1

SUPRA
SAE 2011

Preliminary Design Report

Submitted by:
Tarun Kumar Chitkara
Team Leader
Team UPES Formula Racing
(Dehradun)
Email ID : tarun.ade@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
The objective of this project is to design, simulate and
finally fabricating a formula style racing vehicle.
The vehicle should be aerodynamically designed,
economic, safe and single seat high performance
vehicle intended for sale to the nonprofessional
weekend racing enthusiasts.
Ergonomics will be an integral part of our design
strategy and anthropometric data has been used.
Special focus will be put on human comfort, the ease of
mass production of the vehicle and almost all the vehicle
subsystems will be designed and fabricated by the team
indigenously.
The vehicle will be fabricated meticulously by the team,
using state-of-the-art facilities, comprehensively
satisfying both the design goals and manufacturing
constraints.
INTRODUCTION
The Supra SAE car is to be designed and fabricated
considering the fact that the vehicle should be
completely safe for the driver in case of collisions from
any side and should be stable enough to avoid toppling
in case of steep cornering. It should also be
aerodynamically correct for better maneuverability and
road adherence even at the highest achievable speed of
the vehicle.
Thereby, the over-all vehicle development methodology
that is and that will be followed by our team is stated
below:
1. Design Considerations
2. Task Assignment
3. CAD Modelling
Preliminary Design Report
Abhishek Dixit
Designer
Siddhant Gupta
Team Vice-Captian
4. Analysis of CAD Model
5. PVC Prototype of roll-cage
6. Ergonomics analysis
7. Revision of CAD Model after ergonomic analysis
8. Simulation of component assemblies and sub-
assemblies before fabrication.
9. Chassis Fabrication & Suspension Systems
Assembly
10. Steering & Braking Systems Assembly
11. Engine and Transmission Mounting
12. Final Integration, testing & optimization.
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
minimum of two members.
• The wheelbase should not be less than
1524mm.
• Front roll hoop should be no lower than top of
steering wheel at any angle.
• A straight line drawn from the top of the main
hoop to the top of the front hoop must clear by
50.8 mm the helmet of all team’s drivers.
• The smaller track of the vehicle must be no less
than 75% of the larger track.
The team has thus utilized the basic learned concepts of
designing while considering worst case situations for
designing various sub-systems of the vehicle.
ROLL CAGE DESIGN ERGONOMICS

OBJECTIVE

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

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
Works 2007 software. While designing, there are a few
important loading situations that should be analyzed.
These include frontal impact, side impact, rear impact
and rollover impact. Special focus was put on
ergonomics of the drivers, keeping in mind the safety
and comfort. The vehicle has been designed for the 5th
percentile female to the 95th percentile male thus
accommodating the 90% population.
Approximate vehicle weight is 350 kg. After considering
1.4 as factor of safety (FOS), design weight was taken
as 490 Kg. Since the Yield strength of material used is
360.6 MPa and as per the analysis the maximum stress
that the frame could bear came out to be 47.9 MPa.
Therefore calculating the factor of safety as per the
stress:
360.9 MPa / 47.9 MPa = 7.528, (FOS is greater than 5
as per the rule book)
Frame weight < 72kg
material: AISI 4130, round tubes used
max width of roll cage : 850mm
max length of the roll cage : 2820mm
max height of the roll cage: 1100 mm
Front Impact
It was assumed that worst case collision would be seen
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 20 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 20G’s (Mostly achieved by
planes)
From the impulse equation
F. dt = change in momentum
F. dt = m. dv
F = m. dv/dt
F = m.a
F = m*20*g = mg *20 = total weight * 20
F = 14000N

