Suspension Design Report

Suspension Design Objectives:

● Design Kinematics to maximize cornering performance, by positioning the tire
as necessary while providing travel as required by rules.
● Integrate the Steering system into the vehicle, and analyse the cornering behaviour
of the vehicle.
● Design the Dynamic Response of the suspension,
● Design the parts necessary for operation, with minimum compliance & weight.

Mechanism Design Process:

1. Wheelbase & Track width:

○ Based on the tilt test qualifying criteria, we had to take estimates of the
track width, based on the projected C.G. height.
○ Taking a 250 kg vehicle (with driver), and 300 mm high C.G. as our
preliminary target, we established a track width of 1200 mm.
○ With the track width setup, and our primary focus being on cornering
performance, yaw moment of inertia played a major role in the design.
○ A shorter wheelbase car, would allow the yaw moment of inertia to decrease,
while a longer wheelbase car would offer higher stability under heavy
cornering (cornering at edge of traction circle).
○ Taking into consideration the steering performance necessary, the w/l ratio was
set between 0.75 & 0.8.
○ The wheelbase was set at 1550mm.
2. Scrub, Caster, Mechanical Trail & Kingpin angle inclination:
○ With the track width setup, it was necessary to move to the steered wheel
assembly, and setup the Kingpin axis inclination, scrub and mechanical trail.
○ Packaging constraints of the brake disc, and wheel offset (+15mm) allowed us
to position the front view KPI at
■ 6 degrees with 35mm of scrub (dependent parameter).
■ 6 degrees with 25mm of scrub (dependent parameter).
○ The idea of a lower kingpin angle, stems from the fact that the higher the angle,
the greater the jacking effect.
■ Rise in normal reaction at the wheel, due to lateral force moment
■ Shift in contact patch towards direction of turn, which will result in different
normal reactions, with the inner wheel providing lesser normal reaction
○ Higher the angle, the more difficult it is for the driver to steer the vehicle
■ Due to the difference in the plane of actuation of the steering arm,
and axis of motion of the wheel assembly.
 ○ Similarly, the behaviour of the pneumatic trail (generates aligning torque, which
resists steering force) had to be compensated for, setting up a mechanical trail
of 20mm.
○ With the wheel center and point about which mechanical trail been
established, the caster angle comes to be 3 degrees. (fixed caster).
3. Setting up ride & roll characteristics:
○ We now set up our wishbones, based on the idea of roll center slopes. The roll
center slope helps in determining the direction of motion of the tire contact
patch in the front plane (not accounting for tire compliances yet).
○ For a symmetric vehicle, we prefer the movement of the contact patch to
be vertical instead of lateral.
■ This is because a laterally moving contact patch will create a difference
in the normal reactions at the wheel,
■ This induces roll in the chassis through the springs, while trying to
jack the vehicle.
■ During cornering, if such characteristics are exhibited, there is a positive
camber developing on the outer wheel, which harms the grip it provides
to the vehicle.
○ This necessitates low roll center slope, with the inclination taken to be -1 to 4
degrees for the front wheels, and 3 - 7 degrees for the rear wheels
○ The front roll center slope has been taken to be 3 degrees and the rear to be
5.5 degrees.
○ The car’s roll axis is inclined w.r.t ground. Under cornering, the car should
ideally have maximum normal reaction at the steered wheels, with more load to
be transferred to the outside of the corner. This allows the tires to begin
generating the lateral force, necessary to change direction of travel. The springs
provide the required load transfer capacity.
○ With 1.5 degrees/g as a target vehicle roll gradient, 45:55 static load assumption,
the roll rates and ride rates were established for the front and rear suspensions.

With a-arm geometries established, Ride rate and roll rate were calculated for
every possible k of spring. The Required roll rate was calculated on the basis of
target 1.5 deg/g vehicle roll gradient.

Sprung mass Sprung mass Motion ratio front Motion ratio back
front back =1.1 =0.95
=106 kg =142 kg
Unsprung mass Unsprung mass Roll centre height Roll centre height
front (UMF)=53 back (UMB)=71 front back
kg kg (RCHF)=0.03144 m (RCHB)=0.08432 m
Roll lever Arm = Sprung mass height – (RCHF + (RCHB – RCHF) *(1-0.42))
=0.4-(0.03144 + (0.03144 + 0.08432) * (1-0.42)
= 0.33789 m
Roll moment / g = (UMF + UMB) * 9.81* roll lever Arm
= (53 + 71) *9.81 * 0.33789
= 822.049 Nm/g
Roll rate required = (Roll moment/g) / 1.5
=548.03 Nm/deg

and sufficient k of spring was chosen to provide enough roll resistance required
and lying within the frequency required.

