Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
by
ANDREW BAYER
Submitted to the
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the
Degree of
Bachelor of Science
m
Accepted by
Muthar Al-Ubmd1,
, Department Head
Mechanical Engineering Technology
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... I
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. II
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... II
ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................. 1
1 - INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 2
2 - CURRENT CATERHAM SUSPENSION PROBLEMS .................................................... 3
3 - CURRENT SUSPENSION DESIGNS ............................................................................... 4
4 - PUSHROD SUSPENSION DISCUSSION ......................................................................... 5
5 - CUSTOMER NEEDS ......................................................................................................... 6
6 - PRODUCT OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................. 7
7 - ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS................................................................................................ 8
8 - DESIGN SELECTION ...................................................................................................... 11
9 - CALCULATING NATURAL FREQUENCY OF THE SUSPENSION.......................... 12
10 - SUSPENSION LOADING CONDITIONS .................................................................... 13
10.1- LOWER CONTROL ARM LOADING ........................................................................... 13
10.2- PUSHROD LOADING ..................................................................................................... 14
10.3- BELLCRANK LOADING................................................................................................ 15
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1- Caterham. 2
Figure 2- Caterham Suspension Detail and Coil-Over Angle 3
Figure 3- Camber Explanation.... 4
Figure 4- Unequal Length Double Wishbone Suspension. 5
Figure 5- Design Concept 1 Standard Suspension. 8
Figure 6- Design Concept 2- Pullrod Suspension.. 9
Figure 7- Design Concept 3- Pushrod Suspension. 10
Figure 8- Completed Pushrod Suspension Design. 11
Figure 9- Unloaded suspension sitting at ride height. 17
Figure 10- Firm suspension setting with 200 lb static load.... 17
Figure 11- Soft suspension setting with 200 lb static load................. 17
Figure 12- Screenshot taken from ride quality testing video.. 18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1- QFD Results. 6
Table 2- Pushrod Mounting Point Comparison.. 12
ii
Andrew Bayer
ABSTRACT
The Caterham is a type of car used mostly for everyday driving, but also for occasional
trips to the racetrack. This requires a suspension design that is both road friendly but also
able to give the handling characteristics needed for track use. The car itself is a lightweight
kit car that unfortunately has an inefficient suspension design where the spring and shock
assembly is mounted at an extreme angle due to the low ride height and lack of space.
Currently to remedy this, much higher spring rates must be used to compensate for the
reduced spring efficiency, which results in a very firm and uncomfortable ride quality.
Therefore an adjustable pushrod style suspension was designed, like that of open wheel
racecars. Modifying this design allowed for adjustability of ride quality without the need to
dismantle the suspension to change spring rates. This design allows the driver to have
separate settings for ride quality, a softer and more comfortable feeling suspension with
better ride quality while driving on the street, as well as a firmer setting that allows for
betting handling during track driving. The suspension passed a static loading test to make
sure that the settings fell between current industry standards for ride quality. Qualitative
testing was also done to make sure that people could feel a difference in ride quality between
the firm and soft settings.
Andrew Bayer
1- INTRODUCTION
Light and fast are two important characteristics of a great track car, and both can be
achieved fully with a Caterham kit car. A Caterham, shown in Figure 1, is a very small and
extremely lightweight car that can be purchased fully built, as a kit or be pieced together by
the individual builder. Due to reduced cost of building a Caterham from scratch, there is
always a rather large group of builders working to design and build their own custom cars.
However many people end up confused about designing a correctly functioning suspension
for their car. The suspension and handling are one of the most important features of a car of
this nature because it utilizes only a small four-cylinder engine that does not produce high
levels of horsepower. This means that the suspension and ability to adjust to any condition
that the car will encounter is absolutely necessary to maintain the quickness that Caterham
cars are famous for around the world.
Figure 1- Caterham
Andrew Bayer
45
Andrew Bayer
Andrew Bayer
Andrew Bayer
5 - CUSTOMER NEEDS
In order to specify some specific details about suspension designs, a survey was sent to a
number of race mechanics, race team members, drivers and Caterham enthusiasts; this helped
to show what the most important issues were in a suspension design (see Appendix B). The
results showed that the most emphasis was on the reliability and safety of the suspension and
all of its components, so they would not fail under the worst road conditions that the car
could encounter. Next on the list of importance was the multiple adjustability characteristics
and ease of access to the suspension to make the necessary adjustments. These were the
main design criteria that needed to be met to achieve a successful design according to the
survey results.
The Quality Function Deployment (QFD), results shown in Table 1, for the pushrod
suspension design showed similar results as that of the survey. The highly weighted areas of
the design were that of safety at 12.8% and reliability at 11.7%, with adjustability of spring
rate close behind at 11.4%. It also showed that the material used in the design and the
loading of the suspension members was to be the most important engineering characteristics
with importance values of 12.55 and 10.05 respectively.