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
SELF WEIGHT OF ROLL CAGE:
OTHER WEIGHTS ON ROLL CAGE:
This force is applied at the two front most corners of the
roll cage, while restraining from the back side.
72 kg Maximum Stress obtained from FEA analysis was less
than the yield strength of the material, so the vehicle is
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
outboard braking for front and inboard braking for the
rear axle. Required braking force and braking torque
was calculated. Then we calculated the required dia of
the disc for the calculated force. After the market
research we zeroed in on to brake callipers & disc of
motorcycle considering the factors like cost, availability
and ease of installation. The callipers are powered by
dual master cylinders. Two master cylinders are used to
impart brake biasing and to increase safety by
incorporating dual redundancy as well as for SAE rules
compliance. Using this system a failure in one circuit will
not result in entire braking failure. Another reason for
choosing this design was its compact arrangement. The
master cylinders mount directly to the indigenously built
pedal. The brake biasing is done in a ratio of 40:60
same as the weight distribution on the front and rear
tires so the braking force is distributed in a ratio of 40:60
to front and rear tires respectively.
The wheel balancing equation was formulated and the
required forces were calculated to have maximum
braking force and ensure maximum safety to the driver
as well as to other driver, whenever brake is applied the
vehicle weight and kinetic energy acts from the centre of
gravity of vehicle this causes the vehicle to pitch forward
as the brakes are applied so some weight of the vehicle
is transferred from the rear to front wheels, so the
maximum transfer of weight amounts to
Wt= (μh) W/b
Now on calculating the weight transferred is calculated
to be around 3-4% of the weight transfer. Thus the
overall increase weight on acceleration and deceleration
are also considered.
The calculation of the brake force was done using the
formula
F=(r/R) ×µ ×(Aw/Am)×(Rp ×f)×2
Where ,
Rp = brake pedal lever ratio, 4
F = brake force at each wheel
2
Am = area of master cylinder ,32mm
Aw = area of front calliper piston, 50.24 mm2
µ = friction coefficient of brake lining,0.4
r = effective radius of calliper, 10 cm
R = loaded radius of wheel, 16.57 cm
Hence the final value for the applied braking force
comes out to be 29166 N.
The kinetic energy of the vehicle moving at a speed of
105 kmph :
K.E =1/2×mv2
=168200N-m
So the required braking force
Ft = 168200/10
= 16830N
Comparing the values of the applied & required braking
force it is observed that F exceeds Ft by 13000N. Thus
we can lock the wheels by applying the brakes at any
achievable speed of the vehicle.
STEERING SYSTEM
A rack and pinion steering system will be used over a
recirculating-ball system because of low cost, light
weight and simplicity in design. We will use the standard
steering system of a Maruti 800. Human factor will also
be taken in positioning the steering system-seating
interface. The height of the seat will be so adjusted to
keep the angle between the arms and the fore-arms,
when holding the steering wheel, at about 120 degree,
i.e. the most comfortable angle between the arms and
the foe-arms. The steering geometry is in accordance
with Ackerman steering System.
ENGINE & TRANSMISSION
The complete drive train, that is the engine and
transmission is sponsored by the SAE-INDIA. Thus, our
design is according to the specifications provided by the
organizers. The details of the engine and transmission
are :
Engine Specifications
The whole of the engine block has been designed
considering the dimensions as stated above thereby
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
the stability and balance of the formula vehicle.
Keeping the serviceability of the engine in mind the
supporting frame members for the main roll hoop had
been bolted to the frame in accordance with the rule
book. So whenever needed those members could be
removed and the engine could be easily made available
for servicing.
CONCLUSION
The team’s goal is to design and fabricate an Ecological
Recreational Vehicle that met the world standards for
quality, safety, durability and manoeuvrability as well as
provide features that would have mass market appeal to
the general off road enthusiast.
Design decisions were made with keeping ease of mass
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 &
Frame Design by Edmund F. Gaffney III and
Anthony R. Salinas
Contacts
1. Tarun Kumar Chitkara - Team Captain
tarun.ade@gmail.com
2. Dr. Mukesh Saxena – Faculty Advisor
msaxena@ddn.upes.ac.in