i

Formula SAE Team

Final Report
12/4/2013

Upright Team Intake Team Frame Analysis Upright Analysis

Josh Carroll Dallas Hogge Lloyd Outten Joseph Perry
Lloyd Outten Alisa Phillips Josh Carroll Taylor Watkins
Joseph Perry Rebekah McNally
Taylor Watkins Henos Woldegirogis
 ii

Abstract
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Formula design competition was created in
order to test students abilities to properly design and create a fully functioning open-wheeled
race car. The Project Management II SAE Formula team has set goals to contribute to the overall
Old Dominion University SAE Formula club by fully designing and testing the vehicles
uprights and engine intake, as well as performing a stress analysis of the frame. This paper will
describe the ideas behind each of the designs along with the processes and tools used to complete
them. Descriptions of the analysis and results obtained for each component will also be included
in this paper.
 iii

Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv
Formula SAE Background .............................................................................................................. v
UPRIGHTS ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction to Uprights .............................................................................................................. 1
Overview of Uprights .................................................................................................................. 2
Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Design ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 5
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 13
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 14
INTAKE ........................................................................................................................................ 15
Introduction to the Intake .......................................................................................................... 15
Overview of the Intake .............................................................................................................. 16
Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Design .................................................................................................................................... 17
Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 18
Fabrication ............................................................................................................................. 19
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 20
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 21
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 22
FRAME ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 23
Introduction to Frame Analysis ................................................................................................. 23
Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 27
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 28
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 30
Appendix A Detailed Figures .................................................................................................... 31
References ..................................................................................................................................... 52
 iv

List of Figures
Figure A.1 The first iteration of the front upright design. 31
Figure A.2 - Shows the top view of the first iteration of the front upright model (top) and the 31
second iteration (bottom). This illustrates the reduction of bulk on the steering bracket. 32
Figure A.3 The second iteration of the front upright design. 32
Figure A.4 The third iteration of the front upright design. 33
Figure A.5 The fourth iteration of the front upright design, with the brake bracket bolted on 33
Figure A.6 - shows the illustration of the fourth iteration of design with the components spaced 34
out for a clearer picture of all components involved.
Figure A.7 The final version of the front upright that was modified for easier CNC machining.
Figure A.8 Initial design of the rear upright.
Figure A.9 Rear upright without webbing.
Figure A.10 Rear upright with reduced thickness.
Figure A.11 Rear upright final design concept.
Figure A.12 Finalized rear upright that was sent to be CNC machined
Figure A.13- Table of wheel weights at each corner of the 2011 ODU SAE Formula car.
Figure A.14 Graph of lateral force vs slip angle on a Michelin tire, as a function of vertical load.
Figure A.15 - Normal Force loading applied to the front upright for analysis.
Figure A.16 - Lateral Force loading applied to front upright
Figure A.17 Braking force applied.
Figure A.18 - Steering Left
Figure A.19 - Steering Right
Figure A.20
Figure A.21
Figure A.22
Figure A.23
Figure A.24 Conical style intake runner collector.
Figure A.25- Initial intake runner design.
Figure A.26 Final intake runner design with simplified bends.
Figure A.27 Final assembly of the intake.
Figure A.28 The result from running SolidWorks FloXpress flow simulation.
Figure A.29 Dynomometer graph of horsepower and torque versus RPM
Figure A.30 Graph detailing theoretical and Solidworks flow modeled flow rate vs RPM
Figure A.31 A graph showing the volumetric efficiency as derived from SolidWorks
Figure A.32 Graph showing standard volumetric efficiencies vs mean piston speed.
Figure A.33 - Elastic modulus is in psi
Figure A.34 -
Figure A.35
Figure A.36
Figure A.37
Figure A.38
Figure A.39 -
Figure A.40 -
 v

Formula SAE Background

The SAE Formula competition is a design competition for college students to test their
skills when designing and building a formula car from the ground up. The objective of the Old
Dominion University SAE Formula program is to design, fabricate and compete with a formula-
style racecar. The teams goal is to successfully apply what is taught in classes while developing
teamwork skills throughout the building process. Old Dominion University has competed in the
SAE Formula competition since 1998. The Society of Automotive Engineers has been hosting
the event annually since 1981. All universities around the world are invited to participate in the
event. There are eight events that each team competes in at competition, which consists of three
static and five dynamic events. These events include design analysis, cost analysis, sales
presentation, acceleration, skid pad, autocross, endurance, and fuel economy. Each groups
performance is scored and ranked by SAE judges. In 2007 Old Dominion Universitys team
successfully competed in and completed all events at the competition for the first time. The 2007
competition was also the first time ODU finished the endurance event, the first ODU car to
weigh less than 500lb (491 lb), the first car to place top 20 in fuel economy and set the fastest
acceleration time for the ODU team.
 1

UPRIGHTS

Introduction to Uprights
The uprights are the central component for the suspension of a Formula SAE race car. All
suspension components including the control arms, steering arms, springs, shock absorbers,
brakes, tires, and in the case of the rear upright the axles are connected to the uprights. All forces
that the car will encounter will go through the uprights. The uprights must be sufficiently strong
in order to withstand many of these forces occurring simultaneously, as well as any forces that
may happen as a result of a crash or other kind of emergency without failure. Any failure of the
uprights would render the car un-drivable. The MAE 435 team successfully redesigned and
analyzed both the front and rear uprights for the upcoming 2014 competition car.
 2

Overview of Uprights
The goal for the front upright design team was to optimize the existing design from the
106 car which competed in 2011. The front uprights from the 106 car were designed well;
however, they were lacking in a few areas. The primary flaw was the steering bracket. The old
steering bracket design seemed to be an afterthought and was fabricated from a very thin piece of
sheet metal, which was then bolted onto the upright. This implementation caused the front
suspension to be difficult to assemble and disassemble, posed a huge point of failure for the car,
and was also a safety risk for the driver and other competitors in the event the steering bracket
were to fail on one or both front uprights. Correcting this weakness in the design of the front
upright will provide a strong foundation for the car.
The goal for the rear upright team was very simple due to the fact that the uprights from
the 2011 # 106 car were already a fairly good design as well. With no major flaws in the design,
the team planned to focus on overall weight reduction while a comparable performance to the
uprights from the 106 car.
 3

