In addition to increasing the net vehicle weight, excess unsprung weight is never beneficial to the
operation of a suspension system, and can be likened to running with heavy boots on versus
lightweight running sneakers.

Figure 22: Double-A Arm Suspension
Conceptual design two incorporated a basic independent trailing-arm suspension setup,
combined with the integrity of a structurally-sound truss as shown in Figure 23 below.

Figure 23: Trailing Arm Suspension Design
28

Conceptual design two was chosen for various reasons. The use of a single trailing arm
on each side of the vehicle, with pivots placed parallel to the axles, provides as much suspension
travel as the shock is able to provide, while maintaining a constant camber angle. This allows
the full treaded contact patch of the tire to remain in contact with the ground at all times. Single
trailing arm systems are also substantially lighter than all the components necessary for a
properly functioning dual A-arm suspension system. Minimal weight will help the Manhattan
College Jasper Racing Mini Baja vehicle travel around the course faster. Another contributing
factor for selecting the independent trailing arm suspension design was simplicity and ease of
fabrication. The same specification of chromoly steel alloy tubing used to construct the Mini
Baja roll cage and chassis was also selected for the trailing arm. The strength-to-weight ratio of
this tubing made it ideal for the trailing arm application as well. In order to provide sufficient
impact resistance and resist multi-directional moments, the triangulated reinforcement of a truss
design was incorporated into the design throughout the trailing arms. Stress analysis was
conducted in Solidworks, a solid modeling software, which proved the design of the independent
trailing arm trusses to be very robust.
The gearbox selected for the Mini Baja vehicle was initially designed for a 2009 330cc
Polaris Trail Blazer ATV (All-Terrain Vehicle) which produces nearly twice the power of the
current Mini Baja engine. With a F-N-R (Forward-Neutral-Reverse) setup, the transmission will
provide the vehicle with the capability to back-up and escape from becoming stuck. This
function alone will help avoid penalties, both time and point deductions, granted for accepting
assistance from the SAE course-workers during the competition. The ratios for this gearbox are
2.68:1 in the forward gear and 3:05:1 for the reverse gear.
Jasper Racing faced problems with the independent rear axle in the 2008-2009 Mini Baja
vehicle during the Alabama competition. Consequently, the decision was made to utilize a
standard pre-manufactured independent rear axle. ATV (All-Terrain Vehicle) independent axles
were decidedly the most suitable choice for this application. The axle selected for this
application is standard equipment on the 2009 Polaris Outlaw 525 IRS model, which produces
38 horsepower; nearly 4 times the power as the Briggs & Stratton specified engine, powering the
29
Mini Baja vehicle. The advantages of this independent drive axle include substantial robustness
for the Mini Baja vehicle application, compactness, light weight, and cost effectiveness.
In order to achieve a supple track width of 54 inches, it was decided that the rear axle
would have to be extended with a steel collar. Deliberation of three alternatives for extending
the track width was conducted. The first method proposed was to simply attach pre-
manufactured wheel spacers in between the wheels and hubs. This was deemed unreasonable
because it would add unsprung weight and had a dimensional limitation of only extending the
track width by 3 inches per wheel; far less than necessary for our application. The second
proposed alternative was an intermediary collared shaft with a keyed connection between the
axle and surrounding collar. Given the geometry and manufacturing limitations, this proved too
difficult and costly to manufacture. The third and final alternative of an intermediary collared
shaft, welded directly to the axle along the interfering diameter was selected for ease of
manufacture, low cost, and robustness.

