Design analysis of formula student race car suspension system

Julian Wisnu Wirawan, Ubaidillah, Rama Aditra, Rafli Alnursyah, Rizki Abdul Rahman, and Sukmaji Indro
Cahyono

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1931, 030051 (2018); doi: 10.1063/1.5024110

View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5024110
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1931/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics

Articles you may be interested in

Aerodynamic analysis of formula student car
AIP Conference Proceedings 1931, 030048 (2018); 10.1063/1.5024107

Static load simulation of steering knuckle for a formula student race car
AIP Conference Proceedings 1931, 030049 (2018); 10.1063/1.5024108

Computational studies of an intake manifold for restricted engine application

AIP Conference Proceedings 1931, 030035 (2018); 10.1063/1.5024094

Numerical simulation of several impact attenuator design for a formula student car
AIP Conference Proceedings 1931, 030036 (2018); 10.1063/1.5024095

Experiment evaluation of impact attenuator for a racing car under static load
AIP Conference Proceedings 1931, 030047 (2018); 10.1063/1.5024106

Vertical bending strength and torsional rigidity analysis of formula student car chassis
AIP Conference Proceedings 1931, 030050 (2018); 10.1063/1.5024109
 Design Analysis of Formula Student Race Car Suspension
System
Julian Wisnu Wirawan1, Ubaidillah1, 2, a), Rama Aditra1, Rafli Alnursyah1, Rizki
Abdul Rahman1, and Sukmaji Indro Cahyono1
1
Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta, 57126,
Indonesia
2
National Center for sustainable Transportation Technology (NCSTT), SHERA Project, USAID
a)
Corresponding author: ubaid.ubaidillah@gmail.com

Abstract. Design analysis of suspension especially for racecar suspension is very crucial to achieve maximum performance
and handling. Suspension design may vary depending on the road terrain and the vehicle purpose itself, such as high speed
or off-road vehicle. This paper focused on the suspension which used for racecar vehicle. The suspension type used was
unequal double wishbone. This model is used because of its stability for high-speed usage compared to another kind of
suspension. The suspension parameter was calculated to achieve desired performance. The result is the motion ratio of the
designed suspension geometry. The obtained value of motion ratio was 1:2 for front suspension and 1:1 for the rear
suspension. These calculation result the front suspension is still too soft, which the optimal motion ratio should be kept
around 1:1 for better handling. This problem caused by the lack of space for suspension linkage.

INTRODUCTION
FSAE is a student competition, sponsored by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), in which students
design, build, and participate in a small formula-style race car. The basis of the competition is that a fictitious company
has contracted a group of engineers to create a small formula car [1]. The FSAE competition was well-known to
provide an educational experience for college students that is equivalent to the type of assignments they will face in
the workforce [2-3]. To participate in FSAE, student group’s work with a project from the conceptual design phase
until it is completed [3]. Aspects of engineering design, teamwork, project management, and finance have been
incorporated into the basic rules of Formula SAE [4]. The event needs each team to design and manufacture the
formula small racing car according to the provisions of the contest and the racing car manufacturing standards [5]. As
a result, the performance of the vehicle has a decisive effect on the results of the competition. Notably, the suspension
system is a vital mechanism to apprehend the ride comfort and handling stability. The research of the suspension
system of the car and the optimization design is to guarantee the necessary performance of the vehicle [6-8].
The suspension system is the mechanism connecting the body with the wheels. When the body has irrelative motion
between the wheels, the movement is constrained by the suspension with all types of forces and moments between the
wheels and the ground. The design of the suspension system is an essential part of the overall vehicle design, which
determines the performance of the racing car [7-9].

FSAE RACING CAR SUSPENSION DESIGN

According to the requirements of Japan student formula race, the race car suspension needs to have the shock
absorber. The suspension travel should have more than 50 mm to ensure the vehicle stability and the ability to satisfy
the needs of maneuverability while competing through the events. Therefore, the FSAE car suspension design should
meet the following requirements:

The 3rd International Conference on Industrial, Mechanical, Electrical, and Chemical Engineering
AIP Conf. Proc. 1931, 030051-1–030051-8; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5024110
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1623-9/$30.00

030051-1
  It must have the proper attenuation vibration ability.
 It must guarantee the car has excellent handling and stability performance.
 It must be light but durable.
 It should assure smooth operation and control for the driver.
 It must have convenient installation and easy adjustment.