Methods

Design
T o begin the redesign process of the front upright, the front suspension of the 106 car
was disassembled so accurate and thorough dimensions could be recorded for the upright and the
accompanying components. The old design was then modeled in SolidWorks (Dassault Systmes
SolidWorks Corporation, Waltham, MA). Upon completion of the initial model, a multitude of
models followed. The first iteration of design, as seen in Figure A.1 in Appendix A, the brake
caliper bracket and steering bracket were to be machined out of one piece of aluminum. The
flaws with the first iteration of design included the brake bracket being a quarter of an inch
misplaced in the z-direction, which can be seen in Figure A.2. The first iteration also sported a
strong steering bracket that could be slimmed down. The second iteration of design can be seen
in Figure A.3. This iteration would be even harder to machine due to the stepped brake
bracket, and would not be as strong. The second iteration also lacked a double shear mount for
the steering rod bracket. The third iteration, as seen in Figure A.4, included a brake bracket that
compensated for the quarter of an inch misalignment by adding material to the outside face of the
upright to support the bracket.
The third iteration model of the front upright was used to produce a rapid prototype. Old
Dominion Universitys 3D printer was utilized to produce this prototype. Upon receiving the
printed upright, it was used to check all clearances and dimensions of the model, which was
accomplished by disassembling the 2012 #106 cars suspension to put the printed model in place.
This proved to be very beneficial as there were several conflicting dimensions, including the
opening width of the steering rod bracket for the heim joint, and the opening width and depth for
the lower control arm. This spared the team greatly from the high wasted cost of fabricating an
incorrectly sized upright. Subsequently a fourth iteration model, as seen in Figure A.5, was
created to resolve the issues found in the rapid prototype. However the largest modification that
formed the fourth iteration was not a clearance issue, but rather a cost issue. After guidance from
many FSAE team members, and discussion amongst the team, it was decided that the brake
bracket would be a bolt on part, which can be seen in Figure A.6. This is due to the large cost of
fabrication which would result from a high volume of negative material needed to create the part.
Finally, in the last iteration of the front upright assembly the steering bracket was also
 4

made a bolt on piece to further reduce machine time. To make the steering bracket bolt on, a
small boss was added to the side of the upright to give sufficient depth for the bolts fastening the
steering bracket. Also, fillets and chamfers were added to all sharp edges of the model. Overall
the final design changes from the original concept added 0.19 lb and sacrificed little strength.
These final changes can be seen in Figure A.7.

The first step in the design process of the rear uprights was to take measurements of the
uprights off the 106 car. These measurements were important because the same attachment
points used for the 106 rear uprights were going to be used for this years uprights. After all the
dimensions were taken a model of the original design was made in SolidWorks. (Figure A.8)
Once the initial design was made it was decided that the best ways to decrease the weight of the
upright was to either eliminate the webbing or to make the upright thinner. It was also decided
that the uprights would be made of 6061 aluminum alloy. When the upright without the webbing
(Figure A.9) was created in SolidWorks a bracing bar was added in the middle so that the upright
would not buckle. For the upright that was thinner (Figure A.10) the thickness of the whole
upright was changed from 1 in. to 0.75 in. while keeping the thickness around the bearing stayed
the same at 1.5 in because the bearing thickness was not going to change.
During preliminary analysis it was found that both of the designs were lighter and still
had a much higher factor of safety than needed so both designs were integrated together in
SolidWorks to create a design that was both thinner and lacked webbing. Fillets were also added
underneath the bracing bar to decrease the stress concentration at that point. Before the final
design was sent off for fabrication a 3D printing was made of the initial design because all of the
designs had the same attachment points to compare with the upright on the 106 car to make sure
all the dimensions were correct. With the 3D printing it was found that the original designs were
misaligned by half an inch for the width and an inch too tall. The height on the new frame had
also changed so a final design was created to factor in all these adjustments. (Figure A.11) After
the machinist reviewed the new design, it was decided that the upright design would benefit from
being made of multiple components. The lower control arm mounts were separated from the one-
piece design to reduce the machining labor and became bolt on items. Many of the sharp edges
of the design were rounded to reduce stress concentrations throughout the part, and the thickness
 5

of the upright was increased back to its original size of 1 in. to maintain a high factor of safety.
The final design for the rear uprights can be found in Figure A.12.

Analysis

Front
The front uprights must be able to withstand a variety of forces including, braking,
steering, lateral loading, and supporting the weight of the car through the turns. The maximum
stresses on the upright will be when the car is turning in the direction opposite of the side of the
car in which the upright being examined is installed. There will be a load transfer from the wheel
on the inside radius of the turn to the outside due to the centrifugal force of the car making the
turn. In addition to the load transfer there will be a lateral force at the tire contact patch resisting
the centrifugal force and forcing the car to turn. Finally, there are braking and steering forces
applied to the upright. As the car negotiates the course the upright must be able to withstand
these forces simultaneously. The upright also has to handle these stresses with a factor of safety
of 3 or greater to withstand emergency situations and crashes.
To ensure that the uprights will not fail during the harsh conditions of competition, stress
analysis is essential to the overall design. The stress analysis of the uprights was performed using
SolidWorks. In SolidWorks, the forces that the upright will see can be applied to the model that
was created for fabrication, and ran as a simulation. The analysis performed in SolidWorks is
useful in determining how the upright will deform, what forces it can withstand before yielding,
and where yielding will occur. The forces used in the analysis were found using data from the
manufacturer of the tires as well as several other simple formulas. After determining the forces
the most critical task is correctly defining the boundary conditions for the supports of the upright.
Incorrectly fixing the upright in the simulation can yield incorrect results. For simplicity, only
the worst case scenarios were tested for. Since only the worst case loadings are being considered
the simulation can be treated as linear and instantaneous, greatly reducing the complexity of the
simulation.
As discussed previously, the uprights had to be tested for several different loading cases.
The first loading case tested for was the weight of the vehicle that is supported by the individual
upright. The individual wheel weights for the race vehicle are listed in Figure A.13. In addition
to the static wheel weight there will be a load transfer to different tires as the car negotiates the
 6

turns of the race track and as the car accelerates and decelerates. For the front uprights the only
concern is cornering and deceleration because they are the only situation in with the normal
forces supported by the front tires and uprights are increased. The load transfer across two
opposing tires is calculated using the following formula from Advanced Race Car Chassis
Technology.[1]

