Car # 102

Sri Ramakrishna Engineering College Baja SAE India 2013

Final Design Report
T.AAKARSH DEEP
Team captain
M.B. LOOKMAN UL HAKEEM
Suspension head
Copyright 2009 SAE International
ABSTRACT
Baja SAE India, is an inter collegiate design
competition for aspiring engineers to create a
miniature off-road vehicle, through which the
objective of simulating real world engineering
design challenges are met. The students must
design, build and market a single seater all terrain
vehicle with adherence to the Baja SAE India
rulebook. The vehicle should aspire to market
leading performance in terms of speed, ride,
handling and ruggedness over rough terrain and off
road conditions. An aspect of this competition is to
compose a design documentation package that
creates an overview of the vehicles construction
elements. The Phoenix Racing team has created
this report to describe their design.
INTRODUCTION
In an effort to establish Phoenix Racing 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 Phoenix Racings 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 has
focused on designing a new and revamped drive
train, while the other half focused on improvements
to both the current frame and suspension. Both of
our teams went through three major phases during
the overall design process. The first phase of the
process was the research phase in which valuable
background information was learnt, troublesome
issues were determined, and brainstormed new
design ideas to overcome these issues. Next, the
design phase began which included the modeling
of our frame, suspension, and gearbox in
computer-aided programs such as lotus suspension
analysis (shark), KISSsoft, Pro Engineer and
solidworks in order to establish and perfect the
overall design packaging. Lastly, an analysis phase
took place to determine the structural integrity and
aerodynamic efficiency in our design. The design
phase encompassed finite element analysis tools
like ANSYS and solidworks software and
Computational Fluid Dynamic tools like ANSA and
ANSYS fluent to ensure that our designs were
strong and efficient to endure all SAE Baja events.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
SPECIFICATION
S
Target Achieved
Dimensions
LXWXH (mm)
2062X1574X1549 2286X1574X15
60
Front Track
Width
1372 mm 1372 mm
Rear track
Width
1270 mm 1270 mm
Wheel base 1626 mm 1626 mm
CG height 423 mm from
ground
381 mm
Table1:Vehicle Specifications
3-D MODEL:
Fig 1: ISOMETRIC VIEW
Fig 2:3-D MODEL
ROLL CAGE DESIGN
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The primary objective of the frame is to provide a 3-
dimensional protected space around the driver that
will keep the driver safe. Its secondary objectives
are to provide reliable mounting locations for
components, be appealing, low in cost, and low in
weight. We met these objectives by choosing a
frame material that exceeds the SAE strength
requirements, but still gives us an advantage in
weight reduction. We provided a low cost frame
through material selection and incorporating more
continuous members with bends rather than a
collection of members welded together to reduce
manufacturing costs.
Engine Drive
Max.
Acceleration
2.5m/s
2
2.19 m/s
2
Max. Speed 55 Kmph 52.7 Kmph
Max.
Gradeability
35
o
33.8
o
Max.Traction 2548N 2487 N
30m dash time 5.4s 5.3s
Suspension and Steering
Ground
clearance
Front and Rear
:330 mm
Front:330mm
Rear:279 mm
Static stability
factor
1.44 1.51
Roll Gradient 1.5deg/g 1.6deg/g
Front stiffness 26.10N/mm 27 N/mm
Rear stiffness 37.320N/mm 39 N/mm
Steering Lock to
lock
1 turn(360 deg.) 1.2 turns(432
deg.)
Turning Radius 3.05m 3.187m
Brakes
Brakes type Hydraulic Round
disc
(front:2/Rear:1)
Hydraulic
Round disc
(front:2/Rear:1)
Disc diameter Front:190mm/Re
ar : 240mm
Front:180mm/R
ear : 240mm
Brake bias 50:50 50:50
Stopping
distance
13.4 m (from
60kmph)
15 m (from
60kmph)
Decelaration 8m/s
2
7.2 m/s
2
Weight
Kerb Weight 235 kg 252 kg
Sprung mass 175kg 185kg
Unsprung mass 65kg 67kg
DESIGN METHODOLOGY:
Rule compliance Preliminary CAD design PVC
mock-upProvisions setup CAD
ModellingFEAmodel refinement final model
MATERIAL SELECTION
The materials used in the cage must meet certain
requirements of geometry and minimum strength
requirements found in SAE competition rules. Since
the frame is being used in a racing vehicle rather
than a recreation vehicle, weight is a very large
factor in the shape and size of the frame. The
proper balance of strength and weight is crucial for
the teams overall success. We felt that one of the
key design decisions of our frame that would
greatly increase safety, reliability and performance
is material selection. To ensure that we chose the
optimal material, we did extensive research and
compared materials in multiple categories. Our key
categories for comparison were strength,
availability, machinability, weight, and cost. Design
considerations aside, the driving factor behind
chassis material selection were the SAE
competition vehicle regulations. The ruling left the
team with only few options. The comparison chart
of various materials that we analyzed under the
rules specified by BAJA SAE are as follows:
MATERIAL CHROMO
LY4130
ASTM
A252
AISI
1018
IS
3074
ASTM
A106B
Carbon
content
( % )
0.32 0.18 0.18 0.20
0.30
Yield
strength
(MPa)
395 350 365 372
383
Tensile
strength
(MPa)
560 455 450 473
466
Elongation
(%)
25 20 20 5
20
Cost in
rupees /m
550 650 600 800
500
Availability Easy Mediu
m
Easy Diffic
ult
Easy
Table 2: Comparison Of Materials
FRAME DESIGN AND TESTING:
Solid Modelling and Analysis:
The vehicle was completely modeledand analyzed
using Solid Works. A complete vehicle assembly
was created in Solid Works. This complete
assembly included the chassis, suspension,
steering linkages, brakes, wheels and drive train.