Main Technology Parameters

Given the flexibility and excellent motion characteristics of the double wishbone layout, the unequal length
independent suspension is adopted. The FSAE rules state that the rim diameter must not less than 203.2 mm, while
the frequently used rim sizes are 254 mm and 330.2 mm. Because the 330.2 mm is large, it may cause tire slip and
have less torque even though have high top speed, therefore the Keizer 10"x 8 rim is selected. According to the rim
size, the selected tire model is type Hoosier 18.0 x 7.5-10", R25B to achieve maximum tire contact patch.
The FSAE rules also stated that the car wheelbase must no less than 1525 mm. Since the increased wheelbase
directly adds the vehicle's weight and need more space when turning in a corner. The vehicle center of gravity has to
be positioned as close as possible in the middle of the wheelbase in a lateral position to stabilize the vehicle while
turning. After considering other component’s location such as; the engine, cooling system, exhaust system, and other
component’s areas, the vehicle wheelbase is selected. The wheelbase is initially chosen as 1565 mm. After determining
the wheelbase, the wheel track B is determined by the empirical formula in Equation (1).

B  kL (1)

Where L is the wheelbase in mm; and then k is the dimensionless unit. The optimum value of k is ranged from 90-
0.96.
The front wheel track is smaller than the rear wheel track to maintain stability, with the cost of a little bit of
understeering and higher lane space required when turning into a corner. The original front wheel track is 1440 mm,
and the rear wheel track is 1500 mm.
Table 1 shows the selected racing car main technology parameters according to the considerations above.

TABLE 1. Selected main technology parameters

Parameter (unit) Value

Car length (mm) 2811
Car Height (mm) 1348
Wheelbase (mm) 1565
Front Wheel Track (mm) 1440
Rear Wheel Track (mm) 1500
Total mass without driver (kg) 160
Front load: Rear load ratio (dimensionless) 39:61

Offset Frequency
Offset frequency is the undamped natural frequency of the sprung mass. Offset frequency has a significant effect
on the suspension’s performance. Excessive offset frequency leads to hard suspension, enhancing the handling and
stability of the suspension system. Low offset frequency means softer suspension, resulting in increased ride comfort.
In racing car design, a certain degree of ride comfort can be appropriately sacrificed. Therefore, a significant offset
frequency is selected.
The offset frequency determines the static suspension deflection, and the formula can calculate the excellent
stiffness KR in Equation (2).

030051-2
 1 KR
fn  (2)
2 m

Where fn is the offset frequency, Hz; fn is the optimum stiffness, N/m; is the load of the shaft, kg.

The equivalent stiffness of suspension and tire can be calculated using Equation (3)

1 1 1
  (3)
K R KW K T

where, Kw is the suspension stiffness, N/m; KT is the radial stiffness of the tire.

Based on the structure and the required performance of FSAE race car, so the wheel alignment parameters
selection is carried out within a limited range to satisfy the vehicle performance within the determined safety factor.
Car wheel alignment parameters have negative camber angle with negative toe angle. This condition is due to
camber and toe angle change per wheel travel. Table 2 shows that after comprehensive consideration of various factors,
the car wheel alignment parameter was determined.

TABLE 2. Selected wheel alignment parameters

Camber Kingpin Caster Toe

Alignment Parameter
Angle(°) Inclination (°) Angle (°) Angle (°)
Front Suspension 0 5 4 3
Rear Suspension 0 0 0 0

Offset frequency is essential in designing suspension. It defines the ability of suspension to maintain the stability
of the vehicle. Front offset frequency and rear can be obtained from Equation (4)

kq kh
mq mh
nq  , nh  (4)
2 2

where, kq is front suspension stiffness (N/m); kh is rear suspension stiffness (N/m); mq is sprung mass of front
suspension (kg); mh is sprung mass of rear suspension (kg).