Table 1- QFD Results
Performance &
Features
Relative Weights
Reliability
12.8%
Safety
11.7%
Adjustability of ride
quality
11.4%
Accessibility for
adjustments
11.2%
Adjustability of ride
height
10.8%
Suspension
geometry
9.1%
Reducing unsprung
mass
8.9%
Compactness of
design
8.7%
Ease of installation
8.0%
Adaptability to
different chassis
7.4%
Andrew Bayer
6 - PRODUCT OBJECTIVES
This is a compiled list of the product objectives and how they were to be achieved or
tested to ensure that project goals were met and the project was successful. The project
objectives focused on the adjustable pushrod suspension design of a custom built car that
would have a soft suspension setting as well as a firm suspension setting.
Adjustability of ride quality
-Suspension has two settings for ride quality, a soft setting for street use and a firm
setting for track use.
-By adding a weight equal to the sprung mass of the car and measuring the static
deflection, the Natural Frequency could be calculated and must fall between the
following ranges.
-60 to 90 CPM Soft ride quality, Street use
-120 to 200 CPM Stiff ride quality, Track use
-By designing an adjustable bellcrank with different mounting locations for the pushrod
to attach, these ranges were achieved.
-Qualitative testing was also done do determine if persons riding in the car could tell a
difference in the two separate ride quality settings.
Safety and reliability of suspension components
-All suspension components were designed to meet the industry standards of 5 Gs shock
loading on any wheel.
Accessibility to components for adjustment
-All suspension links and adjustment points were designed to give enough room for an
average sized human hand or the needed adjustment tool to fit and work properly
through its range of motion.
Compactness of design
-The spring and shock assembly as well as most of the bellcrank were designed to be
fully housed within the body of the car, leaving only the upper and lower control arms
and pushrods being the only suspension links visible from the exterior of the car.
Andrew Bayer
7 - ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS
Three suspension designs were compared to come up with the ideal suspension setup for
the Caterham to be used as a street car as well as a track car. The unequal length double
wishbone suspension geometry of the actual suspension links themselves were predetermined
using geometric methods and was kept constant when comparing the mounting locations of
the spring and shock and the bellcrank assembly.
Design Option 1, shown in Figure 5, is the standard placement of the spring and shock
assembly used in most vehicle suspension designs on the road today. The spring and shock
assembly are mounted as close to vertical as possible while still mounting between the lower
control arm and the frame of the car. However, Figure 5 shows that to reduce the bending
load on the lower control arm the bottom of the spring and shock assembly is mounted as
close to the wheel, which gives the unfavorable angle that was explained earlier. This is not
as large of a problem in standard passenger cars because the upper mounting location for the
spring and shock assembly is able to me mounted much higher in the car to reduce the
mounting angle and keep it closer to the more effective 90 position.
Design 1 Standard
Suspension
Figure 5- Design Concept 1 Standard Suspension
Andrew Bayer
Design Option 2, shown in figure 6, is a pull rod suspension design used on some
open wheel race cars. In this design the spring and shock assembly is mounted inboard of the
frame and are placed horizontally. The spring forces of the wheel movement are transferred
to the spring via a bellcrank that is mounted low in the frame. The bellcrank is actuated by a
pullrod that connects the bellcrank to the upper control arm in this case. This design allows
for the center of gravity of the suspension to be very low in the car and can improve
performance. However, the problem with a pullrod suspension is that all the forces
transmitted through the suspension parts put the components is tension, which is the loading
condition that most welded joints will fail. Another problem that is specific to this
application is that by mounting the bellcrank at this point on the frame will fully encase the
bellcrank within the bodywork and would make it difficult to have easy access to the ride
quality adjustment.
Design 2 Pullrod
Suspension
Figure 6- Design Concept 2- Pullrod Suspension
Andrew Bayer
Design 3 Pushrod
Suspension
Figure 7- Design Concept 3- Pushrod Suspension
10
Andrew Bayer
8 - DESIGN SELECTION
After choosing the three most likely designs that could be used for this application, a
5-point weighted decision method (see Appendix D) was utilized to choose the best design
concept. Completing the weighted decision method showed that all three designs yielded
similar ratings because each has its own advantages and disadvantages. The standard
suspension design received a rating of 2.67, the pullrod suspension design received a rating
of 2.45 and the pushrod suspension design received a rating of 3.22. The pushrod
suspension, shown in Figure 8, was decided to be the best design concept for the application
because of its ability to transmit the most force seen from tire movement directly into the
spring rather than into the frame. The pushrod suspension design also provided the best
design for ease of adjustability by utilizing the adjustable bellcrank so that the suspension
motion ratios can be changed to achieve the different suspension settings for ride quality.
11
Andrew Bayer
12
Andrew Bayer
9.8 in.
8 in.