Design Analysis
Many constraints and unknowns hindered the design process at times and necessitated
creative solutions to overcome engineering challenges and limitations. The most obvious
constraints included a limited timeframe, budget, and manufacturing facilities, in addition to the
inherent design criteria set forth by the SAE Rulebook. Jasper Racing needed to assemble a
complete drivetrain with specific intrinsic properties. The proposed drivetrain needed to be safe,
compact and lightweight, but serviceable and sufficiently robust. It had to be comprised of
components which would minimize cost, maintain durability, and fit within the limited
manufacturing capabilities available, while still maximizing performance.
Safety was of utmost concern in every respect; for the driver, crew, and environment.
Possible failure modes were analyzed and worst case scenarios predicted in order to ensure safe
operation under any circumstances. Considerable factors of safety (FoS), or design factors, were
applied to the design and application of components to minimize the risk of failure and possible
resulting injury. This particular event poses particularly more strict tolerances for environmental
impact due to the existence of a water event in the competition. The possibility for even minor
30
leaks to pollute the water source was understood and every effort for the prevention of such was
made. The use of silicone-based RTV (Room Temperature Vulcanizing) type cement was
selected for this application. This cement is impervious to the effects of petroleum-based
chemicals and lubricants, among many others, and will not break down like many other sealant
formulas.
Compactness for the drivetrain is imperative for several reasons. Since modification or
alteration of the given engine (Briggs & Stratton 305cc, 10 horsepower, 14.5 lb-ft, OHV, air
cooled) in almost any way is strictly prohibited, minimizing weight is crucial. Maximizing
power-to-weight ratio is essential to remaining competitive within the competition. While using
a more compact design and lighter components reduces the weight of the drivetrain. This also
means that the roll cage has to protect a smaller volume which reduces the amount of structural
steel tubing. This helps reduce the total vehicle weight even further.
Another important factor for maximizing performance is the optimization of gear ratios
for the vehicle. Because of the limited budget, it was decided to utilize the sponsorship granted
by Polaris for as many applicable components as possible. For this reason, the gearbox,
sprockets, rear axle assembly, rear brake assembly, and rear wheels were purchased through
Polaris Industries at significantly discounted rates. With the gearbox (2009 Polaris Trail Blazer
330 [18.7 horsepower] ATV application, Forward-Neutral-Reverse) selected, the remaining
sprockets and tire diameters were determined based on a target top speed of 35 miles per hour.
After researching other Mini Baja vehicles, it was determined that a final drive ratio yielding a
maximum speed between 30 and 40 miles per hour would be an appropriate compromise
between top speed and acceleration. This was simple to calculate, given the maximum governed
engine RPM (angular velocity in Revolutions Per Minute), the tallest PVT (Polaris Variable
Transmission) ratio, fixed gearbox ratios, interchangeable sprockets available, and outer
diameters of applicable tires. The final drive ratio from the engine to the rear axle, with PVT
ratio corresponding to maximum speed, was calculated to be 6.85:1. That is, for every 6.85
revolutions of the engine crankshaft, the rear axle would complete one complete revolution.
(Note: tire flex was accounted for using a corrected effective rolling diameter [95% of unloaded
diameter])
31
The selection of tires for the rear wheels of the Mini Baja vehicle was crucial for the
performance of the aforementioned water event. This constraint meant that the tires selected
needed to possess a tread design and depth which compromised off-road traction and propulsion
through water. The tires selected (AMS brand Swamp Fox tires, 22-10-10 size) possess a tread
depth of 5/8 inch, and tread design similar to that of a paddlewheel as seen in Figure 24.

Figure 24: Ideal Tire with Supple Tread Pattern

As mentioned previously, the IRS assembly from the Polaris Outlaw 525 IRS model was
selected for the Jasper Racing Mini Baja vehicle. However, a problem arose from the
discrepancy between the wheelbase and track width of the standard rear axle when compared to
the proposed Mini Baja vehicle. Width between the outermost surfaces of the rear tires in the
original ATV configuration is 47.5 inches. Each of the rear tires is 10 inches in width, and
centered with respect to the wheel hub. This translates into a 37.5 inch original track width. The
predetermined track width corresponding to the Jasper Racing Mini Baja vehicle design envelope
of 54 inches, mirrored with the front track, meant a discrepancy of 8.25 horizontal inches on
each side. Designing a solution to bridge this gap, given the manufacturing limitations and
budget constraints was a challenging process, which required careful planning. Eventually, a
feasible design was produced and the robustness was proven through analysis.
32
The lack of availability of specifications and exact dimensions for products, components,
and materials proved quite frustrating throughout the design process. Using creative methods,
these obstacles were overcome and a successful design was generated. Ideally, the vehicle
would have been designed and built in stages, with all parts in hand for exact measurements and
test fitting. This was not the case, however, because time constraints forced Jasper Racing to
work concurrently towards the design of the entire vehicle. The use of computer solid modeling
programs like SolidWorks were of great assistance throughout the entire design process.