=

In this formula the weight is the total weight supported by the two tires being analyzed.
Acceleration is the G-force being experienced; in the case of the front uprights, deceleration or
centrifugal acceleration from turning. CG height is the height of the center of gravity of the
vehicle. Finally, track width is the distance between the two tires being analyzed. The load
transfer weight is added directly to the weight supported by the individual wheel; this total force
acts on the spindle of the upright. The numbers used were a combined weight of 326 pounds, a
lateral acceleration of 1.5 G, a center of gravity height of 12 inches, and a track width of 50.5
inches. The final worst case loading used for the individual wheel weight simulation was 280
pounds. For the boundary conditions of the wheel weight loading simulation the upper and lower
control arm connections were assumed to be hinged joints, and the steering connection was
assumed to be fixed.
The lateral forces seen by the uprights were obtained using a plot of lateral force vs. slip
angle and weight loaded on the individual tire provided by Michelin Tire [2] as seen in Figure
A.14. Since only worst case scenarios were tested for, the lateral force just before the tire breaks
traction was used. The worst case of a lateral force was tested at 506 pounds. It was important to
realize that the lateral force acts as at the tire contact patch which produces a moment at the
spindle with the moment arm being the radius of the tire, resulting in a moment of 5313 in-lbs.
The boundary conditions assumed were hinge joints at the upper and lower control arm
connections, the spindle fixed to the upright, and the steering joint fixed.
The steering force loading was determined by using the maximum radial load that the
steering rod end can withstand found in a heim joint catalog from RBC Bearings.[3] The
maximum worst case loading was listed as 2995 pounds. The steering bracket was assumed to be
rigidly bolted to the upright with the upper and lower control arm connections as hinges, and the
spindle being fixed.
 7

The braking force was found by using the following formulas found at Engineering
Inspiration.[4]
=
This formula determines the total braking force of the vehicle, which is divided between the
three brake calipers of the FSAE race vehicle. The force of each brake caliper produces a torque
about the upright that it is connected to, with the moment arm being the radius of the tire. The
torque created by the braking force of that tire is determined by.

=

The worst case torque for each individual front upright is 1918 in-lbs. The braking torque is
translated through the caliper through the caliper bracket, which is bolted to the upright. For the
simulation the caliper bracket was assumed to be rigidly bolted to the upright, with the upper and
lower control arm connections treated as hinges, and the steering connection fixed.
The final simulation performed on the front upright was the combination of the loadings
that the upright would see at mid turn. In this simulation all parts were assume to be rigidly
bolted to the upright , the control arm connections treated as hinges with the steering arm fixed.

Rear
In order for the suspension of the vehicle to work properly, the rear uprights must be able
to withstand a variety of forces, which include vertical load redistributions from vehicle
acceleration and turning as well as lateral forces resulting from cornering. According to Figure
A.13, the left rear wheel shows a greater portion of the vehicle load than the right. Because of
this, all analysis will be done using this wheel load to ensure maximum load can be withstood.
Since we are considering the left rear upright, the load transfer of a right turn must be simulated
in order properly analyze its performance. Similarly, when the vehicle is under acceleration,
there is a load transfer towards the rear of the car that must also be considered. It must be
determined which of these load transfers is the more critical one in order to perform an
acceptable stress analysis. A lateral force on the tires contact patch is also present during turns,
which then creates a horizontal force on the upright at each pickup point. The rear upright must
be able to withstand each of these conditions with an acceptable factor of safety in order for it to
be considered an acceptable design. Vehicle deceleration will not be considered during rear
 8

upright analysis, as the center of gravity for the vehicle will shift forward, thereby reducing the
load on the rear uprights.
The first force to be considered on the rear upright is that of the static loading of the
vehicle. All other vertical load added to the upright will be in addition to this one. The second
force to be considered will be the load distribution onto the rear uprights while the vehicle is
cornering. The equation for this scenario was found in Advanced Race Car Chassis
Technology[1] and detailed earlier. Given a weight of 374 pounds, a lateral acceleration of 1.5
G, a center of gravity at approximately 12 inches, and a track width of 53 inches, the load
transfer onto the rear upright while the vehicle is cornering is about an extra 127 pounds added
on top of the weight the upright naturally carries. This resulted in a total load vertical of 320
pounds while the vehicle is cornering.
Before a simulation is run, it must be determined if the extra load present on the rear
upright due to cornering is more critical than that due to acceleration. To do this, we use the
same equation given by Advanced Race Car Chassis Technology [1]. This time, however, we use
the weight carried by the two left uprights, the G force applied to the vehicle during acceleration,
and the center to center distance between the front and rear wheels. For this new load transfer,
the weight is 356 pounds, the G force due to acceleration is 2 G, the wheel base is 63 inches, and
the center of gravity height remains at 12 inches. The resulting total load onto the rear upright
during acceleration is 328 pounds. Since this load transfer is greater than the load transfer due to
turning, acceleration will be the critical condition for analysis testing. The load will be
represented in SolidWorks as acting downward on the central bearing with the pin holes acting
as fixed hinges.
The lateral force on the tire used for analysis was taken from a graph of normal force
versus slip angle provided by Michelin Tire [2] in Figure A.14. Given that the tire connected to
the upright being studied naturally supports a weight of 193 pounds, and that the load transfer on
to the upright due to turning would increase this load to 320 pounds. This results in a normal
force of about 1400 Newtons. However, there is no data on the chart provided for this force, so a
normal force of 1500 Newtons will be selected so as to remain conservative. This places a
maximum lateral force while cornering at about 3000 Newtons, or 675 pounds. Since there is no
spindle modeled through which this lateral force may act as a moment, it was assumed that a
force of 675 pounds would be acceptable to place horizontally through both the bolt holes of the
 9

upright and along the bearing face. The bolt holes would also be fixed in place to represent the
constraint of the A-arm mounts.
Finally, a combination of the cornering load transfer and the lateral force on the rear
upright will be simulated in SolidWorks in order to properly envision how the part will perform
while the vehicle is cornering. For this simulation, all of the bolt holes will be considered fixed
points, and both the vertical load transfer onto the upright and lateral force generated by
cornering will be placed onto the same places they were located during individual force analysis
 10