Frame Dimensions:
As we began to visualize and dimension our frame,
we kept in mind strength, aesthetics, and low
manufacturing cost. We adjusted the dimensions
and placement of key members to make sure that
they would fit well with other components. We also
designed our frame members to incorporate many
bends so that we would decrease the amount of
welding that would need to be done. This helps to
keep the strength and integrity of our frame
members as well as decrease the manufacturing
time and costs. Section 31 in the SAE rules has
strict guidelines that must be followed for the
dimensions of the roll cage. These guidelines along
with the fact that our team members range in
heights of 5 8 to 6 5 guaranteed that we
designed a vehicle that will fit almost any size adult.
To accommodate our drivers we made a cockpit
that is 29 wide. This allows the tallest drivers to
stick their legs to the side of the enclosed volume
when driving and still be safely encompassed by
the roll cage. At the same time the short drivers are
able to keep their legs stretched straight and still
comfortably reach the pedals.
When the entire powertrain was modeled, the
engine bay area was found to be sufficient. The
powertrain and other features were analyzed and
the engine bay was resized. Serviceability was also
taken into consideration with changes made to roll
cage design.
WEIGHT:
The performance of the vehicle depends upon the
weight of the vehicle. As the weight reduces the
performance or the efficiency gets increased.
Length of Material used In Roll Cage = 32 m
Density of Steel= 7833.4 Kg/m*3
Primary Member
Outside Diameter=33.4 mm
Length = 12 m
Wall thickness = 3.38 mm
Inner Diameter = 33.4 - (2 x 3.38) =26.64
mm
Area = /4[D*2 d*2]
Area = 318.47 mm*2
Volume = Area x Length=318.47 x 12000
Volume = 3821640 mm*3
Volume = 0.003822 m*3
Total Weight = Density x Volume = 30.05Kg
Secondary Member
Outside Diameter = 31.75 mm
Length = 20 m
Wall thickness = 2.10 mm
Inner Diameter = 31.75 - (2 x 2.10) = 27.55
Area =195.5 mm*2
Volume = Area x Length= 3910000 mm*3
Volume = 0.00391 m*3
Total Weight = Density x Volume =30.62 Kg
Total Weight of Roll Cage = 60.67 Kg
DRIVER ERGONOMICS:
Ergonomics is the science of equipment design
intended to maximize productivity byreducing driver
fatigue and discomfort. One of the major design
criteria that was used in the design of the chassis is
the idea of driver ergonomics. It is an essential part
of the car that each member of the team is able to
safely and comfortably operate the vehicle.
Although driver comfort sometimes is overstepped
or thought of last, if we are to meet our goal of
performing well and completing the endurance race
in good standing, than ergonomics must be
considered. Good ergonomics will allow the driver
to drive quickly and comfortably avoiding
unnecessary stoppage throughout the endurance
race.
To allow for proper movement of the drivers feet
to control the gas and brake pedal, the foot box
was designed to be as small as possible while
allowing the driver the proper amount of space to
operate the controls safely. The size and shape of
the foot box also allowed for an optimum placement
of the brake pedal and assembly low and between
the lower frame members maintaining a low Centre
of gravity.
The final ergonomic parameter that was
considered was the location and inclination of the
drivers seat. The seat is crucial to supplying
enough support to the drivers back to allow him to
stay upright with a clear view of the track ahead, to
apply the proper forces to the gas and brake
pedals, and support the shift in the drivers weight
while cornering or landing from a jump. To properly
determine the inclination of the seat a great deal of
research was done both online and by a trial and
error approach with many members of the team
being tested. In the search that was conducted
electronically, the typical answer was anywhere
from 10-20 degrees was the standard used in the
automobile industry with a great deal of emphasis
on adjustability being a very important feature for
driver comfort. With this basic information, a
physical test was conducted with a few members of
the team and it was found that roughly 20 degrees
of inclination was comfortable for those tested and
was chosen.