For FSAE racing car, the primary objective is to complete the race with best completion time, and the prerequisite
of the ride comfort is low, and therefore, the selection of the offset frequency is high enough to maintain stability and
excellent handling during the race. The following offset frequency is selected to achieve these condition. The initial
front suspension offset frequency is 1.26 Hz, and the rear one is 1.16 Hz. For the independent suspension, roll angle
stiffness Cs is expressed in Equation (5)

1
C  K1B 2 (5)
2
where, B is the wheel track, mm; K1 is the line stiffness of the suspension, N/mm.

Suspension System Geometry and Parameters

Generally speaking, if the roll angle stiffness is more significant, the handling and stability will be improved, and
the corresponding ride comfort will be less. Otherwise, the vehicle will tend to roll according to its roll axis. In the
result of 0.5g lateral stiffness, the roll angle should be maintained in the range of 2° to 5°. The equivalent roll angle

030051-3
stiffness affects the handling and stability, therefore to avoid the tendency to roll over, the rear suspension roll angle
stiffness is kept smaller than the front.
When the roll center is high, the roll torque will be smaller, as a result, the body-roll angle increases consequently.
If the roll center is too elevated can pressurize the wheel track when the body tilts, thus reducing the service life of
tires. For FSAE racing, the roll center is kept low, so the sprung mass does not roll too much so that excellent stability
and handling. For the parallel double cross arm, the roll center is identical with the cross arm observed from the
vertical plane perpendicular to the vehicle centerline from the center of tire contact patch. Thus, the center roll is
automatically set on the ground because of the suspension geometry.
The trim center of double wishbone type independent suspension can be acquired by applying the process of
drawing. The juncture point of the extension of the upper and lower wishbone rotating shafts is the trim center.
In the designing of double wishbone independent suspension design, the low cross arm is longer than the upper
cross arm. The arm length ratio of the upper and lower cross arm dimension is about 0.81 so that the camber rate is
kept minimal to ensure the handling and stability.
Through the above description and initial design calculation, the suspension geometry is determined. It is essential
to design the suspension geometry so it can match with the design of the available space and the FSAE rules and get
the optimal performance. Figure 1 shows the suspension geometry pivot for both front and rear suspension observed
from vertical plane perpendicular to vehicle centerline.

(a) (b)
FIGURE 1. Suspension geometry pivot for; (a) front suspension system, and (b) rear suspension system.

From the suspension geometry pivot which has determined, the front and rear suspension parameters are shown in
Table 3.

TABLE 3. Selected suspension parameters

Parameter (unit) Front Suspension Rear Suspension

Offset Frequency (Hz) 1.26 1.16
Roll center height (mm) 0 0
Pushrod length (mm) 50 309
Upper cross arm length (mm) 148 258
Lower cross arm length (mm) 182 307
Free length of damper (mm) 202 202

After the suspension parameters are determined, motion ratio could be determined. Motion ratio is the ratio of
suspension displacement versus wheel displacement. Figure 2 shows a chart of motion ratio for both front and rear
suspension system. It can be observed that motion ratio is different according to the suspension geometry. Motion
ratio is to be set as near as possible to 1:1, but it is difficult to achieve due to the trigonometrical relation of the
suspension linkage.

030051-4
 FIGURE 2. Suspension rate vs. wheel rate for front suspension system and rear suspension system.

From the figure above the motion ratio keeps at 1:2 for the front suspension and 1:1 for the rear suspension,
constantly. More motion ratio results on softer suspension, which is to be avoided regarding the high-speed vehicle.
The cause of the high motion ratio is the lack area used for the suspension linkage.

Modeling and Assembly Result

After the following calculation next is to design the suspension to evaluate if the determined geometry can be
manufactured and will not fail upon usage. This model analysis will result more in practical matters, in example the
unique feature for the designed suspension and shape optimization
Because of FSAE race car is designed having rear wheel drive with only front end steering, therefore the design
of the front and rear steering knuckle unlike. Upper and low bolt holes of the steering knuckle are connected on the
outer ball head pins of the upper and lower cross arms, with the bearing hole and the shaft shoulder in the middle. The
front and rear knuckle have different material to achieve the desired center of gravity. The rear knuckle doesn’t have
brake caliper mounting because the rear brake uses single braking at the differential. Therefore, there are two
mounting points on the upper end of the rear steering knuckle. Figure 3 shows the 3D model of the knuckles.