Results
Front
The first test performed on the front upright was to ensure that the assembly could
withstand the weight of the vehicle sitting stationary. The wheel weight on both front wheels
found from scaling the car is 163 pounds. Applying the load to the assembly in SolidWorks
confirmed that the upright could withstand this loading with a factor of safety of 10.5. In this
loading scenario there were stress concentrations around the step of the spindle in which the
wheel hub is seated against; and, where the spindle mated to the upright as shown in Figure
A.15. Maximum Von Mises stress for this loading was about 27,000,000 N/m^2 (27 MPa). With
the yield stress of the 6061-T6 aluminum in which the upright is constructed being 275,000,000
N/m^2 (275 MPa).
After testing the static loading the weight on the wheel, maximum weight transfer was
tested. Again, there were stress concentrations on the stepped portion of the spindle. With a
loading of 280 pounds maximum Von Mises Stress was 46,152,184 N/m^2; there was a factor of
safety of 5.96. The high factor of safety is important here so that when combined loadings are
applied mid turn the upright assembly will not yield.
For the lateral loading simulation, a moment originating at the center of the tire contact
patch of 5313 in-lb. was applied to the spindle of the front upright. The spindle, which is also
constructed of 6061-T6 aluminum, had maximum stress concentrations around the surface in
which the wheel hub mates to the upright assembly. The hub mates on a stepped portion of the
spindle where there is a sharp increase in diameter. The maximum Von Mises stress on the
spindle was 19,631,878 N/m^2 shown in Figure A.16. The overall factor of safety for the lateral
loading simulation was 14.01. The high factor of safety for the lateral loading is required in case
the vehicle where to hit debris or structure such as a curb and still maintain working condition.
Simulation of the brake caliper bracket was very straightforward. A moment of 1890 in-
lb about the center of the spindle was applied to the mounting holes for the brake caliper. The
stress concentrations for the braking simulation were highest at the corners where the mounting
points for the brake caliper meet the main structure of the caliper bracket seen in figure A.17.
The maximum Von Mises stress for the braking force simulation was 46,929,128 N/m^2, with a
maximum deflection of 6.5E-2 mm (slightly half the thickness of a piece of paper), and a factor
 11

of safety of 5.86. While the factor of safety for this test is very substantial it is not as high as the
other members of the front upright assembly. An overly high factor of safety is not required for
the brake caliper bracket due to there being little effect on the component from combined
loadings, and the simulation performed already includes maximum braking force for an
emergency situation.
The final single component test was the simulation of the steering force on the steering
bracket. Since there was a debate over what the actual maximum steering force was, it was
decided to use the maximum load supported by the heim joint connecting the steering arm to the
front upright. The maximum load for the heim join was found in a catalog from a rod end and
bearing manufacturer named RBC bearings.[3] The force used was 3000 pounds. When the force
was directed towards the outside of the upright (towards the wheel and tire) the maximum Von
Mises stress was 117,611,216 N/m^2 shown in Figure A.18 with a maximum deflection of 0.39
mm at the tips of the bracket, and a factor of safety of 2.34. When the force was directed towards
the center of the car the bracket was slightly stronger with a maximum Von Mises stress of
103,838,424 N/m^2 shown in Figure A.19, a maximum displacement of 0.34 mm, and a factor of
safety of 2.65. With the force in either orientation the maximum stress concentrations were
around the bolt holes where the steering bracket is mounted to the upright, and along the outside
edge of the upper and lower tabs of the steering bracket. This test yielded the lowest factor of
safety of any single component of the upright assembly; primarily due to the fact a real world
force was not used. The results of this test show that the tie rod heim joint will fail before the
upright does.
The final simulation performed tested how the front upright assembly would withstand
the combination of maximum forces. The maximum normal, lateral, and braking force was
applied to the front upright while keeping the control arm fixed. The highest stress
concentrations were concentrated around the center of the upright reaching a maximum Von
Mises stress of 79,644,368 (N/m^2). The factor of safety for the entire upright assembly was
3.45, exceeding the desired factor of safety of 3.
 12

Rear
The first individual stress analysis performed on the rear was that of the load transfer due
to acceleration onto the upright. Bearing in mind that the vertical load applied to the upright also
includes the static load of the vehicle; SolidWorks showed that the part was able to withstand the
additional load transfer applied. The area of highest stress concentration, according to Figure
A.20 was located at the pinholes of the two bottom A-arm mounts, with a maximum von Mises
stress of 14.3 MPa. This value was well within the yield strength of 275 MPa for the 6061-T6
aluminum used to construct the upright, and results in a factor of safety of 19.29.
For the individual lateral stress simulation, both a left and a right turn yielded the same results
for the rear upright. The part withstood the loads applied with a factor of safety of 4.9, and a
maximum von Mises stress of 56.1 MPa according to Figures A.21 and A.22. Though it is not
readily apparent in figureA.21, the maximum stress occurs near the bottom pinhole of the upper
A-arm mount.
The final stress analysis performed on the rear upright was a combination of the previous
two. This test was intended to simulate the forces the left rear upright will undergo when the
vehicle corners right. The turning load transfer was applied and combined with the maximum
lateral force on the upright due to the turn. The upright withstood both loads with a maximum
von Mises stress of 57 MPa and an overall factor of safety of 4.82. Figure A.23 shows that the
areas of highest stress concentration occur close to each of the pinholes for the A-arm mounts.
 13

Discussion
The purpose of designing the front and rear uprights is to allow a sturdy foundation for
the cars suspension components.
The upright team faced a few limitations in the process of designing the uprights.
Limitations of designing the uprights included a time delay due to the learning curve necessary
for the upright team to learn SolidWorks. If the team had already been familiar with SolidWorks
surely more advance modifications could have been done to the models with the allowed time.
Another limitation the upright team faced was being at the mercy of the formula SAE club, who
were still working on the frame while the uprights were being modeled. This stunted the teams
progress due having to remodel the rear upright, after the pickup points for the model were
changed due to changed geometry in the frame. The upright team also experienced some delays
after learning about the machining and fabrication limitations, and had to make design changes
that put the stress analysis and fabrication behind schedule. The upright team was able to
perform stress analysis; and, although behind schedule, fabrication will be completed.
The front and rear uprights had an expected design factor of safety of approximately three
during the design process due to the fact that most geometry has been maintained from the 106
car. Since the new car will be very similar in weight and setup failure was not expected. After
performing stress analysis on the front and rear uprights, the uprights met the desired factor of
safety for all loading cases.
 14

Conclusion
Since the beginning of the semester the front and rear upright design teams have
completed the modeling and optimization process of the suspension components. The tasks that
the upright design teams have completed will contribute to a better performance of Old
Dominion Universitys Formula SAE car. The uprights designed will be sufficiently strong to
withstand the events of the competition without failure, while being light weight and enhancing
the performance of the car. Also, by using the stress analysis performed on the front and rear
uprights of this years car, future Old Dominion University Formula SAE teams will be able to
determine areas for further weight savings on the uprights.
 15