Fig 3: Ergonomic check
Before we started any fabrication, we decided to
build a life size mock-up frame out of PVC pipe.
This gave us the opportunity to measure the frame
dimensions with our tallest and shortest drivers
sitting in the frame. It enabled us to check the driver
ergonomics and other design changes that can be
implemented.
STATIC AND DYNAMIC ANALYSIS: Refer the
illustrations (figure 22)
SUSPENSION SYSTEM
The primary system that determines
performance and car handling , while traveling off
road, is the suspension system. The purpose of the
suspension is to reduce shock loads that act on the
car while providing optimal wheel contact when
operating under dynamic conditions. The
suspension must provide enough wheel travel to
dampen the impacts imposed on the vehicle.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Three primary goals were established while
designing the suspension system. The first goal
was to design a suspension system with minimum
unsprung mass, as the vehicle performance
increases with a decrease in the unsprung mass.
The second goal was to control and obtain desired
wheel geometry such as to obtain negative camber
gain in bump and cornering, and to eliminate the
bump steer. To promote oversteer while eliminating
the usage of anti-roll bar.
DESIGN METHODOLOGY: Vehicle specific level
targets suspension type selection stiffness &
shock selection suspension geometry in lotus
FEA in ANSYS knuckle hard point generation
knuckle design & analysis
TARGET DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Ground Clearance: Front-13 : Rear- 11
To achieve FLAT RIDE
Camber Gain in Bump
To promote Over steer
Zero Bump Steer
Lowest combined mass possible
Suspension Type Selection
Front Suspension
Double-wishbone suspension type was
chosen for the front as it facilitates better
suspension tuneability and provides better camber
gain in jounce than its counterpart Macpherson
Strut .It also holds good for resisting bending force
and distortions. The material was chosen to be
SAE 1026. In the 2011-2012 season ,Double
wishbone suspension type was used at both front
and rear. But the performance of the vehicle was
largely affected by the suspension failure in terms
of low spring stiffness and limited travel . This year
of air shocks are used that not only acts as a
progressive spring but also provides good travel.
Fig 4: Lotus Suspension Analyzer
Fig 5: FEA of lower wishbone
Rear suspension
Good serviceability and easy packaging
played a major role in choosing Trailing arm with
camber links as the rear suspension system for this
years buggy, owing to the problem of limited
accessabilty and serviceability of the engine bay
caused by using double wishbone suspension
system at the rear,in the previous years car. The
trailing arm suspension system is a simple and
reliable design that is not only durable but also
provides good vertical wheel travel than most other
system. Apart from the above characteristics the
shocks can be mounted anywhere on the arm
which allows complete utilization of the shocks
Fig 6: Trailing arm with camber links
Front
suspension
Rear Suspension
Type
Double SLA
wishbone
suspension
Trailing arm with
camber links
Shock
Absorber
Fox Float R EVOL Fox Float R EVOL
Shock travel 6 inch 6 inch
Shocks
stiffness
26.10 N/mm 37.320 N/mm
Motion Ratio 1.83 1.83
Material SAE 1026 SAE 1026
Roll centre
height
234mm 274mm
Lateral load
transfer
distribution
35% 65%
Roll rate
distribution
37% 63%
Camber -1.5degree -1degree
Castor 5 degree
-
Bump Steer Nil Nil
Table 3: Suspension specifications
SUSPENSION STIFFNESS CALCULATION
Ride frequency Calculation
A ride frequency is the undamped natural
frequency of the body in ride. Anything between 60
to 90 cpm (1-1.5 Hz) is perceived to be desirable
for comfort ride. Lower frequencies produce a
softer suspension with more mechanical grip,
however the response will be slower in transient.
Flat ride:
The flat ride is achieved when the
rear suspension frequency is greater than that of
front suspension. This is because ,the higher rear
frequency catches up with the front suspension
when the car pitches and reduces the pitching
action of the vehicle,thereby provides comfort.
Fig 7:Flat Ride Condition
Flat ride condition
Frequency is given by
Assuming the undamped frequency as 1 Hz..
