1

SUPRA
SAE 2011

Preliminary Design Report

Submitted by:
Tarun Kumar Chitkara
Team Leader
Team UPES Formula Racing
(Dehradun)
Email ID : [email protected]
 Preliminary Design Report
Abhishek Dixit
Designer

Siddhant Gupta
Team Vice-Captian

ABSTRACT 4. Analysis of CAD Model

The objective of this project is to design, simulate and 5. PVC Prototype of roll-cage
finally fabricating a formula style racing vehicle.
6. Ergonomics analysis
The vehicle should be aerodynamically designed,
economic, safe and single seat high performance 7. Revision of CAD Model after ergonomic analysis
vehicle intended for sale to the nonprofessional
weekend racing enthusiasts. 8. Simulation of component assemblies and sub-
assemblies before fabrication.
Ergonomics will be an integral part of our design
strategy and anthropometric data has been used. 9. Chassis Fabrication & Suspension Systems
Special focus will be put on human comfort, the ease of Assembly
mass production of the vehicle and almost all the vehicle
subsystems will be designed and fabricated by the team 10. Steering & Braking Systems Assembly
indigenously.
11. Engine and Transmission Mounting
The vehicle will be fabricated meticulously by the team,
using state-of-the-art facilities, comprehensively 12. Final Integration, testing & optimization.
satisfying both the design goals and manufacturing
constraints. Other major parameters (stated in the rulebook) which
were considered while designing the Supra SAE
vehicle were:

• Both the roll hoops are to be supported by a

INTRODUCTION minimum of two members.

The Supra SAE car is to be designed and fabricated • The wheelbase should not be less than
considering the fact that the vehicle should be 1524mm.
completely safe for the driver in case of collisions from
any side and should be stable enough to avoid toppling • Front roll hoop should be no lower than top of
in case of steep cornering. It should also be steering wheel at any angle.
aerodynamically correct for better maneuverability and
road adherence even at the highest achievable speed of • A straight line drawn from the top of the main
the vehicle. hoop to the top of the front hoop must clear by
50.8 mm the helmet of all team’s drivers.
Thereby, the over-all vehicle development methodology
that is and that will be followed by our team is stated • The smaller track of the vehicle must be no less
below: than 75% of the larger track.

1. Design Considerations The team has thus utilized the basic learned concepts of
designing while considering worst case situations for
2. Task Assignment designing various sub-systems of the vehicle.

3. CAD Modelling
ROLL CAGE DESIGN ERGONOMICS

OBJECTIVE

With a limited amount of power, the focus is primarily on Anthropometric data was considered for the 95th
the power to weight ratio of the vehicle. With then engine percentile male driver. Data like full functional length of
limitation, the only means to improve this critical arm, leg etc, height, buttock to knee length etc
parameter is to reduce the overall vehicle weight were taken. Angles b/w knees and legs, torso etc were
compromising the overall safety parameters of the taken while taking ergonomic seating data into account.
vehicle. The function of the space frame is to protect the To be doubly sure of the design constraints acc to the
driver and support front and rear suspension systems, rule book and ergonomics data, we also used a 3D
engine, drive train, steering system and other systems in mannequin of a 6 feet human, 95th percentile male.
the vehicle. The objective of the frame design was to
satisfy these functions while meeting the SAE
regulations with special considerations given to safety of Mannequins or Digital Human models/virtual models
the occupants, ease of manufacturing, cost, quality, were created based on anthropometry of the drivers to
weight, and aesthetics. Moreover care has been taken to be used for visualization, simulations as well as to aid in
ensure that there are minimum welds on the frame pipes modeling the occupant seat. Good human formula
and maximum bends ensuring better strength and less racing vehicle interface design ensures that the vehicle
cost of production of the vehicle. cockpit will ensure ease of operation like a conventional
vehicle.
MATERIAL SELECTION

The rules define the cage to be made with materials Measurements are such taken that when seated, the
equivalent to the following specification: angle between the fore-arms and upper arms of the
Steel members with at least equal bending stiffness and driver subdues an angle of 120 degrees, while on the
bending strength to 1018 steel or ASTM A106 Grade B steering as this is the most comfortable position for
& steering-human interface.
Tube Grade having a circular cross section with a 2.54
cm
(1.5 inch) OD and a wall thickness of 3 mm (0.118 inch )
with Chemical Properties: C=0.28 – 0.33;Mn= 0.40 - .60;
Si= 0.15 – 0.30; S= 0.04 max.; P=0.35 max.;
Cr= 0.80-1.10.; Mo= 0.15-0.25.