In order to ensure the durability of the drivetrain components, thorough stress analysis
was conducted. In the cases when material strength and other property values were required, the
most conservative approach was applied. In the case of the independent rear axle extensions, the
weakest yield strength values found for corresponding alloys were used throughout calculations
instead of ultimate, or tensile, strength values. Additionally, for an even further measure of
conservative design, the fully annealed values for material strength were applied throughout. In
addition to the conservative values used among calculations, a considerable design factor, or FoS
(factor of safety), was used in determining dimensions and geometry of the intermediary shafts.
The driven parts of the drivetrain were carefully analyzed as well. The maximum torque
experienced by the drivetrain was calculated based on the most extreme cases physically
possible. Many of these cases would likely never be experienced, however in the rare case that
they are, they can and will tolerate the abuse and function properly as designed. The
combination of conservative-type analysis, coupled with generous design factors, or factors of
safety (FoS), ensure robustness beyond any doubt.
The intermediary axle extension sections were suspected as potential weak points in the
rear suspension and were therefore designed incorporating a factor of safety of four. The
necessary diameters of the collared intermediary axle-extension shafts and necessary weld
thickness were calculated using formulas and methods from Shigleys Mechanical Engineering
Design along with help from several faculty members of the Mechanical Engineering
Department at Manhattan College. Analysis of the welded joint between the intermediary collar
and the axles themselves showed that the joint, fixed with a full 11/64 inch thickness fillet weld,
had a higher design factor than the axles themselves. The weld interface was assumed to
33
experience all of the torsion, not taking into account the effects of the shrink fit between the axle
shaft and collar.
The maximum torque produced by the Mini Baja drivetrain was calculated using the
reverse gear ratio of the transmission as well as the tallest possible ratio on the CVT. Although
these ratios and scenarios are seldom encountered, the goal is to ensure flawless operation under
any conditions; both foreseeable and unexpected. This torque conversion, combined with the
other parts of the drivetrain, led to a maximum net torque of approximately 590 lb-ft at the rear
axles, while retaining a maximum top speed of 34.5 miles per hour.

Manufacturing
Construction of the Mini-Baja vehicle began with detailed drawings of each individual
section. The exact dimensions of the design provided the fabricators with a new set of
difficulties. Given the limited facilities and respective manufacturing methods, intuitive
techniques proved necessary in order to construct the vehicle precisely. The ordinarily simple
task of notching the end of a tube became difficult without the proper equipment readily
available. End-notching tubes to match the respective diameter of other intersecting tubes, is a
necessary procedure used to provide tight fitting joints. Minimizing the empty interstitial space
at joints to be welded allows for effective welds and maintenance of dimensional trueness.
Given the limited manufacturing capabilities, an innovative solution was necessary for an
effective and timely method. Through research and experimentation, it was found that two
angled cuts could be made into the end of a tub, forming a point. Rotated sideways, the notched
tube fits perfectly onto another round tube of the same diameter. The bender available to Jasper
Racing (JD2 model 3) easily creates mandrel bends in the 4130 Chromoly tubing. After the
appropriate bends were made, the tubing could then be precisely cut to the necessary length
using a chop saw. Each part, which was bent and subsequently cut, was then mocked up to
match the drawings. Once a gap-free fit was achieved, the tubes were tack-welded together
using a MIG welder (Miller brand Millermatic 135). This method allows the vehicle to be fully
assembled but not permanently welded until it is transported to a fabricator who will TIG weld
all the nodes using ERS80D-2 filler rod. The incorporation of ERS80D-2 filler wire, in
34
conjunction with an Argon/CO
2
shielding gas mixture, will produce superior welds which are
stronger than the base metal itself. One example of properly TIG welded 4130 chromoly alloy-
steel tubing can be seen in Figure 25. These measures and techniques will ensure structural
integrity throughout the lifetime of the vehicle.