FA
Fpushrod
Fwheel= 275 lb
13
Andrew Bayer
Fbellcrank= 589 lb
12 in.
Fpushrod= 589 lb
14
Andrew Bayer
FS= 589 lb
2 in.
Fpushrod= 589 lb
103
B
FS= 1086 lb
2 in.
4 in.
Fpushrod= 543 lb
112
B
15
Andrew Bayer
12 - DESIGN TESTING
To make sure the suspension worked effectively, both qualitative and quantitative testing
was completed. First, a static load test was used to calculate the natural frequency of the
suspension to see if the two suspension settings were within the specified ranges for soft and
firm suspension ride quality. A ride quality test was also completed, to prove that a
difference could be felt between the soft and firm suspension settings.
For the static load test, a 200 lb load, which was equal to the sprung weight of the cars
frame, was placed above the front suspension. By adding a weight equal to the sprung
weight of the car, the static deflection of the frame displaced downward could be recorded
and used to solve for the natural frequency of the suspension using the equation below.
Figure 9 shows the suspension sitting at ride height before testing. After the 200 lb load was
applied, the firm suspension deflected 2 in., shown in Figure 10. With 2 in. of deflection the
natural frequency was calculated to be 133 CPM, which was within the firm frequency
ranges of 120 200 CPM. Figure 11 shows that the static deflection for the soft suspension
under the 200 lb static load was 4.5 in. This translated to a suspension natural frequency of
88 CPM, which was within the soft frequency ranges of 60 90 CPM.
16
Andrew Bayer
17
Andrew Bayer
To test the ride quality settings, a group of test subjects were assembled from people
who had previously filled out the pushrod suspension survey. The test group included race
car mechanics and Caterham enthusiasts. Before explaining the workings of the pushrod
suspension, each subject sat in the drivers seat of the car and the car was run over a 2 in.
bump in the road at a constant speed as seen in Figure 12. The suspension was then changed
to the opposite setting and the test run again so that the test subject could have a comparison
suspension setting. Thus far four out of four test subjects could correctly tell the firm
suspension setting from the soft suspension setting.
18
Andrew Bayer
13 - DESIGN SCHEDULE
The design, fabrication and assembly were completed by the final deadline date of the
2009 OCAS Tech Expo on May 7th. The major part of Senior Design 1 was the actual design
of the suspension geometry so that everything would function correctly. The preliminary
design of the suspension was completed by Feb. 4th. Originally the schedule was planned to
design each of the parts separately over the course of a few weeks. However, these plans
were flawed because the designs of all the suspension parts were complimentary to each
other and were unable to be designed separately.
The largest part of Senior Design 2 was the fabrication of the suspension components
and was completed by April 20th. The fabrication took slightly longer than originally
planned because of all the extra components that had to be fabricated so that the suspension
could work properly. This included the extra fabrication of the rear suspension and steering
for the front wheels. The project was then assembled and testing of the suspension lasted
until May 23 because of the need for safety equipment that had to be installed to perform the
ride quality testing. The project was presented at the 2009 OCAS Tech Expo on May 7th.
Following the completion of the Senior Design 2 presentation on May 26th and the final
paper deadline of June 1, the Adjustable Pushrod Suspension Design Project met all of the
required goals. See Appendix I for a full design schedule breakdown.
14 - BUDGET PLAN
The budget for the pushrod suspension assembly can be split into two major parts, the
raw material and the purchased components. The raw material included the steel that was
used for the fabrication of the suspension links, mounting tabs, and bellcranks and was
estimated based on current material cost to be approximately $110. The purchased
components being the larger portion of the budget were estimated to cost approximately
$970. This in turn gave a final estimated cost for the entire pushrod suspension assembly to
be $1080. After purchasing all the material and components that were necessary for the
fabrication and assembly of the suspension, the final cost of the assembly was $751. The
difference in the budget came from finding that the material prices had originally been
slightly underestimated, while some of the purchased components had been overestimated.
Labor cost was not estimated for the fabrication and assembly of the components, but
factoring this in would keep the total assembly cost within the ranges that the customer
survey results showed to be a reasonable price for a pushrod suspension assembly.
19
Andrew Bayer
REFERENCES
1. Longhurst, Chris. The Suspension Bible. The Car Maintenence Bibles. [Online] 19942008. [Cited: September 4, 2008.] http://www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible.html.
2. Adams, Herb. Chassis Engineering. New York : The Berkley Publishing Group, 1993.
3. Haney, Paul. Photos from a Phoenix Test. Inside Racing Technology. [Online] March 3,
1999. [Cited: September 23, 2008.] http://www.insideracingtechnology.com/phnxtst.htm.