INTAKE

Introduction to the Intake

The intake and exhaust are vital components to the vehicles performance. Without
properly performing systems, the available power of the engine is not being utilized. The intake
and exhaust must complement each other to achieve maximum airflow through the engine. The
intake group is designing and fabricating a superior intake system because in the past the engine
never succeeded to utilize the maximum power possible. To achieve maximum air flow in the
engine this process begins in the intake system. The objective of the intake group is to design an
intake system that will provide optimal air flow equally through four cylinders while keeping
maximum air flow possible to the engine. Also, the intake system must have optimal air flow
with minimal pressure losses achievable. Without a high performing engine, the rest of the
design optimizations for the car will not have a chance to be utilized.
 16

Overview of the Intake

For the senior design project the Formula SAE cars intake and exhaust systems will be
redesigned to optimize performance and eliminate the issues from previous intake systems. The
intake system on the 2012 #106 car has many sharp edges in its design which results in turbulent
and inefficient air flow to the engine which reduces horsepower. The new design will focus on
maximizing air flow throughout the intake system by redesigning the main intake runners,
collector and FSAE mandated intake restriction. The exhaust system will also be designed for
maximum flow. The exhaust will have to fit into a tight space in the car, so special care will be
taken with its design to minimize bends which hinder air flow and reduces performance from the
engine. Computer aided flow testing will be vital to the final design of the intake. Once
fabricated, physical flow bench testing will be run to verify the results from the computer
program.
 17

Methods

Design
The semester began with the team researching the different types of intakes and
analyzing them to find the optimal design. It was found that there are three main types of intakes
of which the conical was the best since it offered the least amount of variation in volumetric
efficiency and the lowest loss of pressure through the restrictor. (Figure A.24) Through research
it was also discovered that runners should be no shorter that 150mm long while optimally they
are between 250-325mm long and the collector for the conical intake should have a taper
between three to seven degrees. The FSAE mandates that a 20mm restrictor be present. It has
been decided that a flange will be located at the restrictor to allow easy disassembly to measure
the 20mm resistor diameter.
Exhaust research suggests that typical stock exhaust uses small diameter, crush bent pipe.
Crush bends are easy to make in mass production. However, crush bends can reduce the flow of
a pipe by up to 50 percent. Typical exhaust systems made by local muffler shops are also crush
bent. The best exhaust systems, like most Japanese pre-made exhaust systems, come with
mandrel bends. Mandrel bending is done by a special machine that uses a non-crushable insert,
or mandrel, that goes into the pipe while bending to prevent it from being crushed.
SolidWorks has been a great tool in the design phase of the project. The ability to create
and then optimize designs in 3D software is essential. With an idea in mind from the research of
best intake types, the intake runners were built off of a flange that was created specifically for the
2007 Suzuki GSXR600 engine. The first version of the runners followed the basic shape that was
desired, but consisted of too many complex bends that were not practical. (Figure A.25) Starting
from the same flange, a simplified set of runners with minimal bends was then created following
the basic premise of the first design. (Figure A.26) After it was decided that the second version
of the runners was practical from a design standpoint, the conical collector for the four intake
runners was designed. Research dictated that the taper of this cone be between three to seven
degrees for optimal performance, so three versions were made with different tapers. A three-
degree, five-degree, and seven-degree tapered cone was created so that each one could be
analyzed and the most efficient and practical one could be chosen. The next component to be
 18

created was the FSAE mandated 20mm intake restriction. Utilizing SolidWorks, all these parts
were then assembled into the final model which can be seen in Figure A.27.

Analysis
The intake has been designed in SolidWorks for many reasons. A huge advantage of this
program is that it provides a FloXpress flow analysis tool that can be applied to the model.
Although the flow analysis is not a 100 percent accurate portrayal of real world conditions, it
will gives good insight into how to intake will perform.(Figure A.28) In the FloXpress tool, the
input parameters are the pressure for the inlet and outlet pipes. The inlet pressure was set as
atmospheric pressure due to it being a fresh air intake. Some simple calculations using
Bernoullis head conservation equations along with engine displacement resulted in the
theoretical pressure drop that the outlet would see while the engine is running. The air flow is
modeled through the fresh air inlet and exits one of the four intake runners where it would be
bolted to the engine. An ideal model of the intake would involve a time dependent model of the
air flowing through each intake runner as it would in a real world engine; however, due to the
limitations of the SolidWorks tool, the flow is modeled through one runner at a time. The result
of this analysis tool is a 3D velocity profile of the air flow through the intake.
The main obstacle faced in the real world application of the intake is the SAE
competition mandated 20mm restriction. The maximum amount of air flow through the intake is
desired for maximum performance of the engine; therefore, it is important to determine the RPM
at which the restriction causes choked flow through the intake. Choked flow results from the fact
that air cannot flow faster than the speed of sound through the restriction. After the point of
choked flow, the engine demands more air than the intake can provide, therefore the air flow is
choked off.
 19

Fabrication
A few different fabrication methods were needed in order to build the intake that was
designed. The flanges are planned to be laser cut out of an aluminum sheet by Bauer
Compressors of Norfolk, VA. The intake runners will be comprised of pre-bent mandrel tubing.
These pre-bent sections will be cut to the desired lengths and angles of bend and pieced together
to form the final shape of all four runners. The conical collector will also be cut out of a flat
sheet of aluminum and rolled into the 3D shape of a hollow cone. This will be achieved by a
simple sheet metal roller. Lastly, the SAE mandated restriction sections will be turned out of a
solid piece of aluminum round stock to precise dimensions. Once all parts are fabricated they
will be welded together.
 20

Results
Utilizing the FloXpress tool in SolidWorks, with an input of pressure drop caused during
the intake stroke, maximum flow velocities through the restriction were obtained. Using this
method, it was found that choked flow occurred around 11500 RPM. When compared with a
dynamometer chart of horsepower versus engine speed (Figure A.29) the peak power of the
engine occurred at 9500 RPM which is below the RPM where choked flow occurs in the
SolidWorks model. A graph showing theoretical flow rate vs. RPM can be found in Figure A.30.
Using the known cross section of the intake restriction and max velocity, the flow rate of the
intake was calculated and compared to the theoretical flow rate to achieve an estimated
volumetric efficiency of the intake design. The maximum volumetric efficiency that the intake
achieved was approximately 87%. The minimum efficiency however, was approximately 30%.
These results were plotted against mean piston speed to be compared to standard values. (Figure
A.31) Standard values for spark ignition engines are in the range of 80 90% as seen in Figure
A.32 from Heywoods Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals.[5]
 21