Spring rate was also calculated by dynamic analysis.

The force transmitted through the tires to the wishbones were calculated. Solving
the six equation -six variable equation we get the tension in pull rod. With
desired bell crank ratio the force in spring was calculated. This force should be
such that the suspension has 1” jounce and 1” rebound which represent the
damper length, as it is our aim to utilise full damper length for effective damping.
mass 288 unsprung(approx) sprung sprung on 1 wheel motion ratio roll centre height
front 120.96 15 105.96 52.98 front 1.1 front 0.03144
rear 167.04 25 142.04 71.02 rear 0.95 back 0.08432

lateral
cg height acceleration 13.52681trackwidth
total 0.32 front 1200
sprung(approx) 0.4 13.52681 rear 1200
Ay 1.378879
roll lever arm 0.33789
roll moment/g 822.0449
roll rate required 548.0299

ride front
k (N/m) f front f rear front(N/m) ride rear roll(Nm/deg) rear roll
30 5253.805 1.441 1.441 4341.988 5821.39 54.56303 73.15375224
35 6129.439 1.556 1.556 5065.652 6791.62 63.65686 85.34604428
40 7005.073 1.664 1.664 5789.317 7761.85 72.7507 97.53833632
45 7880.708 1.765 1.765 6512.981 8732.09 81.84454 109.7306284
50 8756.342 1.86 1.86 7236.646 9702.32 90.93838 121.9229204
55 9631.976 1.951 1.951 7960.311 10672.5 100.0322 134.1152124
60 10507.61 2.038 2.038 8683.975 11642.8 109.1261 146.3075045
65 11383.24 2.121 2.121 9407.64 12613 118.2199 158.4997965
70 12258.88 2.201 2.201 10131.3 13583.2 127.3137 170.6920886
75 13134.51 2.278 2.278 10854.97 14553.5 136.4076 182.8843806
80 14010.15 2.353 2.353 11578.63 15523.7 145.5014 195.0766726
85 14885.78 2.425 2.425 12302.3 16493.9 154.5952 207.2689647
90 15761.42 2.496 2.496 13025.96 17464.2 163.6891 219.4612567
95 16637.05 2.564 2.564 13749.63 18434.4 172.7829 231.6535488
100 17512.68 2.631 2.631 14473.29 19404.6 181.8768 243.8458408
105 18388.32 2.696 2.696 15196.96 20374.9 190.9706 256.0381328
110 19263.95 2.759 2.759 15920.62 21345.1 200.0644 268.2304249
115 20139.59 2.821 2.821 16644.29 22315.3 209.1583 280.4227169
120 21015.22 2.882 2.882 17367.95 23285.6 218.2521 292.6150089
125 21890.85 2.941 2.941 18091.62 24255.8 227.3459 304.807301
130 22766.49 2.999 3 18815.28 25226 236.4398 316.999593
135 23642.12 3.056 3.057 19538.94 26196.3 245.5336 329.1918851
140 24517.76 3.113 3.113 20262.61 27166.5 254.6275 341.3841771
145 25393.39 3.168 3.168 20986.27 28136.7 263.7213 353.5764691
150 26269.03 3.222 3.222 21709.94 29107 272.8151 365.7687612
155 27144.66 3.275 3.275 22433.6 30077.2 281.909 377.9610532
160 28020.29 3.327 3.328 23157.27 31047.4 291.0028 390.1533453
165 28895.93 3.379 3.379 23880.93 32017.6 300.0966 402.3456373
170 29771.56 3.43 3.43 24604.6 32987.9 309.1905 414.5379293
175 30647.2 3.48 3.48 25328.26 33958.1 318.2843 426.7302214
180 31522.83 3.529 3.53 26051.93 34928.3 327.3782 438.9225134
185 32398.46 3.578 3.578 26775.59 35898.6 336.472 451.1148055
190 33274.1 3.626 3.626 27499.26 36868.8 345.5658 463.3070975
195 34149.73 3.673 3.674 28222.92 37839 354.6597 475.4993895
200 35025.37 3.72 3.72 28946.58 38809.3 363.7535 487.6916816