1Hz * 4 *
2 *
330 = K
Spring stiffness , K = 13027 N/m
Spring rate for front and rear suspension:
Front Wheel travel= 11 inch;
Spring travel = 5.8 inch
m
sm
= 190 kg fr = 1 Hz
MR = 11/5.8 =1.89

Ks = 4*
2
*1
2
* 190 * 1.89
2
front spring stiffness , K
s
= 26193 N/m
Rear spring stiffness , K
r
= 4 *
2
fr
2
* m
sm
* MR
2
K
r
= 4 * ^2 * 1.35
2
* 190 * (11/6)
2
Rear spring stiffness , K
r
= 37973.30 N/m
Front and rear roll rate:
Wheel rate at front
Wheel rate, K
LF
= K
RF
= spring rate / (motion ratio)
2
K
LF
= K
RF
= 26193/1.89 = 7332.66 N/m
TF = 54 = 1.3716 m
K
F
= * (1.3716)
2
* 7332.66 *7332.66
180 * (2 * 7332.66)
K
F
= 120.3 (Nm/deg roll)
Rear roll rate:
K
LR
= K
RR
= 37973.30/1.83
2
= 14701 N/m
K
R
= * (1.27)
2
* 14701 *14701
180 * (2 * 14701)
K
R
= 206.91 Nm/ deg roll
Roll gradient :
W = 330*9.81
H = 6.5* .0254 m
K
F
= 120.3 Nm/deg roll
K
R
= 206.94 Nm / deg roll

R
= -330 * 9.81 * 6.5 * .0254
A
Y
120.3 + 206.94

R
= -1.6 deg / roll
A
Y
The Suspension Characteristics
Suspension characteristics such as camber,
toe in, toe out, scrub radius plays a pre-dominant
role in determining the performance and handling
of the vehicle. For any off road vehicle, maximum
tire contact on the road is very vital while
encountering corners or bumps for providing
mechanical grip and negative camber gain of the
wheel ensures maximum tire contact patch and
hence better mechanical grip. Bump Steer is one
of the undesirable characteristic that has to be
taken care of while designing a suspension system.
Zero bump steer was achieved by working in
accordance with the steering team.
Fig 8:Bump Vs Suspension Characteristics
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
-100 0 100 200
Bump Travel
Bump Vs Suspension
Characteristics
Front camber
change
Rear camber
change
Bump
steer(toe
change)
castor angle
Shocks: FOX Float R :
As previously stated the performance of the
last year car was greatly hindered by low
suspension stiffness and very limited travel. So Air
shox was selected for this years buggy as it has
several prominent advantages over coil-over
springs. Air Shox not only reduces the unsprung
mass of the vehicle but also increases the ride
handling characteristics of the vehicle. It acts as a
progressive spring whose stiffness increases when
the load acting on the vehicle increases. The fox
float R EVOL was selected since the force vs
velocity curve of our suspension design matched
with that of Float R EVOL.
Fig 9: Force Vs Velocity Curve
STEERING SYSTEM
Design Considerations
The main objectives of the steering system
is to handle stress for safely directing the vehicle
through any type of terrain and to provide the driver
with an accurate, predictable, and reliable method
of driving along with good ergonomics.
TARGETED DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
100% Ackermann geometry for directional
control and easy cornering of the wheels.
Minimum turning radius to increase the
chance of winning the maneuverability and
endurance race.
Minimum steering ratio to decrease drivers
effort for maneuvering the vehicle.
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS ACHIEVED:
In order to meet the targeted design
specifications 14 centralized rack and pinion was
chosen from desert karts. This rack and pinion
setup has a rack travel of 4.25 (107.95mm) and
steering wheel turn equal to 1.5 turns.
This setup is used to achieve the
Ackermann geometry using iterative methods
resulting in achievement of 85% Ackermann
geometry which was verified using LOTUS
software.
Fig 10 :Ackermann Geometry
Fig 11 :Ackermann Percentage
Outer Steering angle (
o
) = 24.261 deg =
0.4234 rad
Inner Steering angle (
i
) = 34.177 deg =
0.5965 rad
= (
o
+
i
) / 2 = (24.261 + 34.177) / 2 =
29.219 deg = 0.5099 rad
= 29.219 deg
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 20 40 60
F
o
r
c
e
(
l
b
s
)
Velocity (in/s)
Force Vs velocity Curve
Float R
Obtained Force
VS velocity curve
= L / R
Radius of turn (R) = L / = 1625.6 / 0.5099
= 3187.668 mm
R = 3.187 m.
Steering Ratio = degrees of steering wheel
angle : Front wheel angle = 432 : 58.438
Steering Ratio = 7.39 : 1
Type Centralized Rack and
Pinion
Steering Ratio
Turning
Radius
7.4 : 1 (20:1)
3.187 meters
(3.82)
Rack Travel
Lock to
Lock
3.38 inch/4.25
inch
1.2 turns (3)
Over Steer Gradient (K) - 1.74 deg / g
Steering Torque 71.57 N-m
Table 4: Steering Specifications
Drive train:
Due to the restrictions regarding the engine,
optimal performance of the vehicle in terms of
acceleration and top speed must be achieved by
reducing the vehicle mass, reducing frictional
forces, and optimizing the drive train. The drive
train implemented on the 2011 12 season was
four speed Mahindra alfa transaxle, which was
highly durable but the overall weight and the high
inertial mass of the rotating components reduced
the acceleration performance plus the open slip
differential in the transaxle failed to propel the
vehicle through muddy terrains. The shifting also
consumed valuable time and driver effort
The first step in the design process is to
determine the type of reduction needed to complete
the power transfer. The most important design
constraints that drove the teams decisions are: the
drive train must be light in weight and compact due
to the small size of the vehicle, it must transfer the
calculated amount of power to the drive shaft
allowing it to complete both high and low gear
applications that will be necessary to complete all
aspects of the endurance portion of competition
without failure, should take very less time and effort
for shifting lastly complete the previous tasks
around a single supplied engine and a tire size of
25 inches.