Discussion
The purpose for the redesign of the intake and exhaust systems is to achieve the
maximum performance out of the engine which will improve the overall capabilities of the car.
The new intake design is expected to perform much better than the intake on the 2012 #106 car
due to the shape of the plenum and even flow to each of the four cylinders. Overall, the new
intake design should more evenly distribute air to the engine with no separations in the plenum
and less flow reducing sharp edges. The new intake design also locates the air inlet facing
forward and up in order to receive the maximum amount of fresh air possible. The #106 cars air
inlet faced the rear of the car, where it could not pick up as much cool fresh air. Due to lack of
available documentation of the intake of the #106 car, a complete comprehensive comparison
cannot be made at this time. Instead, the intake can be compared to standard values of volumetric
efficiency, which will allow for an estimate of the intakes possible performance. As stated in the
results section of this paper, after SolidWorks flow analysis, it appears that air flow is not choked
until after the engines optimal power band. When comparing the standard volumetric efficiency
range of 80-90% to the new intake design, it achieved a max percentage of 87%. This is in the
range, however, this percentage drops off quickly when the RPMs are increased. It is evident
that the intake restriction severely inhibits flow into the engine. Despite the fact that choked flow
is not reached on the low end, the flow rate through the restriction is still quite limited. It does
not appear that there are any other limiting factors in the design causing excess flow loss.
Some limitations experienced during the design of the intake involved the learning curve
of the SolidWorks software. This caused some initial limitations to the design that were later
corrected after features of SolidWorks were perfected. In regards to the exhaust system; since the
frame of the car is currently being built it is impossible to design a definitive exhaust at this time.
Clearances for things like the fuel tank, firewall, and other components will need to be taken into
consideration, which is not currently possible. Other limitations include the limitations of the
flow analysis of SolidWorks itself. Each intake runner has to be modeled separately which is not
an accurate portrayal of the real world situation of the engine running; however, this model will
give enough insight into the possible performance of that intake that is needed at this time.
It is hoped that with the design fully built in SolidWorks and the results from the flow
analysis that future teams will be able to improve upon the design year after year. If this design is
not continued, then it will at the very least provide a basis for comparison for future designs.
 22

Conclusion
The intake and exhaust team have fully designed and tested a new intake design using the
SolidWorks software. Upon completion of analysis it was determined that the flow through the
intake is quite limited. This loss of flow is due to the SAE mandated restriction. It appears at this
time that no changes to the current intake design would make any significant improvement.
Despite the flow restrictions and not having documentation from the intake used on the 2012
#106 car, from a design standpoint, it still appears that the new intake design is a great
improvement upon the previous designs. Research pertaining to the optimal methods and styles
for exhaust fabrication and modeling has also been explored. An actual model will be created in
SolidWorks once all other limiting factors of the frame have been built.
 23

FRAME ANALYSIS

Introduction to Frame Analysis

To accompany the results of uprights, and intake, a finite element stress analysis of the
frame was conducted using Nastran and Patran (MSC Software, Newport Beach, CA). The frame
was modeled using points and curves to create a one dimensional representation of the frame.
Material properties and dimensions were added to the curves and the curves were meshed.
Assumptions were made to set the fixed points, or boundary conditions, of the frame. Forces
were then applied to stimulate different scenarios and labeled as a load case to represent these
different scenarios. The scenarios which we simulated included a static load, frontal impact, side
impact, roll over forces, and forces to simulate the frame in the rolled over position. Results were
then interpreted for each loading case, noting the maximum stress and maximum displacement.
Frame analysis was completed by replicating geometry, applying forces, applying properties, and
interpreting analysis.
 24

Methods
For the finite element analysis of the frame Nastran and Patran were used. In Nastran and
Patran, models can be represented in one of two ways; either using one dimensional bars of the
same cross sectional area in the same direction called CBAR, or using two dimension patches
called CQUAD[6]. For analysis to be ran successfully a mesh needs to be applied to the whole
model in which nodes line up because different planes of mesh must share the same nodes in
order for the program to work. Therefore if nodes are misaligned the analysis will not work. For
this reasoning, the model was modeled using CBAR to eliminate this degree of complication,
and source of error from the modeling of Old Dominion University Formula SAE car number
seventy nine.
The first attempt to create a model in Patran was to convert the frame from SolidWorks
into a step file then import the file into Patran. This attempt failed because when loaded into
Patran each bar of the frame showed up as a two dimensional model, which was drawn in
different planes, meaning that neither CQUAD or CBAR could be used to simulate an accurate
finite element analysis, rendering this attempt useless. Another problem that this presented was
that the material properties that were in SolidWorks were not converted correctly when loaded
into Patran and they could not be edited. This attempt to create a model in Patran was ultimately
useless.
The next, and final, attempt was to build the model directly in Patran using CBAR which
gave the model the appearance of a wire frame. The advantage of this simpler model was that
there were less geometric identities to mesh. To mesh these curves Bar2 was used, which treated
all drawn curves as beams, allowing the properties of the beam to be input as one dimensional
CBAR elements. Using CBAR elements, material properties could be added using the following
information; cross sectional area, density, yield strength, and Poissons ratio. After the frame was
modeled in PATRAN and all material properties and forces are applied, a .BDF file could be
created which took all nodes and CBAR properties and put them into a form that Nastran could
read. Nastran was used to actually read the .BDF file to calculate the finite element analysis,
creating an .F06 file which contained the stresses and displacements for all the nodes and
CBARs and where the maximums and minimums occur. Nastran also generated an .OP2 file
which could be read by Patran allowing the user import the .OP2 file to create stress and
 25