Materials that can be used for this type of tubing are

1018 Mild Steel and 4130 Chromoly Steel.The benefit of
using 4130 Chromoly steel is that it is 17.5% stronger
than the 1018 Mild Steel.The 4130 Chromoly has the
same Modulus of Elasticity and density as the mild steel,
so using it does not affect the weight or stiffness in
members with the same geometry. However the
increase in Yield Strength affects the bending strength.
As the bending strength is affected not only by cross
sectional moment of inertia of the material but also by
the radius, the 4130 allows the usage of a larger
diameter tube with a smaller wall thickness. This in turn
can allow a reduction of weight. Additionally, the 4130
Chromoly steel is more ductile than the 1018.

The frame will be built using a bent tube construction

and
MIG welded joints.MIG (as well as TIG) welding
becomes difficult at wall thicknesses less than 0.035
inches. Most tubing benders used for the fabrication can
bend a maximum of 1.5 inch diameter tube with a 0.120
inch wall thickness. They also require that the tube have
a minimum wall thickness of 0.055 inches. The material
that suits our choice is AISI 4130 Chromoly steel.
ROLL CAGE FEA ANALYSIS OF ROLLCAGE

Frame was designed and analyzed using Catia & Solid Front Impact
Works 2007 software. While designing, there are a few
important loading situations that should be analyzed. It was assumed that worst case collision would be seen
These include frontal impact, side impact, rear impact when the vehicle runs into a stationary object. To
and rollover impact. Special focus was put on properly model the impact force the deceleration of the
ergonomics of the drivers, keeping in mind the safety vehicle after impact needs to be found. The research
and comfort. The vehicle has been designed for the 5th found that the human body will pass out at loads much
percentile female to the 95th percentile male thus higher than 9 times the force of gravity or 9 G’s. A value
accommodating the 90% population. of 20 G’s was set as the goal point for an extreme worst
case collision. Loads are only applied at one end of the
Approximate vehicle weight is 350 kg. After considering chassis because application of forces at one end while
1.4 as factor of safety (FOS), design weight was taken constraining at the other result in a more conservative
as 490 Kg. Since the Yield strength of material used is approach because there would be increased bending
360.6 MPa and as per the analysis the maximum stress loads due to larger unsupported loaded lengths.
that the frame could bear came out to be 47.9 MPa.
Therefore calculating the factor of safety as per the Considering worst case collision, the vehicle collides to a
stress: stationary wall at acceleration 20G’s (Mostly achieved by
planes)
360.9 MPa / 47.9 MPa = 7.528, (FOS is greater than 5
as per the rule book) From the impulse equation
F. dt = change in momentum
Frame weight < 72kg F. dt = m. dv
material: AISI 4130, round tubes used F = m. dv/dt
max width of roll cage : 850mm F = m.a
max length of the roll cage : 2820mm F = m*20*g = mg *20 = total weight * 20
max height of the roll cage: 1100 mm F = 14000N

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS This force is applied at the two front most corners of the
roll cage, while restraining from the back side.
SELF WEIGHT OF ROLL CAGE: 72 kg Maximum Stress obtained from FEA analysis was less
than the yield strength of the material, so the vehicle is
OTHER WEIGHTS ON ROLL CAGE: safe for front collision.

Engine: 80 Kg
Transmission : 30 Kg
Driver: 70 Kg
Other weights : 98 Kg

TOTAL WEIGHT = 350 Kg

DESIGN WEIGHT = 490 Kg.

Side Impact

As a side impact is most likely to occur with the vehicle

already in motion so it was assumed that neither vehicle
would be a fixed object. The side impact force was
calculated keeping 10 G’s of deceleration which is
equivalent to 7000N for a 350 Kg vehicle. Side impact
force is calculated /analysed by constraining the entire
one side of the frame & applying a force equivalent to &
7000N on the other side of the frame.7000N force has
been taken for analysis since during collision the vehicle
will decelerate at a force equivalent to 10G & as the
weight of the frame is 70 Kg the net force comes out to
be same as stated above. Since the other vehicles Rear Impact
would also be in motion so relatively less force will act
on the vehicle. Thus taking 10G’s for the side impact, It was assumed that worst case collision would be seen
F = 7000N when the vehicle runs into a stationary object. To
properly model the impact force the deceleration of the
vehicle after impact needs to be found. The research
found that the human body will pass out at loads much
higher than 9 times the force of gravity or 9 G’s. A value
of 15 G’s was set as the goal point for an extreme worst
case collision. Loads are only applied at one end of the
chassis because application of forces at one end while
constraining at the other result in a more conservative
approach because there would be increased bending
loads due to larger unsupported loaded lengths.