In order to meet the above goals we had to
determine if we were going to use a manual or
automatic transmission. For an automatic
transmission we would have to utilize a
Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT). We did
extensive research to compare the manual
transmission (MT) and the CVT.
Table 5 : CVT vs MT decision matrix
Most MT that would fit our application are
found on motorcycles and four wheelers. These
vehicles have a very high rpm range. A MT on
these vehicles is beneficial because the operator
can shift into a higher gear with the rpm at a high
value. Since our engine has such a small range
between 1750 and 3800 rpm, the performance gain
by incorporating a MT is minimal. We felt that since
the CVT allows our engine to constantly run near its
maximum torque, it would give us the ability to get
max power from the engine in both the high and
low ranges. Also, operating the CVT is easier for
Parameter CVT MT
Weight 1 0
Performance 1 1
Drivability 0 1
Reliability 0 1
Tuning 1 0
Simplicity 1 0
Ease of Installation 1 0
Total 5 3
Fig 12:Rendered view of the drive train subassembly
the driver since the driver doesnt have to
constantly shift gears. The performance gain of the
MT happens only if the operator shifts gears at the
optimal RPM, but if the operator does not then
there is a significant loss of performance. By using
the CVT we eliminate this possibility of error which
greatly improves the performance and reliability of
the vehicle especially when it comes to endurance
events. Also, this ease of operation will attract
consumers to buy our product.
CVT: CVTech PWD 50/LP2
Belt length (c/c) = 299 mm
Max. Ratio = 0.43:1
Min. Ratio = 3.00:1
Engagement speed = 2300 rpm
Shift speed = 3200 rpm
Fig 13: Engine speed vs vehicle speed graph
To connect the CVT to the axles we had the
option of using a chain driven system or using a
gear box. We wanted to keep the efficiency and
reliability of our power-train system high. Gears are
the most efficient way of transmitting power. Having
a chain in the system provides another area for
failure with the possibility of the chain being
knocked off of the sprockets. It also increases the
maintenance of the system by having to constantly
maintain the tightness of the chain as it stretches
Table 6: Achieved performance using the current drive train
setup
and having to replace the chain after extensive use.
The decision was made to make a custom FNR
gear box for secondary reduction as the existing
OEM gearboxes were either heavy or doesnot have
the suitable reduction ratios. The gears, shafts and
bearings were designed with the help of KISSsoft
machine element design software as per AGMA
2101-D04 (Metric Edition) regulations.The gearbox
was modeled using Pro ENGINEER CAD software.
Fig 14: CAD model of the custom FNR gearbox
FNR GEARBOX: CUSTOM MAKE
Forward gear ratio = 13.8:1
Reverse gear ratio = 20.5:1
Type : constant mesh, two-stage reduction
Solid spool drive
Detent and ball shifter
Lubrication : oil bath type
Lubrication oil : Castrol opti-gear synthetic A 220
Lubricant Oil Viscosity : 220 Centistokes (at 40 C )
Ventilation, drain plug, dip stick provided in casing
Casing material : Al 6061
Shaft Material : EN 24
Gear Calculation Method : AGMA 2101-D04 (Metric
Edition) [KISS SOFT SOFTWARE]
Max. Shaft Deflection : 8 m
Gearbox Dimensions : 389x92x193 (l x b x h)
2012 model
Performance
2013 target
performance
Achieved
performance
max speed 45 Km/h 50 Km/h 52.7 Km/h
max.
acceleration
1.37 m/s
2
2.5 m/s
2
2.19 m/s
2
max.