Figure 25: TIG welds with a low Heat-Affected Zone

Because the drivetrain includes complex mechanical parts, the final cost for all of the
components was very high. Table 1 on the following page shows a detailed list of all of the
components purchased for the drivetrain and rear suspension and their costs. Any additional
costs that exceed the $300 design budget will be taken from the SAE Mini Baja club account.
35

Table 1: Drivetrain Cost Analysis






36
Project Timeline
When Jasper Racing began the design process back in September, an ambitious time line
was created that would have all of the design teams prepared to begin fabricating all of the
design components by the middle of November. The schedule is shown in the GANTT chart in
Figure 26 below.

Figure 26: Jasper Racing GANTT Chart
While some of the teams ran into problems with locating parts and talking to suppliers,
most of the Jasper Racing team was able to begin fabricating their vehicle components within
days of their original scheduled start dates. Overall, the Jasper Racing team is pleased with the
way every design team was able to stay on task and complete jobs in a reasonable time frame.
This is largely due to the implementation of weekly design meetings where tasks for each
member of the team were assigned and reviewed on a weekly basis. By working closely with Dr.
Litkouhi, the team was able to use these meetings as an opportunity to prevent any members
from falling behind schedule. Because of the success that the Jasper Racing team had this
semester during their design process, the team feels that using Mini Baja as a design project for
MECH 401 is a good way to make sure the car is carefully designed and built before the
competition date.



37
Appendix A: Stress Analysis



Figure A-1: Front Impact



Figure A-2: Front Impact with Triangulation



38


Figure A-3: Roll Over Impact





Figure A-4: Roll Over Impact with Triangulation










39

Appendix B: SAE Dimension Specifications




Figure B-1: Side Impact Member Height and Distance to Start of Roll Hoop Overhead (RHO)




Figure B-2: Horizontal Distance to RHO


17.31 from Seat Middle to
RHO
40


Figure B-3: Vertical Distance from Top of Seat to Side Impact Member






























8.3 from Floor to
Side Impact Member
41
Appendix C: Calculations for Chromoly Steel


1018 Carbon Steel 4130 Chromoly Steel

y
= 365

435
Mpa
D
min
= 0.0254
m


d
min
= 0.0193
m
steel=.283 lb/ft
3


I
min
= 1.36209E-08

I=(/64)*(D
4
-d
4
)

C
min
= 0.0127
m


M
min
= 391.4667112
Nm
M=(
y
*I)/C

A
min
= 0.000214155
m
2

A=(/4)*(D
2
-d
2
)

W
ft
1.128
lbf.ft
3








Expanded bending moment
equation
M=[(/64)*(
y
)*(D
4
-d
4
)]/(D/2)



General equation for ID using minimum specified bending moment and
yield strength
d=(D
4
-[(64*M*{D/2})/(
y
*)])
(1/4)











Table C-1: Equivalent Tubing
(Highlighted Boxes Denote Common Sizes)