20
APPENDIX A - RESEARCH
-Cheap design
-Can act like an
independent suspension is
designed correctly
A1
www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible.html
9/20/08
Trailing Arm Suspension
In a trailing arm suspension design there are two larger links
that supports the steering knuckle with the spring and shock
assembly mounted to one of trailing links and the other end to
the frame of the vehicle. The wheel and tire trails behind the
links of the suspension, effectively dragging the tires over any
obstructions in the road surface.
A2
www.motorera.co
m/dictionary/cardica.htm
9/20/08
Typical
MacPherson Strut
Suspension
-Standard advantages of an
independent suspension in ride
comfort and performance.
-Extremely small compact design
-Good for use on small front
wheel drive(FWD) cars.
A3
www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible.html
9/20/08
Equal Length Double A-arm Suspension (Double
Wishbone)
The equal length double a-arm suspension, often
referred to as a double wishbone suspension, attached
the steering knuckle to the frame via two equal length
control arms at the top and bottom. The spring and
shock assembly mounts to the bottom control arm and
to the frame.
A4
http://www.automotivearticles.com/uploads/aarm_img.jpg
9/20/08
Unequal Length Double A-arm Suspension
(Unequal Double Wishbone)
A5
-Expensive design
-Still in testing phase
www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible.html
9/24/08
Linear Electro Magnetic Suspension
The linear electro magnetic suspension is a design by Bose
that replaces the springs and shocks with linear
electromagnetic motors and power amplifiers. When
electrical power is applied the motor will extend or retract,
which creates the motion between the wheel and the chassis of
the car.
A6
insideracingtechnolog
y.com/phnxtst.htm
9/23/08
Pushrod Suspension
used on Indy Cars
A7
MET Project
Formula OCAS 2006
A8
APPENDIX B - SURVEY
Pushrod Suspension Survey
My name is Andrew Bayer and I am a senior of Mechanical Engineering Technology at
the University of Cincinnati. I am currently in the process of designing a pushrod
suspension for my senior design project to simplify the swapping of springs to achieve
different spring rates when going from track driving to street driving. It would be helpful if
you could please take a few minutes to rate the following features.
How important are the following characteristics to you in a suspension design?
Circle or highlight the appropriate answer. 1 = low importance 5 = high importance
Accessibility to components for
adjustment
2(1)
3(1)
4(8)
5(9)
4.33
Ease of Installation
1(1)
2(6)
3(5)
4(5)
5(2)
3.05
Compactness of design
1(1)
2(2)
3(8)
4(6)
5(2)
3.32
Reliability
4(1)
5(18)
4.95
Safety
3(2)
4(5)
5(12)
4.53
3(11)
4(7)
5(1)
3.47
2(2)
3(8)
4(7)
5(2)
3.47
3(4)
4(7)
5(8)
4.21
2(1)
3(1)
4(6)
5(11)
4.42
1(2)
2(5)
3(5)
4(7)
2.89
How much would you consider paying for a complete pushrod actuated front suspension?
$0-$200
$200-$400
$400-$600(5)
$600-$800(7)
$800 or above(7)
B1
0.11 11.4%
0.11 10.8%
Relative weight %
Relative weight
4.39
4.17
Adjustable Bellcrank
Customer Importance
Endlinks Used
Camber Gain
Loading Setup
Surface Finish
Material
Diameter of Links
Weight
Overall Size
9 = Strong
3 = Moderate
1 = Weak
Performance
Adjustability of spring rate
Adjustability of ride height
Suspension geometry
3.44
0.09
2.83
0.07
8.9%
7.4%
3.5
0.09
9.1%
4.3
0.11 11.2%
4.5
0.12 11.7%
4.94
0.13 12.8%
3.33
0.09
8.7%
3.06
38.46
0.08
1.00
8.0%
Features
Accesability of components
Safety
Reliability
Compactness of design
Ease of Installation
Abs. importance
Rel. importance
1
1
1
9
1
1.5
6.14
3
1.1
4.37
1.5
6.27
1
1
1
3.0
12.55
1
0.0
0.00
3
2.4
10.05
1
1.2
5.19
1
0.7
2.75
3
0.2
1.00
3
1.3
5.28
12.9
C1
D1
Description
Material
Quantity
130 in
Aluminum
12
12
in Sheet Steel
80 in^2
270 in^2
10
Steering Knuckle
Cast Steel
E1
9.8 in.
8 in.
FA
Fpushrod
Fwheel= 275 lb
F1
Pushrod Loading
Fbellcrank= 589 lb
12 in.
Fpushrod= 589 lb
-Slenderness ratio
-Column constant
F2
Bellcrank Loading
-Firm Suspension Setting
A
C
2 in.
FS= 589 lb
2 in.
Fpushrod= 589 lb
103
B
-Spring displacement
FS= 1086 lb
2 in.
4 in.
Fpushrod= 543 lb
112
B
-Force transmitted to spring
-Spring displacement
F3
G1
APPENDIX H BUDGET
H1
I1