gradeability
30 35 33.812
0 30m 9 sec 5sec 5.4 sec
Fig 16: deflection analysis of intermediate shaft
using KISSsoft sftware
Power unit mountings:The engine was mounted
over four rubber engine beds of jeep to dampen the
vibrations transmitted to the roll cage. The gear box
was mounted through delrin bushes for the same
purpose mentioned above.( see illustration no: )
CV joint plunge and articulation calculation:
Extensive discussion was made with the
suspension team to suit the position and length of
the camber links in the rear suspension, to reduce
CV plunge and articulation required during
suspension travel. The camber links were brought
closer and parallel to each other such that the CV
lied in the vertical midpoint of the camber links
Articulation needed: 16 degree during full droop
and 5 degree during full bump
Plunge needed; 4 mm for the whole suspension
travel
(See illustration no: )
Weight:
Engine: 24 kgs
CVT: 5.5 kgs
Gear box: 15.2 kgs
Drive shaft: 11 kgs (5.5 each)
Hub: 1.9 kgs
Wheel: 18.8 kgs (two wheels in fully inflated
condition)
Total: 76.4 kgs
Braking System:
The purpose of the braking system is to
increase the maneuverability by locking all the four
wheels at a time. It is required to statically and
dynamically lock all four tires on both hard and
loose surfaces. Although the previous design
worked effectively it was decided that modification
Table 7: Gear Data
of our previous years braking system is necessary
in order to reduce the unsprung mass of the vehicle
and to achieve 50-50 biasing. This year our aim is
to reduce the weight of wheel assembly so after
studying various available options to get effective
braking we have decided to use hydraulic disc
brakes on all the four wheels with a single in board
disc at the rear. Honda Aviators disc and caliper
has been chosen for the front and pulsar disc and
caliper has been chosen for the rear. Hydraulic disc
brakes have high performance, easy replacement,
and comparatively less weight than other available
options. have the common circuit of brake fluid for
all the four wheels. So if any one chamber fails we
can still apply the brakes to all the four wheels .To
reduce the unsprung mass, it was decided inboard
brakes at the rear would be used.
Fig 16: Front/rear Hydraulic Split
SPECIFICAT
IONS
PINION GEAR
NO. OF
TEETH
19 (1
st
stage)
19 (2
nd
stage)
78 (1
st
stage)
64 (2
nd
stage)
MATERIAL EN 36 case
hardening
steel
EN 24
FACE
WIDTH
15 mm ( 1
st
stage)
25 mm (2
nd
stage)
15mm (1
st
stage)
25 mm( 2
nd
stage)
FOS
(TOOTH
BENDING)
1.74 1.85
FOS
(CONTACT
STRESS)
1.15 1.07
DIAMETERA
L PITCH
10 (for first stage) & 8( for
second stage)
Fig 16: deflection analysis of intermediate shaft
using KISSsoft sftware
Power unit mountings:The engine was mounted
over four rubber engine beds of jeep to dampen the
vibrations transmitted to the roll cage. The gear box
was mounted through delrin bushes for the same
purpose mentioned above.( see illustration no: )
CV joint plunge and articulation calculation:
Extensive discussion was made with the
suspension team to suit the position and length of
the camber links in the rear suspension, to reduce
CV plunge and articulation required during
suspension travel. The camber links were brought
closer and parallel to each other such that the CV
lied in the vertical midpoint of the camber links
Articulation needed: 16 degree during full droop
and 5 degree during full bump
Plunge needed; 4 mm for the whole suspension
travel
(See illustration no: )
Weight:
Engine: 24 kgs
CVT: 5.5 kgs
Gear box: 15.2 kgs
Drive shaft: 11 kgs (5.5 each)
Hub: 1.9 kgs
Wheel: 18.8 kgs (two wheels in fully inflated
condition)
Total: 76.4 kgs
Braking System:
The purpose of the braking system is to
increase the maneuverability by locking all the four
wheels at a time. It is required to statically and
dynamically lock all four tires on both hard and
loose surfaces. Although the previous design
worked effectively it was decided that modification
Table 7: Gear Data
of our previous years braking system is necessary
in order to reduce the unsprung mass of the vehicle
and to achieve 50-50 biasing. This year our aim is
to reduce the weight of wheel assembly so after
studying various available options to get effective
braking we have decided to use hydraulic disc
brakes on all the four wheels with a single in board
disc at the rear. Honda Aviators disc and caliper
has been chosen for the front and pulsar disc and
caliper has been chosen for the rear. Hydraulic disc
brakes have high performance, easy replacement,
and comparatively less weight than other available
options. have the common circuit of brake fluid for
all the four wheels. So if any one chamber fails we
can still apply the brakes to all the four wheels .To
reduce the unsprung mass, it was decided inboard
brakes at the rear would be used.