displacement models, so that results were displayed visually via a color coded two dimensional
model.
In order to obtain the analysis results the frame actually had to be modeled manually. To
model the frame in Patran it was decided that since the frame was symmetrical across the x-axis,
only half the frame would be drawn and then it would be mirrored to make modeling the frame
faster and easier. First the points where the bars met were plotted, using the SolidWorks file to
derive the points. Then the curves were drawn to connect the points. Once all the curves were
drawn, the drawing was then mirrored so that the wire frame model of the frame was then
complete. Next the material properties of 4130 steel were inputted so that it could later be
applied to the frame Figure A.33. To create a mesh for the bars first a mesh seed had to be
created along each curve. A mesh seed applies a set amount of nodes per curve and the more
nodes, the finer the mesh which in turn produces more accurate results. After the mesh seed was
created a mesh could be applied for the whole frame. After the mesh was created the CBAR
properties for each curve could be applied which would give each curve a cross section and the
material properties of 4130 steel. In the frame there were four different sizes of hollow cross
sectional tubing: 1x0.095 round tubing, 1x0.065 round tubing, 1x0.049 round tubing and
1x1x0.049 square tubing. Once all the CBAR properties of the frame were inputted and
applied to the correct curves and elements, it was confirmed by turning on the 3D view which
could been seen if 3D:FullSpan view is applied from the Load/BC/Elem. Props option under
the Display ribbon (Figure A.34) [7]. After it was confirmed that all meshes and properties were
applied correctly, forces could then be applied to the frame.
The first forces that were applied were the ones that were constant such as the weight of
the engine and driver. The weight of the engine, which was said to be 150 lb, was applied in the
section behind the main roll hoop where the force was distributed equally among the engine
mounts. The weight of the driver, which was said to be 400 lb, was applied equally at the center
of the frame between two supporting cross members. The points where the front and rear a-arms
would be connected were where the boundary conditions, or displacements were placed for
model. The boundary condition was fixed at these points for translation in the x, y, and z
directions, as well as rotation about the y axis, which can also be referred to as having four
degrees of freedom. These forces and displacements made up the statically loaded load case
and served as the default load case.
 26

The next load cases that were simulated were for front and side impact. For these load
cases all the loads and displacements from the default case were applied and then an impact force
was added. To calculate impact force it was assumed that the velocity of the car was 100 mph,
the weight of the car was 600 lbs, and the car came to a complete stop in 15 milliseconds. This
resulted in a deceleration of 9733.33 ft/s2 and an impact force of 181,000 lbf (Figure A.35). For
the front impact load case the impact force was distributed among 6 points evenly spaced along
the front hoop. For the side impact load case the same impact force was applied evenly at 3
points on the passenger side of the rear roll hoop.
Another load case that was simulated on this model was for rollover. To model this
situation the 4 degrees of freedom constraints for the a-arms were only applied to the drivers
side of the car and all other loads remained the same. An additional lateral force of 505 lb was
applied equally between the two upper a-arm points on the right side, and another lateral force of
505 lb was applied equally to the bottom a-arm points on the left side. This creates a couple
simulating a roll over situation, which could be seen in a sharp turn.
The final case would simulate the forces applied to the main roll hoop during a case where the
frame indeed flips over. To apply these forces, the angle between the main roll hoop and the
front roll hoop were calculated to be 35.6 degrees. This angle was then used to calculate the
resultants of the 600 lb weight of the car, which were divided among three evenly spaced and
symmetrical points at the top of the main roll hoop. This force simulates the resultant force of the
ground acting on the top of the roll bar. No other forces were considered due to the fact that these
weights were accounted for in the calculation of this force. The boundary conditions remained
the same as the default load case with four degrees of freedom.
 27

Results
There were five separate load cases run for the finite element analysis for the frame in
Nastran and Patran. Max stress and max displacement were recorded for each loading scenario as
seen respectively, in the tables below.

Max Stress
Node
Analysis Node Location Location Description Stress (Psi)
Number

Midpoint of the base

Standing Still 1882 (0,-0.49,0) 1.60E+04
of main roll hoop

Bottom left corner of

Roll Over 1166 (-19,-6,0) the section where the 1.67E+04
engine is placed
Rolled Over
Midpoint of the top of
(Upside 340 (0,-0.5,46) 3.79E+03
the main hoop
Down)
Bottom front left
Front Impact 2451 (53.65,-5.87,0.5) 4.58E+06
corner
Top left corner of the
Side Impact 1248 (-19,-7.76,7.5) section where the 4.16E+06
engine is placed

Max Displacement
Node
Analysis Node Location Location Description Displacment (in)
Number

Bottom front left

Standing Still 2434 (53.6,-5.86,0) 7.26E-02
corner

Bottom front left

Roll Over 2434 (53.6,-5.86,0) 2.66E-01
corner
Rolled Over Point on the back
(Upside 36 (-7.76,-4.31,36.94) support of the main 5.98E-03
Down) hoop
Front Impact 2548 (53.65,-4.37,15.6) Top front left corner 4.19E+01

Side Impact 2468 (53.65,3.34,15.96) Top front right corner 8.43E+01

 28

Discussion
The results that are summarized in figure A.36 and Figure A.37 for each of the five cases
are calculated using a linear-elastic method meaning the results are directly proportional to the
magnitude of the load applied.
Standing still is the first load case which is the frame is statically loaded. The graphical
results show the stress at different location and the position of maximum deflection (Figure
A.36). The maximum displacement was found to be .0726 inches at the front left bottom corner.
This makes sense that the magnitude of the displacement is so small because the frame is not
under extreme loading. The location of the stress does not make sense though because most of
the weight is in the rear of the frame. This may be due to the location or way that the frame is
constrained at the boundary conditions, but no further conclusion can be drawn from this result.
The maximum stress for the statically loaded case is 16 kpsi at the midpoint of the base of the
main roll hoop. As far as comparing the magnitude of this result to real life results, it is
impossible due to the lack of real world calculations. The location of this stress is logically
correct because most of the weight is placed toward the rear with the heaviest components of the
car being the driver and the engine which are on opposing sides of the location of max stress.
The roll over case simulates the frame subjected to lateral forces and only constrained on
one side of the vehicle (Figure A.37). The maximum displacement was found to be .266 inches
at the front left bottom corner. Again the magnitude of this displacement is reasonable, but the
location of this displacement does not make sense. The maximum stress of this case is 16.7 kpsi
at the bottom left corner of the engine bay. This makes sense because it is constrained on this
side and the concentration of weight is close to this area. A better way to visualize it is if there
was enough lateral force the stress would be located on the side in which the tires are still
touching the ground.
The rolled over case or the case in which the car is sitting upside down is fixed at the a-
arms, and a downward force is placed on the top front of the roll hoop which simulates the roll
bar holding the weight of the car (Figure A.38). The maximum displacement was found to be
.00598 inches at the bar which supports the main hoop. This makes sense because the reason for
the support bar is to add rigidity to the main hoop during a rollover situation. The maximum
stress is 3.79 kpsi located at the midpoint of the top of the main hoop. This makes sense because
 29