Considering worst case collision, the vehicle collides to a

stationary wall at acceleration 15G’s (Mostly achieved by
planes)
F = m*15*g = mg *15 = total weight *15
F = 10500N
This force is applied at the two rear most corners of the
roll cage, while restraining from the front side.
Maximum Stress obtained from FEA analysis was less
than the yield strength of the material, so the vehicle is
safe for front collision.
Rollover Impact

As there won’t be any direct forces that would cause

rollover thus rollover impact was analyzed for 3.5G’s of
deceleration, which is equivalent to 2500N of force.
Rollover impact determines the cornering capability of
the vehicle without toppling. It is the measuring of
adherence of the vehicle to the ground when acted
upon by a force which intends to topple the vehicle. It is
calculated by constraining the bottom of the frame and
applying a side force on the top of the roll hoop.
PART MODULATION Long suspension links also allow more movement of the
system before large camber changes occur. The designed
SUSPENSION SYSTEM camber change rates are 0.84 and 0.53 deg/deg in roll, and
0.29 and .53 deg/in in bump in case of front and rear
The suspension was designed with the intention of keeping
respectively.
good straight line stability and minimal load transfer during
cornering, braking and acceleration. The suspension is of Placing the roll centers lower also correspond to longer
Double Wishbone type with unequal, non‐parallel A arms. FVSAs, 143” for the front and 118.0” for the rear.
We are operating with 0 degrees of camber both at front and
To maintain stability at high speeds without any handling rear.
problems, a longer wheelbase was decided upon. This, besides Front wheels both right and left are given 1 degree of toe out.
giving us reduced longitudinal load transfer and understeer, Springs used at front have stiffness of 300lbs/inch and that of
also gave us more space to pack the rest of the components.
the springs at the rear is 400lbs/inch. The difference in the
The track‐width was measured in proportion with the
wheelbase, giving us good lateral load transfer and corner spring stiffness is the outcome of the fore/aft weight
entry. A front track of 1250mm and a rear track of 1200mm distribution.
were chosen. The wheelbase is 1600 mm. All the designing and iterative analysis of suspension
geometry was carried out using suspension analyzer software.
For effective suspension design the roll centre height must
decrease at about the same rate as the suspension is
compressed.
The considerations adopted for such a design are as follows:
1) Upper and lower ball joints as far as possible because
this will help in lower forces from any load to the
chassis as the spread between the points in increased.
Clearance between the joints and the wheels and tires
should be given utmost importance.
2) King pin inclination angle should be 3-8 degrees as
excessive KPI makes tire contact patch to run up the
edge of the tire as it is turned. And if the KPI is less
than the scrub radius which should ideally be 0 will
not be minimum. So a compromise is struck between
the KPI and the scrub radius.
3) Lower control arm should be as long as possible
because it helps in reducing angularity the ball joints
must accommodate as well as slows down angular
change of the suspension members as they go
through their travel.
4) Upper control arm length should be optimized so that
it minimum change in roll centre location comes
during jounce and roll. A shorter control arm than the
optimized length will make the camber gain
progressive.
5) Longer Swing arm lengths at normal ride height so
that they give minimum camber gain.
6) Minimum roll centre movement by controlling
following features:
a) Optimizing upper control arm length
b) No lateral movement during turns
c) Relative movement of roll centre with
suspension travel for best handling results.
We positioned our roll centers at 1.34” and 2.81” above the
ground in the front and rear respectively. We had to keep such
a difference between front and rear roll centers so as to suit
our weight distribution ratio and make sure that the car won’t
jack up from front during heavy acceleration.
BRAKING SYSTEM