Fig 16: Front/rear Hydraulic Split
SPECIFICAT
IONS
PINION GEAR
NO. OF
TEETH
19 (1
st
stage)
19 (2
nd
stage)
78 (1
st
stage)
64 (2
nd
stage)
MATERIAL EN 36 case
hardening
steel
EN 24
FACE
WIDTH
15 mm ( 1
st
stage)
25 mm (2
nd
stage)
15mm (1
st
stage)
25 mm( 2
nd
stage)
FOS
(TOOTH
BENDING)
1.74 1.85
FOS
(CONTACT
STRESS)
1.15 1.07
DIAMETERA
L PITCH
10 (for first stage) & 8( for
second stage)
Fig 16: deflection analysis of intermediate shaft
using KISSsoft sftware
Power unit mountings:The engine was mounted
over four rubber engine beds of jeep to dampen the
vibrations transmitted to the roll cage. The gear box
was mounted through delrin bushes for the same
purpose mentioned above.( see illustration no: )
CV joint plunge and articulation calculation:
Extensive discussion was made with the
suspension team to suit the position and length of
the camber links in the rear suspension, to reduce
CV plunge and articulation required during
suspension travel. The camber links were brought
closer and parallel to each other such that the CV
lied in the vertical midpoint of the camber links
Articulation needed: 16 degree during full droop
and 5 degree during full bump
Plunge needed; 4 mm for the whole suspension
travel
(See illustration no: )
Weight:
Engine: 24 kgs
CVT: 5.5 kgs
Gear box: 15.2 kgs
Drive shaft: 11 kgs (5.5 each)
Hub: 1.9 kgs
Wheel: 18.8 kgs (two wheels in fully inflated
condition)
Total: 76.4 kgs
Braking System:
The purpose of the braking system is to
increase the maneuverability by locking all the four
wheels at a time. It is required to statically and
dynamically lock all four tires on both hard and
loose surfaces. Although the previous design
worked effectively it was decided that modification
Table 7: Gear Data
of our previous years braking system is necessary
in order to reduce the unsprung mass of the vehicle
and to achieve 50-50 biasing. This year our aim is
to reduce the weight of wheel assembly so after
studying various available options to get effective
braking we have decided to use hydraulic disc
brakes on all the four wheels with a single in board
disc at the rear. Honda Aviators disc and caliper
has been chosen for the front and pulsar disc and
caliper has been chosen for the rear. Hydraulic disc
brakes have high performance, easy replacement,
and comparatively less weight than other available
options. have the common circuit of brake fluid for
all the four wheels. So if any one chamber fails we
can still apply the brakes to all the four wheels .To
reduce the unsprung mass, it was decided inboard
brakes at the rear would be used.
Fig 16: Front/rear Hydraulic Split
SPECIFICAT
IONS
PINION GEAR
NO. OF
TEETH
19 (1
st
stage)
19 (2
nd
stage)
78 (1
st
stage)
64 (2
nd
stage)
MATERIAL EN 36 case
hardening
steel
EN 24
FACE
WIDTH
15 mm ( 1
st
stage)
25 mm (2
nd
stage)
15mm (1
st
stage)
25 mm( 2
nd
stage)
FOS
(TOOTH
BENDING)
1.74 1.85
FOS
(CONTACT
STRESS)
1.15 1.07
DIAMETERA
L PITCH
10 (for first stage) & 8( for
second stage)
Table8: Braking System
BODY PANEL AND SAFETY
Body panels: The body panels that cover the area
between the lower frame side member and the side
impact member are made using a custom made
composite material, rexine cloth sandwiched in
between two sheets of 2mm thick acrylic plastic,
where rexine gives rich look and plastic provides
rigidity. This all new composite material was made
to reduce the weight of body panels and also to
avoid the breakage or cracking of plastic during
impact by foreign objects. The panels are made for
each section and are fastened to the roll cage to
enable quick and cheap replacement.
Safety: The safety of the driver is given the utmost
importance by providing all the safety equipments
suggested by the SAE BAJA 2013 Rulebook such
as the helmet, neck support, goggles, balaclava,
five point seatbelt, arm restraint, head restraint,
driver suit, fire resistant socks and shoes, gloves,
fire extinguisher, roll cage padding, sufficient room
for driver inside roll cage cockpit, kill switch, power-
train guards, bright warning lights, sound buzzers,
reflective stickers around the vehicle, etc.
In addition to the conventional techniques for
ensuring the safety of the driver, the special
innovation in the buggy helps the driver to send
SOS signal across miles and SOS message to the
nearest emergency response unit on the press of a
single button.
Safety Features
SOS :
An SOS button is placed on the reach of the driver
near the kill switch so that the driver can press it to
call for instant help in case of any kind of
emergency situation for the driver or for the car.
When the SOS button is pressed, the vehicle sends
an emergency service request SMS with the
driver's name, blood group and the GPS
coordinates of the vehicle, twice to three predefined
mobile numbers.
While the SMS is being sent, the lights and the
buzzers of the car sends SOS signals by flashing
all the lights and buzzing all the buzzers in the car
in morse code SOS pattern, so that anybody in and
around the area of the vehicle location can learn
that the driver is in an emergency.