0.8750 22.2250 0.0222 0.5577 14.1651 0.014165127 0.15865892 4.02993653 0.004029937 0.3570543 230.36 0.000230357 1.00004E-08
0.9375 23.8125 0.0238 0.7057 17.9256 0.017925573 0.11588439 2.94346341 0.002943463 0.2991186 192.98 0.000192979 1.07147E-08
1.0000 25.4000 0.0254 0.8147 20.6943 0.02069429 0.09263209 2.35285503 0.002352855 0.2640552 170.36 0.000170358 1.1429E-08
1.0625 26.9875 0.0270 0.9081 23.0662 0.023066172 0.07719149 1.9606639 0.001960664 0.2389415 154.16 0.000154155 1.21433E-08
1.1250 28.5750 0.0286 0.9931 25.2236 0.025223594 0.06597256 1.67570294 0.001675703 0.2194929 141.61 0.000141608 1.28577E-08
1.1875 30.1625 0.0302 1.0727 27.2476 0.027247629 0.05737935 1.45743547 0.001457435 0.2037184 131.43 0.000131431 1.3572E-08
1.2500 31.7500 0.0318 1.1489 29.1815 0.029181478 0.05056145 1.28426078 0.001284261 0.190523 122.92 0.000122918 1.42863E-08
1.3125 33.3375 0.0333 1.2225 31.0509 0.031050852 0.04501277 1.14332423 0.001143324 0.1792376 115.64 0.000115637 1.50006E-08
1.3750 34.9250 0.0349 1.2942 32.8722 0.03287224 0.04040865 1.02637979 0.00102638 0.1694231 109.3 0.000109305 1.57149E-08
1.4375 36.5125 0.0365 1.3644 34.6568 0.034656817 0.03652918 0.92784129 0.000927841 0.1607752 103.73 0.000103726 1.64292E-08
1.5000 38.1000 0.0381 1.4336 36.4125 0.036412472 0.03321906 0.84376412 0.000843764 0.1530744 98.757 9.87575E-05 1.71435E-08
1.5625 39.6875 0.0397 1.5018 38.145 0.038144959 0.03036497 0.77127032 0.00077127 0.1461571 94.295 9.42947E-05 1.78579E-08
1.6250 41.2750 0.0413 1.5692 39.8586 0.039858592 0.02788204 0.7082039 0.000708204 0.139898 90.257 9.02566E-05 1.85722E-08
1.6875 42.8625 0.0429 1.6361 41.5567 0.041556672 0.02570528 0.65291406 0.000652914 0.1341991 86.58 8.65799E-05 1.92865E-08
1.7500 44.4500 0.0445 1.7024 43.2418 0.043241773 0.02378399 0.60411338 0.000604113 0.1289822 83.214 8.32142E-05 2.00008E-08
1.8125 46.0375 0.0460 1.7683 44.9159 0.044915936 0.02207803 0.56078198 0.000560782 0.124184 80.119 8.01185E-05 2.07151E-08
1.8750 47.6250 0.0476 1.8339 46.5808 0.046580798 0.02055515 0.52210087 0.000522101 0.1197525 77.26 7.72595E-05 2.14294E-08
1.9375 49.2125 0.0492 1.8991 48.2377 0.048237691 0.01918916 0.48740455 0.000487405 0.1156444 74.609 7.46092E-05 2.21437E-08
2.0000 50.8000 0.0508 1.9641 49.8877 0.049887707 0.01795853 0.45614655 0.000456147 0.1118236 72.144 7.21441E-05 2.28581E-08
2.1250 53.9750 0.0540 2.0933 53.1706 0.053170583 0.01583497 0.40220831 0.000402208 0.1049247 67.693 6.76932E-05 2.42867E-08
2.2500 57.1500 0.0572 2.2219 56.4351 0.056435058 0.01407367 0.35747124 0.000357471 0.0988587 63.78 6.37797E-05 2.57153E-08
2.3750 60.3250 0.0603 2.3498 59.6852 0.059685167 0.01259514 0.31991643 0.000319916 0.0934775 60.308 6.03079E-05 2.71439E-08
2.5000 63.5000 0.0635 2.4773 62.9239 0.06292388 0.01134095 0.28806006 0.00028806 0.0886675 57.205 5.72047E-05 2.85726E-08
42




Table C-2: Viable Sizes and Weight Savings





















McMaster Viable Sizes Weight per unit length
% Savings lbf/ft
1.0000 25.4000 0.0254 0.81 20.6943 0.02069429 0.095 2.35285503 0.002352855 0.2700984 170.36 0.000170358 18.60 0.9182
1.125 28.5750 0.0286 0.959 25.2236 0.025223594 0.083 1.67570294 0.001675703 0.2717038 141.61 0.000141608 18.11 0.9237
1.25 31.7500 0.0318 1.12 29.1815 0.029181478 0.065 1.28426078 0.001284261 0.2419812 122.92 0.000122918 27.07 0.8226
43
Appendix D: Floatation
Item Quantity Weight/unit Total
Driver 1 200 200
Engine 1 67 67
Transmission 1 40 40
Axle 1 20 20
Steering
Rack 1 5 5
Steel 107.35 0.8334 89.46549
Tires 4 15 60
CVT 2 5 10
Hubs 4 5 20
A-Arm 4 5 20
Trailing Arm 2 15 30
Total= 561.4655