○ Ride Rate = 26052 N/m (front) 32988 N/m (rear)

○ Roll Rate = 327.4 Nm/deg (front) 414.5 Nm/d

5. Wishbone setup:
○ Based on the static roll centre slope, we establish the static swing arm length. With
longer lengths, the change in camber becomes smaller. We require that the
camber is progressively negative in rebound.
○ Another method of controlling camber is to shorten the upper wishbone relative to
the lower.
○ Based on these 2 ideas, combined with the desired packaging, the wishbone
lengths, and static wishbone setup has been established.
6. Actuation & Control of the Suspension:
○ The front suspension was decided to be a Pull rod suspension, and the rear to be
a pushrod actuated suspension.
○ The system parameters were designed so as to have front ride frequency greater than
rear ride frequency. The ride frequency was set to lie between 1.5-2.5 Hz.
○ Ride frequency = 3.53 Hz (front) 3.43 Hz (rear)
○ Based on the ride rates, the front and rear wheel rate were calculated.
○ Based on the wheel rates and installation ration, the spring rates were calculated.
○ Spring Rate = 31.5 N/mm (front) 29.7 N/mm (rear)
○ The system performance was evaluated using a quarter car model and a
damping ratio of 0.7 was selected for rebound
○ The damping ratio during jounce was set to be 0.55
○ Rebound ratio is kept high as sprung mass is more than unsprung mass
and rebound controls sprung mas whereas compression controls sprung
mass.
○ Damping rate low speed(rebound) = 1.8 N/(mm/s) (front) 2.03 N/(mm/s) (rear)
 7. The performance of the design was evaluated on ADAMS-Car to simulate different
cornering load-cases, with the steering performance used to drive the assembly.

This process completes the design and analysis of the suspension assembly as a rigid body system,
and now, the components, which will transfer loads to the chassis are to be designed.

Component Design Process:

The component design process involved 2 objectives:
● Ensure minimum weight of the designed component, with high stiffness.
● Cost effective design, with choice of material, and external machining.
The following components had to be designed for the car:
● Wheel Hubs
● Front Wheel Stub Axles
● Uprights
● A-Arms

All designs were made with a target FOS of 2.5, and the following worst load case was
considered:
• Cornering at high speed

• 55 to 45 longitudinal weight distribution, at borderline traction circle.

P+To account for safety, loads calculated were multiplied by 1.5.These come to be 1700N (Fz), -
3900N (Fy), 2800N (Fx). All these loads are transferred to the axle through the hub as they are.

The moments generated are:

• Mx-(tire + Fy*loaded radius ~ -900Nm)

• My- Rolling moment, not affecting the bearing, causing rolling.

• Mz- (Fx * tire scrub and Fy*Mechanical Trail add to each other- In our case this comes to
be 2800N*30mm+3900N*19.3mm ~ 160Nm)

• Brake Torque- 350 Nm

1. Wheel Hub Design:

○ The wheel hub is a rotating part, and it reacts to the loads transmitted from the
tire to the wheel as well as dynamic loads (vibrations during motion).
○ The requirements therefore are, high resistance to fatigue, bending strength &
stiffness against loads exerted due to forces & moments generated at the tire.
○ The wheel hub also carries the brake disc, and under the fixed calliper design, it
must have sufficient rigidity to withstand the brake torque exerted on the disc
mounts.
○ Under the worst case scenario, we required low z direction deflection at the lug nut
brackets, as well as low contact disc bending about the stub axle bearing
(generating <0.1 degrees of camber compliance in the worst case), to ensure
minimal camber compliances during operating conditions. This translates to mm
of deflection of the hub as a whole.
○ Lateral loads are applied over the area of the disc in contact with the
wheel, which produce negligible axial deflection.
○ To minimise deflection under bending ( δ = EIM ) , material with a higher Young’s
Modulus is to be selected, and the cross sectional area moment of inertia is to
be maximised.
 ○
Material Density Young’s Modulus Yield Strength C/S ratio for equal
(kg/m3) (GPa) (MPa) Bending Strength

Al-7050 2750 69 495 1

AISI 4140 7850 205 480 0.58

○ Taking into consideration the packaging constraints, as well as financial

constraints, we decided to build the Hub with AISI 4140 Chrome-Moly Steel
(E=210 GPa), as we could create a smaller part with higher or similar stiffness,
at the cost of 1.3 times the weight. (690g for Steel front, 815g for Steel rear
versus 520g for Al Front, 695g for Al rear)
○ Machining the rear hub from aluminium is not a smart choice due to the splines
involved to accommodate the driveshaft in the hub. Due to smaller Young’s
modulus, the splines are susceptible to bending for the applied torque. A
composite hub was considered, but then incalculable compliances would have
crept in due to the team’s inexperience.