Fig 17:Electronics Flow Chart
Innovation
Objective:
To reduce the wakeregion at the back
andtoreduce the pressure drag.
To supply engine with high density of air.
To remove the heat generated and to clean
thedust particles present in the engine bay.
Design consideration:
The amount of heat generated by the
engine due to prolonged running condition and the
limited air circulation since it is a rear engine which
is placed just behind the fire wall is the main
consideration according to that air duct is designed
to cool the engine and to supply high density of air
to the air filter. If there is not enough sufficient air
circulation in engine bay it leads to high
temperature at the engine bay and hence it will
result in low density of air at high temperature. Air
ducts will rectify this problem by deflecting air from
outside vehicle dimension to the engine bay cooling
Front Aviator disc - Pulsar caliper-
190mm
Rear Inboard - Pulsar disc & caliper-
240mm
Caliper type 2 cylinder floating type
Pedal effort 400 N
Pedal ratio 5:1
Req braking
torque
front: 179.22 N-m/rear: 181.47
N-m
load on wheels
(static)
1294.9 N (front), 1942 N (rear)
Load on wheels
during braking
2105.4 N (front), 1131.8 N (rear)
Biasing 50:50
Stopping
distance
15 m (60 kmph 0 kmph)
Deceleration
Stopping time
9.27 m/s
2
\1.79 s
Master cylinder Maruti 800 OEM -Bore dia 19.4
mm
that area and hence forth density of air will be high
at low temperature.
Inorder to delay the flow separation to occur
pearl drop model along with body fit spoiler is used
at the downstream side of the vehicle.
STATIC AND DYNAMIC CFD RESULTS:
Fig 18: Distribution of static pressure in various parts.
CFD analysis is done using ANSA, TGrid and
Ansys Fluent softwares. Surface mesh is
generated using ANSA, Volume Mesh is generated
using TGrid, and Flow Analysis is done in Ansys
Fluent. The inlet is assumed tobe velocity inlet with
velocity magnitude of 15.777m/s
whereas the outlet is assumed to be at
ambientcondition. As geometry is pretty complex
we havecreated tetrahedron locally and structural
hexahedron inthe remaining area of the wind tunnel
which will increasethe accuracy of the solution.
Static pressure fig shows the high pressure area at
upstream side of the vehicle.
Fig 19:Pearl Drop Model
Fig20: above shows the delayed flow separation
occurred due to pearl drop model along with
reduced wake region.
Fig21: above shows the velocity vectors on the
engine bay due to the use of air ducts on both sides
of the vehicle.
CONCLUSION
When undertaking any design project there
are several factors to be considered that are
common to all engineering projects. A project must
have a proper scope with clearly defined goals. The
goal of this years team was the redesign of the
rear suspension and drive train. The drive train
became much more accessible which was the
biggest problem with the vehicle in the previous
year. Second the frame could be triangulated. This
not only improved its strength but also its
appearance. The car has a much more clean and
symmetry look. The team was also able to improve
upon almost every other system in the car. These
improvements were made possible from the
experience and lessons learned during the previous
year of competition. It is hoped that this years
vehicle is able to outperform the previous years
vehicle in every way. The more responsive
suspension and aggressive steering will make for a
more competitive vehicle. It is also hoped that the
performance and reliability of several other systems
has been improved such as the new pedal
assembly. Finally the Phoenix racing Baja Team
hopes that the heightened appearance of this
years car, along with its improved performance will
make it a more noticeable competitor at this years
competition.
ILLUSTRATIONS
STATIC AND DYNAMIC TESTINGS OF FRAME
Fig 22:FEA Analysis of Frame
ILLUSTRATIONS
STATIC AND DYNAMIC TESTINGS OF FRAME
Fig 22:FEA Analysis of Frame
ILLUSTRATIONS
STATIC AND DYNAMIC TESTINGS OF FRAME
Fig 22:FEA Analysis of Frame
KNUCKLES AND HUBS
Fig23: Front Knuckle Analysis
Fig24: Front Hub
Fig25: Rear Knuckle Analysis
DRIVE TRAIN ASSEMBLY:
Fig 27:Drive Train Assembly
CV PLUNGE CALCULATION
Fig 28:CV Plunge
REFERENCES
1. Fundamentals of vehicle dynamics by Thomas
D. Gillespie
2. Race Car Vehicle Dynamics by Milliken and
Milliken
3. Clutch Tuning Handbook by Olaav Aaeon
4. Manual Gearbox Design by Alec Stokes
5. Heat Treatment of Gears by A.K .Rahit
6. Shigleys Mechanical Engineering Design by
budynas nisbett
7. Tune to Win by Caroll Smith
8. Kisssoft Manual
9. A kinematic Analysis and Design of
Continuously Variable Transmission by
Christopher Ryan Willis
10. Phoenix Racing 2012 mini baja design report