Figure D-1: Vehicle Weight Breakdown and Summation



Figure D-2: Screen Shot Detailing SolidWorks Mass Property Analysis
44

Figure D-3: Hand-Drawn Model for Metacentric Floatation Analysis where X is the Distance
from the Center of Gravity to the Center of Buoyancy

Figure D-4: Detailed Close-up of Displacement of the Center of Buoyancy (Z) for a rotation ()
) 90 cos( u > X Z
Equation D-1: Governing Equation to Ensure Metacentric Stability

45
Appendix E: Steering Stress Calculations







Equation E-1: Steering Stress





Inner Diameter

Outer Diameter

Elastic Modulus





Area Moment of Inertia
Maximum Allowable Force


d .375in :=
D .675in :=
E 30000000psi :=
Length L 18in :=
I 9.222 10
3
in
4
( )
=
I .0491 D
4
d
4

( )
:=
f
t
2
E I
( )
L
2
:=
f 8.427 10
3
lbf =
46
Appendix F: Drivetrain Assembly Calculations

Maximum Net Gear Ratio between engine and rear axle:

rotation input
rotation output
G =

SPR BOX PVT net
G G G G = G
net
= 39.3

Where:
Tallest PVT gear ratio = G
PVT
= 3.83
Tallest gearbox gear ratio (reverse gear) = G
BOX
= 3.05
Gear ratio of sprocket combination (11-tooth front, 37-tooth rear) = G
SPR
= 3.364

Maximum Torque generated by drivetrain at rear axle (forward gear, with PVT at highest
ratio):

eng net
T G T =
max
T
max
= 589.448 lb-ft = 7.073 x 10
3
lb-in

Where:
Maximum Torque output for Briggs & Stratton engine = T
eng
= 14.5 lb-ft 15 lb-ft = 180 lb-in




47
Top Speed Gear Ratio:

SPR BOX PVT TS
G G G G =
2 2
G
TS
= 6.852

Where:
Lowest PVT gear ratio = G
PVT
= .76
Forward gearbox gear ratio = G
BOX
= 2.68

Top Speed of Mini Baja vehicle:

TS
eff
G
C
S

=
max
max
e
S
max
= 34.5 mph
Where:
Maximum angular velocity of engine =
max
= 3800 RPM = 2.28 10
5
rev/hr
Effective circumference of tire = C
eff
= 5.427 ft = 1.036 10
-3
mi
- Distance traveled per axle revolution

Unaltered Axle Analysis

Polar Moment of Inertia for unaltered axle shaft:

32
4
D
J
t
= J
1
= 0.058 in
4


Where:
Axle Diameter = D = 0.875 in
48
Maximum Axle Shear Stress:

J
D
T |
.
|

\
|
=
2
max
t = 5.377 x 10
4
psi

Where:
Maximum Driveline Torque = T
max
= 589.448 lb-ft = 7.073 10
3
lb-in

Inherent Unaltered Axle Design Factor/Factor of Safety (FoS):

t
y
S
n = n = 1.274

Where:
Yield Strength of Annealed 4130 Alloy Steel = psi S
y
4
10 85 . 6 =

Axle Extension Analysis (entire torque distributed solely on a single joint)

Polar Moment of Inertia for Individual Welded Joint:

( )
3
2
414 . 1 |
.
|

\
|
=
D
H J
W W
t J
W
= .066 in
4


Where:
Effective height (thickness) of fillet weld = H
W
= .1768 in
49
Maximum Shear Stress for Welded Joint:

W
W
J
D
T
|
.
|

\
|
=
2
max
t psi
W
4
10 705 . 4 = t

Extended Axle Welded Joint FoS:

W
y
W
S
n
t
= 456 . 1 =
W
n

Since n < n
ext
the critical joints of the extended axles are proven to be sufficiently robust.

Appropriate Design Stress for Collar of Axle Extension:

d
y
n
S
= o = 1.712 10
4
psi

Where:
Design Factor of collar (critical point of extension) = n
d
= 4

Determination of the Outside Collar Diameter on the Axle Extensions:

( )
D
D D
T
o
4 4
max
16
|
.
|

\
|
=
o
t
D
o
= 1.363 in
50
The closest standard bar stock was found to be 1.375 in nominal diameter, an acceptable
alternative.