2. Wheel Stub Axle Design:

○ Built out of AISI 4140 Steel to offer highest possible bending strength for a
smaller cross-section.
○ This allowed us to save weight on the bearings as well, as well as offering rigidity
to the structure. The compliances in the worst case for the stub axle were
calculated to be 0.22 degrees of camber, and 0.03 degrees of toe.
○ The compliances could be further reduced with the use of 2 bearings in place
of 1, with a larger stub axle C/S, at the cost of weight and expenditure. The
execution would have been feasible with the Aluminium hub.
○ The front wheel axle was taken to be stationary, instead of rotating, to allow for a
smaller bearing, lesser load on the axle (A rotating axle has centrifugal forces,
cantilever deflection, which when combined under improper design can produce
eccentric rotation, damaging the wheels and tyres)
3. Upright design:
○ The upright carries all the wheel loads and transmits it to the chassis through the
A-Arms and springs.
○ We required a camber adjustment mechanism, so that camber can be altered
without altering KPI. This was integrated to the upper ball joint bolting point in the
upright.
○ We used Al-7050 to manufacture the upright, as we could provide material in
places, where stiffness was necessary, and comparatively analyse the nature
of the forces exerted on the upright.
○ Forces on the front upright:
i. Brake force on the calliper mountings.
ii. Lateral force exerted by the axle, shearing the upright centre.
iii. Normal force exerted by the axle on the upright.
iv. Steering arm force.
○ Forces on the rear upright:
i. Brake force on the calliper mountings.
ii. Lateral force exerted by the hub, shearing the upright centre.
iii. Normal force exerted by the hub on upright.
○ These forces are reacted by the A-Arms.
○ The main requirement in the upright is to properly design the bolting
connections of the A-Arms, as well as the calliper mountings.

4. Spring and Damper Selection:

○ The dampers were selected on the basis of stroke required and length as per
the catalogue available with different vendors. Accordingly, the Tanner Vision
Quarter Midget was selected.
○ The springs were designed with Chrome Silicon Alloy with 5 active rings so as
to achieve the desired spring rate.

5. The rocker was built with trade-off between: motion ratio near 1, transmission
angle near 90 degrees, reaction force aligned with rocker mounting.
Accordingly, space constraints gave required dimensions for rocker. The Rocker
was Laser cut from Mild Steel. Additional material was removed from bell crank
by an iterative process to give a Factor of Safety of 1.5
 APPENDIX
1. Analysis for no triangulation for Rear suspension

To accommodate for easy removal of Differential Scatter Shield, it was not possible to make a
node at the point where suspension forces are transmitted. To increase strength an additional
rod was added, but triangulation was not possible. Force Analysis was done taking worst case
loads and acceptable values are achieved for Deflection of the Rod.
2. Camber change curves

• Front Camber

• Rear Camber
3. Motion ratio curves

• Motion Ratio Front

• Motion Ratio Rear

 4. Matlab codes

• Matlab code for geometry of rear suspension

close;clear;clc;
K=209;
Sl=22.25;
L1=30; L2=30 ;L3=16.2;
r=65/95;
B1=9.45;B2=B1*r;
phi=60*pi/180;
PR=32.3;
a=-2.5;b=13.5;
%c=0.587;d=0.721;
c=-1.5;d=34;
e=-23.5;f=33;
P1P2=sqrt(a^2+b^2);
ang_vel=1;
t=0:.005:(9.61*pi/180)/ang_vel;

theta=-(pi*3.09/180)+ang_vel*t;
P1=[0;0];
P2=[a;b];
B=[c;d];
S=[e;f];
P4=L2*[cos(theta);sin(theta)];
P4_y = L2*(sin(theta -(1.62*pi/180)));
P2P4=sqrt((a-L2*cos(theta)).^2 + (b-L2*sin(theta)).^2);
beta1 = acos((P2P4.^2 + L2^2 - P1P2^2)./(2*P2P4*L2));
beta2 = acos((P2P4.^2 + L3^2 - L1^2)./(2*P2P4*L3));
beta = beta1 + beta2;
gama= beta - theta;
P3= [L2*cos(theta)-L3*cos(gama);L2*sin(theta)+L3*sin(gama)];