030051-5
 (a) (b)
FIGURE 3. Knuckle for; (a) front suspension system, and (b) rear suspension system.

Cross arms are used for controlling the motion of the knuckle againts the chassis. Different length results in
different camber rate. The cross arms are made of a pair of steel pipe welded to a short tube in the welding junction.
There is additional short, small diameter steel tube in this short steel pipe with a threaded hole, which is welded
together. The lower cross arm is installed with the push rod, so above the two steel pipes, the steel plate is welded then
another steel bracket is welded with an open bolt hole in the middle. At the edges of the cross arms are installed with
rod ends to fasten the arms with the mounting at the frame. Figure 4 shows the 3D model of upper and lower control
arms.

FIGURE 4. Upper and low control arm models.

Because of the suspension cannot directly linked to the control arm, so rocker linkage is used. Rocker is used for
transferring road force to suspension. Due to the push rod of the front and rear suspension is arranged differently
according to the space available. Therefore the shapes of the front and rear rocker arms are also different. Front and
rear rocker are three hinged. Each of the hinge is used for push rod link, suspension, and bracket joint. Figure 5 shows
the front and rear rocker arms.

030051-6
 (a) s (b)
FIGURE 5. Upper and low control arm models.

Pushrod is used for transferring the road force to the rocker linkage. The pushrod is a steel pipe with a threaded
hole at both ends, which joins ball handle of ball head pin and the bell crank with the steel bracket of the lower cross
arm. Both hinged threads are accustomed to change the position of the rod ends according to diverse road conditions,
efficiently setting the clearance of the car from the ground to make the vehicle in an optimal state. The pushrod is
shown in Figure 6 below.

FIGURE 6. Pushrod models.

DNM Burner RCP type damper is selected because of the damping ability and have the prerequisite stiffness from
the calculation above. The 3D model of the real part is shown in Figure 7.

FIGURE 7. Model of the damper.

The 3D models of the main parts are made with Autodesk Fusion 360 software to be assembled. Constraints are
augmented between the components to make an assembly. Figure 8 shows the front and rear suspension system 3D
assembly models.

030051-7
 (a) (b)
FIGURE 8. 3D assembly model of; (a) front suspension system, and (b) rear suspension system

CONCLUSION
Suspension design of FSAE race car has been performed by studying the suspension kinematic and components
development. The main idea is the characteristics of the designed suspension, which vary depends on the purpose of
the vehicle. The suspension which was intended achieve motion ratio 1:2 and 1:1 for front and rear suspension. The
designed front suspension was still too soft for a racing purposed vehicle, which is for a racing car should keep around
1:1 to keep the car stabilized. The conclusion of the research is the suspension still too soft. This problem can be
solved by giving more space for the linkage so it can work optimally with a better geometry.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Authors would like to thank Ristekdikti, UNS Global Challenge, and UNS International Office for giving authors
financial support. Authors also acknowledge SHERA Project, USAID for the financial support.

REFERENCES
1. Y.H. Jiang, Automobile & Parts 23, 44-45 (2012).
2. Ubaidillah, S.A. Mazlan, J. Sutrisno, Zamzuri, Applied Mechanics and Materials 663, 695-699 (2014).
3. H. Wang, L. Yang, R.N. Peng, Journal of Guangdong University of Technology 30, 105-108 (2013).
4. X.Y. Li, Y. Zhang, Automotive Engineering 25, 15-19 (2003) 15-19.
5. W. Schiehlen, I. Iroz, Procedia IUTAM 13, 151-159 (2015).
6. A. C. Mitra, Kiranchand, T. Soni, N. Banerjee, Procedia Engineering 144, 1102-1109 (2016).
7. B. Ichwan, S.A. Mazlan, F. Imaduddin, Ubaidillah, T. Koga, M.H. Idris, Smart Materials and Structures 25, 45-
52 (2016).
8. C. Tang, L. He, A. Khajepour, Mechanism and Machine Theory 120, 225-238 (2018).
9. L.M. Niu, J.K. Zhang, C. Liu, J. Automotive Engineer 9, 430-436 (2012).

030051-8