The braking system locks all four wheels by using Where ,

outboard braking for front and inboard braking for the
rear axle. Required braking force and braking torque Rp = brake pedal lever ratio, 4
was calculated. Then we calculated the required dia of F = brake force at each wheel
2
the disc for the calculated force. After the market Am = area of master cylinder ,32mm
research we zeroed in on to brake callipers & disc of Aw = area of front calliper piston, 50.24 mm2
motorcycle considering the factors like cost, availability µ = friction coefficient of brake lining,0.4
and ease of installation. The callipers are powered by r = effective radius of calliper, 10 cm
dual master cylinders. Two master cylinders are used to R = loaded radius of wheel, 16.57 cm
impart brake biasing and to increase safety by Hence the final value for the applied braking force
incorporating dual redundancy as well as for SAE rules comes out to be 29166 N.
compliance. Using this system a failure in one circuit will
not result in entire braking failure. Another reason for The kinetic energy of the vehicle moving at a speed of
choosing this design was its compact arrangement. The 105 kmph :
master cylinders mount directly to the indigenously built K.E =1/2×mv2
pedal. The brake biasing is done in a ratio of 40:60 =168200N-m
same as the weight distribution on the front and rear So the required braking force
tires so the braking force is distributed in a ratio of 40:60 Ft = 168200/10
to front and rear tires respectively. = 16830N

The wheel balancing equation was formulated and the Comparing the values of the applied & required braking
required forces were calculated to have maximum force it is observed that F exceeds Ft by 13000N. Thus
braking force and ensure maximum safety to the driver we can lock the wheels by applying the brakes at any
as well as to other driver, whenever brake is applied the achievable speed of the vehicle.
vehicle weight and kinetic energy acts from the centre of
gravity of vehicle this causes the vehicle to pitch forward STEERING SYSTEM
as the brakes are applied so some weight of the vehicle
is transferred from the rear to front wheels, so the A rack and pinion steering system will be used over a
maximum transfer of weight amounts to recirculating-ball system because of low cost, light
weight and simplicity in design. We will use the standard
Wt= (μh) W/b steering system of a Maruti 800. Human factor will also
be taken in positioning the steering system-seating
Now on calculating the weight transferred is calculated interface. The height of the seat will be so adjusted to
to be around 3-4% of the weight transfer. Thus the keep the angle between the arms and the fore-arms,
overall increase weight on acceleration and deceleration when holding the steering wheel, at about 120 degree,
are also considered. i.e. the most comfortable angle between the arms and
the foe-arms. The steering geometry is in accordance
with Ackerman steering System.

The calculation of the brake force was done using the

formula

F=(r/R) ×µ ×(Aw/Am)×(Rp ×f)×2

ENGINE & TRANSMISSION CONCLUSION

The complete drive train, that is the engine and The team’s goal is to design and fabricate an Ecological
transmission is sponsored by the SAE-INDIA. Thus, our Recreational Vehicle that met the world standards for
design is according to the specifications provided by the quality, safety, durability and manoeuvrability as well as
organizers. The details of the engine and transmission provide features that would have mass market appeal to
are : the general off road enthusiast.
Design decisions were made with keeping ease of mass
Engine Specifications production, ergonomics and simplicity of design in mind.
The usage of finite element analysis was invaluable to
the design and analysis of the various sub assemblies of
vehicle. The analysis thus allowed optimizing the weight
and strength of the various sub assemblies of the
vehicle. The analysis also helped in arriving at final
structure from base model by adding and deleting
members from various subassemblies to get best
possible configuration to help the vehicle withstand
various “Real World Racing Track Conditions”.
The ability to simulate human machine interaction in the
early stages of the design process, before monetary
expenditures on prototypes helped in further optimizing
the vehicle according to the needs.

ACKNOWLEGMENT

The UPES Formula Racing team would like to thank

Dr. Srihari Dean, College of Engineering, Dr.
Mukesh Saxena Head of Department, Mr. P.S
Ranjit, Mr. Deepak Kumar and the rest of the UPES
family for their assistance and encouragement on this
project. Appreciation is expressed to our sponsors:
AUTOLEK, CADD CENTRE, SAE INDIA, GOVT OF
UTTRAKHAND, UPES & HPMT.

REFERENCES

1. Thomas D Gillespie “Fundamentals of Vehicle

Dynamics”

2. William Milliken & Douglas Milliken “Race Car

Dynamics”

3. Introduction to Formula SAE Suspension &

The whole of the engine block has been designed Frame Design by Edmund F. Gaffney III and
considering the dimensions as stated above thereby Anthony R. Salinas
resulting to proper mounting of the engine along with the
transmission housing leading to proper positioning of the
rear axles. This will ensure no compromises regarding Contacts
the stability and balance of the formula vehicle.

Keeping the serviceability of the engine in mind the 1. Tarun Kumar Chitkara - Team Captain
supporting frame members for the main roll hoop had [email protected]
been bolted to the frame in accordance with the rule
book. So whenever needed those members could be 2. Dr. Mukesh Saxena – Faculty Advisor
removed and the engine could be easily made available [email protected]
for servicing.