cP3=sqrt((L2*cos(theta)-L3*cos(gama)-c).^2 + (L2*sin(theta)+L3*sin(gama)-
d).^2);

alpha1=atan((L2*sin(theta)+L3*sin(gama)-d)./(L2*cos(theta)-L3*cos(gama)-c));

alpha2=acos((cP3.^2 + B2^2 - PR^2)./(2*cP3*B2));

alpha = alpha2 + alpha1;
C2=[c + B2*cos(alpha) ; d + B2*sin(alpha)];

delta = (phi+alpha);
C1 = [c+B1*cos(delta) ; d+B1*sin(delta)];

%X =K*((109.5*r/K)+Sl-sqrt(((c+B1*cos(delta)) -e).^2 + (d+B1*sin(delta)-

f).^2));
X =((109.5*r/K)+Sl-sqrt(((c+B1*cos(delta)) -e).^2 + (d+B1*sin(delta)-f).^2));
MR= (diff(P4_y)./diff(t))./(diff(X)./diff(t));

slope=((L2*sin(theta)+L3*sin(gama))-(L2*sin(theta)))./((L2*cos(theta)-
L3*cos(gama))-(L2*cos(theta)));
slope = atan(slope);
slope = slope*180/pi;
slope = 90+slope;
slope= slope-11

for i=1:length(t)
animation1 = subplot(2,1,1);
P1_circle = viscircles(P1',0.005);
P2_circle = viscircles(P2',0.005);
P3_circle = viscircles(P3(:,i)',0.005);
P4_circle = viscircles(P4(:,i)',0.005);
C2_circle = viscircles(C2(:,i)',0.005);
B_circle = viscircles(B',0.005);
C1_circle = viscircles(C1(:,i)',0.005);

line1 = line([P2(1) P3(1,i)],[P2(2) P3(2,i)]);

line3 = line([P3(1,i) P4(1,i)],[P3(2,i) P4(2,i)]);
line2 = line([P1(1) P4(1,i)],[P1(2) P4(2,i)]);
line4 = line([B(1) C2(1,i)],[B(2) C2(2,i)],'color','y');
line5 = line([C2(1,i) P3(1,i)],[C2(2,i) P3(2,i)],'color','g');
line6 = line([B(1) C1(1,i)],[B(2) C1(2,i)],'color','y');
line7 = line([C2(1,i) C1(1,i)],[C2(2,i) C1(2,i)],'color','y');

line8 = line([S(1) C1(1,i)],[S(2) C1(2,i)],'color','r');

axis(animation1,'equal');
set(gca,'XLim',[-35 45],'YLim',[-15 50]);

pause(0.005);
if i < length(t)
delete(P1_circle);
delete(P2_circle);
delete(P3_circle);
delete(P4_circle);
delete(C2_circle);
delete(B_circle);
delete(C1_circle);

delete(line1);
delete(line2);
delete(line3);
delete(line4);
delete(line5);
delete(line6);
delete(line7);
delete(line8);

spring = subplot(2,1,2);
%plot(spring,theta(1:i),X(1:i));
 %set(spring,'XLim',[-pi*3.09/180 pi*6.52/180],'Ylim',[-500 500]);
plot(spring,P4_y(1:i),MR(1:i));
%set(spring,'XLim',[-pi*3.09/180 pi*6.52/180],'Ylim',[-500 500]);
xlabel(spring, 'Centimeter');
ylabel(spring, 'Camber');
title(spring,'Camber as a function of travel');
grid on;

end
end

• Matlab code for geometry of front suspension

close;clear;clc;
K=209;
Sl=22.25;
L1=29.11; L2=33 ;L3=17;
r=4.58/9;
%r=4.58/9;
B1=9.45;B2=B1*r;
phi=94*pi/180;
PR=34.81;
a=2.33;b=14.21;
c=0.587;d=0.721;
e=-0.081;f=27.973;
P1P2=sqrt(a^2+b^2);
ang_vel=1;
t=0:.005:(9.61*pi/180)/ang_vel;