the forces were applied evenly on and around this point because it is holding up the weight of the
car.
The front impact case was analyzed and graphically displaced (Figure A.39). The
maximum displacement for this case is 41.9 inches which was located at top front left corner.
The location of this displacement makes sense because the load was applied at the front hoop and
we expect this member to act a crumple zone. The magnitude of the deflection is very high and
unlikely because to calculate the force at 100 mph crash at 15 milliseconds the deceleration is
extremely high. The average top speed during competition is usually near 65mph, so using this
result and its linear-elastic properties, we can conclude that the deflection at 65mph and 15
milliseconds is 27.23 inches. The max stress at 100 mph and 65 mph, respectively is 458 kpsi
and 297.7 kpsi and located at bottom front left corner. The location of these stresses makes sense
because the impact is occurring about this point. The magnitudes of these values seem
reasonable for the amount of force being applied.
The side impact case was analyzed and graphically shown (Figure A.40). The maximum
displacement at 100mph and 65mph for this case is 84.3 inches 54.8 respectively. The width at
the widest point of the car, which this force was applied, is 30.5 inches, so if the car was to get
hit with this kind of speed the driver would certainly be dead. The maximum stress of this case is
416 kpsi and 270 kpsi for 100 mph and 65mph respectively which is located at top left corner of
the engine bay. This location makes sense due to its proximity with the point of impact.
 30

Conclusion
The analysis that was run on the frame was in the preliminary steps and could be
improved before the SAE competition. One way that the analysis could be improved is if the
displacements and stresses for each load case could be found analytically or experimentally so
that they could be compared to the simulated results from the finite element analysis. Another
thing that could be researched is why the displacements for the static and rolling over case occurs
at the front of the frame and not at the expected location in the middle of the frame. The front
impact case could also be ran again to include the reinforcement crash foam that is attached to
the front of the frame and the results could be compared to the displacements and stresses
generated without it. Overall this initial model and analysis was a good start and provides a good
foundation for any future team with the goal of running finite element analysis of the formula
SAE frame.
 31

Appendix A Detailed Figures

Figure A.1 The first iteration of the front upright design.

Figure A.2 - shows the top view of the first iteration of the front upright model (top) and the
second iteration (bottom). This illustrates the solution to move the brake bracket where the
caliper attaches in the positive z direction to allow a proper alignment of parts. This also
illustrates the reduction of bulk on the steering bracket
bracket.

.
 32

Figure A.3 The second iteration of the front upright design.

Figure A.4 The third iteration of the front upright design.

 33

Figure A.5 The fourth iteration of the front up

upright
right design, where the brake bracket is a bolt-on
bolt
component.

Figure A.6 - shows the illustration of the fourth iteration of design with the components spaced
out for a clearer picture of all components involved.
 34

Figure A.7 The final version of the front upright that was modified for easier CNC machining.

Figure A.8 Initial design of the rear upright.

 35

Figure A.9 Rear upright without webbing.

Figure A.10 Rear upright with reduced thickness.

 36

Figure A.11 Rear upright final design concept.

Figure A.12 Finalized rear upright that was sent to be CNC machined.
 37

Figure A.13- Table of wheel weights at each corner of the 2011 ODU SAE Formula car.

Figure A.14 Graph of lateral force versus slip angle on a Michelin tire, as a function of vertical
load.
 38

Figure A.15 - Normal Force loading applied to the front upright for analysis.

Figure A.16 - Lateral Force

 39

Figure A.17 - Braking

Figure A.18 Steering Left

 40

Figure A.19 Steering Right

Figure A.20 Rear upright

Figure A.21
 41

Figure A.22
 42

Figure A.23

Figure A.24 Conical style intake runner collector.

 43

Figure A.25- Initial intake runner design.

Figure A.26 Final intake runner design with simplified bends.

 44

Figure A.27 Final assembly of the intake.

Figure A.28 The result from running SolidWorks FloXpress flow simulation.
 45

Figure A.29 Dynomometer graph of horsepower and torque versus RPM for the 2011 #106
ODU formula Car.
 46

Figure A.30 Graph detailing theoretical and Solidworks flow modeled flow rate vs RPM

Flowrate vs. Engine RPM

1.200

1.000

0.800
Flowrate (m3/s)

0.600

0.400 Theoretical
SolidWorks
0.200

0.000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Engine RPM

Figure A.31 A graph showing the volumetric efficiency as derived from the flow analysis in
SolidWorks

Volumetric Efficiency vs Mean Piston Speed

1.00
0.90
0.80
Volumetric Efficiency, %

0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.000 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.000 120.000 140.000
Mean Piston Speed, (m/s)
 47

Figure A.32 Graph showing standard volumetric efficiencies vs mean piston speed.

Figure A.33 - Elastic

lastic modulus is in psi
 48

Figure A.34 -

Figure A.35

Given: velocity = 100 mph, weight = 600lbs, time = 15 msec

( )( )
= = 146 ft/s
()

w = mg where m = mass and g = gravity

600 lbs = 32.2 ft/s2 * m

m = 18.63 lbm

0 = v + a*t where a = acceleration

0 = 146 + (0.015)

a = -9733.33 ft/s2

F = ma where F = force

F = (18.63 lbm) * (9733.33 ft/s2)

F = -181,000 lb
 49

Figure A.36 -

Figure A.37 -
 50

Figure A.38 -

Figure A.39 -
 51

Figure A.40 -
 52

References
[1] B. Bolles, Advanced Race Car Chassis Technology vol. HP1562: HP Trade, 2010.
[2] (2013, 10/17/2013). Formula SAE Challenge [Website]. Available:
http://www.michelinman.com/motorsports/formula-sae-challenge.page
[3] "Rod Ends, Sphericals, Rolling Element Bearings," in Heim Bearings, R. Bearings, Ed.,
2013 ed. West Trenton, New Jersey: RBC Bearings, 2013, p. 11.
[4] P. G. Sturgess. (2013, 10/17/2013). Engineering Inspiration [Website]. Available:
http://www.engineeringinspiration.co.uk/brakecalcs.html
[5] John B. Heywood, Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals. United States: McGraw-
Hill, 1988.
[6] D. G. Hou, "MAE 441 Lab Handbook," ed, Fall 2013, pp. 2.16-2.18;2.22-2.26.

[7] D. G. Hou. (Fall 2013, 11-30-13). PATRAN Tutorial Manual. 45-58