theta=-(pi*3.09/180)+ang_vel*t;
P1=[0;0];
P2=[a;b];
B=[c;d];
S=[e;f];
P4=L2*[cos(theta);sin(theta)];
P4_y = L2*(sin(theta -(1.62*pi/180)));
P2P4=sqrt((a-L2*cos(theta)).^2 + (b-L2*sin(theta)).^2);
beta1 = acos((P2P4.^2 + L2^2 - P1P2^2)./(2*P2P4*L2));
beta2 = acos((P2P4.^2 + L3^2 - L1^2)./(2*P2P4*L3));
beta = beta1 + beta2;
gama= beta - theta;
P3= [L2*cos(theta)-L3*cos(gama);L2*sin(theta)+L3*sin(gama)];

cP3=sqrt((L2*cos(theta)-L3*cos(gama)-c).^2 + (L2*sin(theta)+L3*sin(gama)-
d).^2);

alpha1=atan((L2*sin(theta)+L3*sin(gama)-d)./(L2*cos(theta)-L3*cos(gama)-c));
alpha2=acos((cP3.^2 + B2^2 - PR^2)./(2*cP3*B2));
alpha = alpha2 - alpha1;
C2=[c + B2*cos(alpha) ; d - B2*sin(alpha)];

delta = (phi-alpha);
C1 = [c+B1*cos(delta) ; d+B1*sin(delta)];

%X =K*((109.5*r/K)+Sl-sqrt(((c+B1*cos(delta)) -e).^2 + (d+B1*sin(delta)-

f).^2));
X =((109.5*r/K)+Sl-sqrt(((c+B1*cos(delta)) -e).^2 + (d+B1*sin(delta)-f).^2));

MR= (diff(P4_y)./diff(t))./(diff(X)./diff(t));
slope=((L2*sin(theta)+L3*sin(gama))-(L2*sin(theta)))./((L2*cos(theta)-
L3*cos(gama))-(L2*cos(theta)));
slope = atan(slope);
slope = slope*180/pi;
slope = 90+slope;
slope= slope-7.77
for i=1:length(t)
animation1 = subplot(2,1,1);
P1_circle = viscircles(P1',0.005);
P2_circle = viscircles(P2',0.005);
P3_circle = viscircles(P3(:,i)',0.005);
P4_circle = viscircles(P4(:,i)',0.005);
C2_circle = viscircles(C2(:,i)',0.005);
B_circle = viscircles(B',0.005);
C1_circle = viscircles(C1(:,i)',0.005);

line1 = line([P2(1) P3(1,i)],[P2(2) P3(2,i)]);

line3 = line([P3(1,i) P4(1,i)],[P3(2,i) P4(2,i)]);
line2 = line([P1(1) P4(1,i)],[P1(2) P4(2,i)]);
line4 = line([B(1) C2(1,i)],[B(2) C2(2,i)],'color','y');
line5 = line([C2(1,i) P3(1,i)],[C2(2,i) P3(2,i)],'color','g');
line6 = line([B(1) C1(1,i)],[B(2) C1(2,i)],'color','y');
line7 = line([C2(1,i) C1(1,i)],[C2(2,i) C1(2,i)],'color','y');

line8 = line([S(1) C1(1,i)],[S(2) C1(2,i)],'color','r');

axis(animation1,'equal');
set(gca,'XLim',[-15 40],'YLim',[-15 40]);
 pause(0.005);
if i < length(t)
delete(P1_circle);
delete(P2_circle);
delete(P3_circle);
delete(P4_circle);
delete(C2_circle);
delete(B_circle);
delete(C1_circle);

delete(line1);
delete(line2);
delete(line3);
delete(line4);
delete(line5);
delete(line6);
delete(line7);
delete(line8);

spring = subplot(2,1,2);
%plot(spring,theta(1:i),X(1:i));
%set(spring,'XLim',[-pi*3.09/180 pi*6.52/180],'Ylim',[-500 500]);
plot(spring,P4_y(1:i),MR(1:i));
%set(spring,'XLim',[-pi*3.09/180 pi*6.52/180],'Ylim',[-500 500]);
xlabel(spring, 'Centimeter');
ylabel(spring, 'Motion ratio');
title(spring,'MR as a function of travel');
grid on;

end
end
 • Matlab code for Force calculation in A-arms of suspension

close;clear;clc;

A=[cosd(24.7) cosd(23.44) cosd(20.27) cosd(21.49) cosd(0.16) -cosd(29.95)

-cosd(66.30) cosd(67.62) -cosd(69.79) cosd(68.57) cosd(90) cosd(90)
cosd(83.44) cosd(83.37) cosd(88.48) cosd(88.49) cosd(89.84) -cosd(90-
29.95)
0.31854*cosd(180-66.83) 0.31831*cosd(67.91) 0.14552*cosd(180-69.95)
0.1464*cosd(68.98) 0.19486*cosd(89.95) cosd(90)
-0.31854*cosd(23.80) -0.31831*cosd(22.39) -0.14552*cosd(20.52) -
0.1464*cosd(22.57) -0.19486*cosd(19.82) 0.28154*cosd(0)
-0.31854*cosd(84.86) 0.31831*cosd(86.57) -0.14552*cosd(85.79)
0.1464*cosd(82.17) -0.19486*cosd(70.18) cosd(90) ];

B=[766.506 3 -1088.038 -85.434 0 -69.9125]';

C= A\B

DESIGN OF SPRING

From the static analysis, stiffness of spring (K) was calculated to be 40kN/m.

, where Pmax and Pmin are the maximum and

minimum forces acting on spring during wheel travel. Here 25.4mm of jounce and 25.4mm of re-
bound was considered. The material generally used for spring damper is hardened steel.

, , C = D/d

ks = 1+ 0.5/C,

Where ks, k are the design constants. C is spring index. D and d were inner and outer
diameters of the spring respectively. By using machine design methodologies factor of safety of
the spring is calculated.
G and Sut are the modulus of rigidity and ultimate tensile strength of material respectively.
= 0.22Sut, Ssy = 0.45Sut
Where fs is the factor of safety of the spring. Factor of safety of the spring should be 2<fs<3.
Generally inner diameter of spring is taken to be 8mm. Hence fs is calculated in terms of C. For
fs = 3, C comes out to be 6.5 and hence D = 52mm.

Here N is number of coils in spring which comes out to be 5.

Nearest spring according to damper size and calculated values was selected from available
catalogue.

5. RIDE (VIBRATION) ANALYSIS

The ride analysis was carried out in order to calculate damping coefficient of the damper.
Quarter car model of the suspension system was considered for this analysis (Fig). The damping
coefficient of wheel was neglected as it is very small compared to the damping coefficient of the
spring damper. The final equations of quarter car model are given below.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Equation (1), (2), (3) and (4) indicates the sprung mass transmissibility, un-sprung mass
transmissibility, sprung mass deflection, and tyre deflection respectively. To optimize the
suspension system, plots of time response of equations (2), (3), (4) and frequency response of
equations (1), (2) are plotted as shown in Fig 9 and Fig 10. From the time response, the range of
damping ratio is selected in order to have damped state with the required time. In case of race
cars, the damping should be fast enough to damp the oscillations in 0.2 to 0.5 seconds, hence a
range of damping ratio [0.4 0.8] is selected (Fig). The frequency response of equations (3) and
(4) are plotted across this selected range of damping ratio. Since, the rider comfort decreases
with the increase in acceleration of the body, the amplitude of acceleration of the sprung mass
was to be minimize. The peak amplitude of the wheel displacement at both the fundamental
frequencies of un-sprung mass to be minimize in order to make sure that the wheel does not lose
contact with the ground. As damping ratio of the damper increases, acceleration of sprung mass
decreases; but at the same time un-sprung mass transmissibility also increases which may lose
tyre contact with ground. Hence we need to select optimum damping ratio. Literature states that,
the damping ratio is optimum when the plot (Fig) across to resonance frequencies becomes
almost linear so as to have less jerk at resonating frequencies. As shown in Fig, for damping ratio
0.7 the graph between the two natural frequencies becomes almost straight line. Hence the
damping ratio becomes q = 0.7. Coefficient of damping is obtained which is, C = 0.7Co, where
Co is the critical damping coefficient. Literature states that a damping ratio of q= 0.7 has been
used in the calculations based on discussions with industry professionals. This verifies our result.

Figure Quarter-car model

Figure Time response of equations (1, 3, 4)

 Figure 3.9 Frequency response of equations (1, 2)

6. Knuckle Analysis
7. Stub axle Analysis