Sei sulla pagina 1di 5

There are several considerations when designing an upright. Loads and forces nee d to be considered.

Vertical and horizontal forces greater than those due to 5 times the acceleration of gravity, that is, over about 50 meters per second per second, are sometimes considered desirable.\ he main forces on a non-driven wheel are braking and turning forces. The forces on a driven wheel include forward and reverse propulsion as well as t he braking and turning forces. You should invest a lot of time into vehicle dynamics, weight distribution, susp ension layout. When you have done this first, you will not come up with a problem like: "Oh where do I place my pushrod now". Next thing is the angle of the wishbones to get proper suspension kinematics. I am not sure whether you don t have any problems with your bearings rotational an gle when your wishbones will have some angle. fabrication of an open wheel formula-style racecar. This paper will cover the suspension geometry and its components, which include the control arm, uprights, spindles, hubs, and pullrods. it was decided that a spreadsheet should be set up to calculate the loads in each part under all possible inputs of both lateral and longitudinal accelerations. A free body diagram of one corner of the vehicle was used to solve equations for the reaction forces in each component (Figure 1). These resulting equations were then put into a spreadsheet that relates all suspension components and vehicle parameter to numerous acceleration conditions and calculates the loads in each component for those conditions (Figure 1). The max loading conditions observed were then used for a worst-case analysis of every suspension component. Control arms have the important task of connecting the uprights to the chassis. The control arm also plays a key roll in determining the camber and roll stability. The 2002 Formula Car utilizes rear control arms constructed of 19mm O.D. x .7mm wall thickness round 4130 chrome-moly tubing. This material was used on the 2001 FSAE and proved to be lightweight, strong, and easy to manufacture. Camber is used to maintain the maximum tire contact patch The QCA system will allow the driver to adjust the camber quickly for varying driving conditions. The control arms were analyzed at the maximum load, and buckling analysis was performed using Eulers buckling equation. The uprights provide a link between the upper and lower ball joints. The weight of the uprights must be

minimized. During a bump the weight of the upright are controlled by the shocks. The Front Uprights were machined out of one solid aluminum block of 7075 T6, which provided excellent strength to weight ratio. The Front Uprights were analyzed by using the center of the spindle mount fixed. Forces were applied at the upper and lower ball joints and applied at the caliper mounting holes. The forces applied simulated a cornering force of 1.3g, 895N was applied to the upper ball joint and -2304.7N was applied to the lower ball joint, also a force of 1121.1N was applied to the caliper mounting holes. The Final design used triangular pockets to lighten the Upright. Finite Element Analysis showed that triangular pockets provided the greatest strength with the least amount of deflection. After several iterations the result of the final upright was 1.16 kg. The Front Upright had a Safety Factor of 2.5 while a combined cornering and braking force was applied. To analyze cornering force the center of the upright is held fixed and a load of 781.3N was applied to the upper ball joint and a force of -2227.0N applied to the lower ball joint. The rear upright is a metal block with connections for the frame and shock absorber, with a hole in the center of the piece for the shaft to pass thr ough. For the rear drive assembly, the uprights represent one of the most critical parts because they support sixty percent of the weight of the car, while support ing the rear axle so it can easily rotate at the outermost points of the car. The up rights also assist in keeping the tires straight while being subjected to braking and turnin g forces. Because of the baried forces the parts encounter in operation, they must be extr emely strong, yet be light weight. The current physical configurationof the uprights is a one-inch thick piece of aluminium, with certain dimensions.increased in areas with higher stress. For our team's design of the upright, the original design must be changed slight ly to accommodate the new configuration of arms connecting the upright and the car's f rame. The top connection is plalnned to be th shock absorber. The bottom two connectio ns would be to the A-arms. Our team decided to concentrate on making the connection changes with a safe des ign that doesn't drastically alter the orignal desing, rather than making major design changes that are theor

etically sound, but may fail in application. The final goal for this design was to meet all design specifications. Design spe cifications for the upright were that deflections under worst case situations were to be at a minimum ant that failure and that failure of the part should not occour.. The maximum permissible deflection was assumed to be .005 inches. An exact value for the deflection depends on the specification for the bearing located within the upright, but this information was not available. After modelling the upright , a detailed drawing was created so a price quote co uld be made. ANSYS solved for the Von Mises stress and total deflection. In each situation, t he tabs on the top and bottom of the uprights were constrained to have no motion. Three situations were: 1. Static Placement-This represent car in a static situationwith no forces cause d by acceleration, braking, turning, etc. the only wt of car. acting downwards across the shaft hole. Rear portion 70% car wt 2. Severe braking-The second situation consists of the downward weight of the ca r combined with a horizontal force acting on the front of the upright caused by the friction between the tire and ground during severe braking .This load was found by multiplying a coeficient of friction times the wt on each tire. The coeficient used , .75 3. Severe Braking while Turning- the final situation considered the previous two analyses with a force created by turning a curve.An approx for the turning curve is to apply the max fricton force forizontally at the bottom of the tire.T he force is then translated to the center of ratation and a moment is applied to account for the rotaion of the tire. In addition to the stress and deflection analysis shown above, a vibrational an alysis was performed in ANSYS to find any natural frequencies. It was determined that the yield stress divided by the Von mises stress found fr om ANSYS would give a gairly accurate safety factor. A further cost reduction would occour if the part were to be cast rahter than ma chined but a quote was not abailable for this procedure. Because setups require more time than the actual machining, multiple setups dras tically increase the price.The price can be lowered to the level of this year upright by casting the piece instead machining it. crotomae;ema popa The design shown in Figure 26 allowed single shear top and bottom suspension mounting points, and that induced bending in the lower wishbone spherical rod end that is under the greatest load. The steering system must affect at least two wheels and must have positive steering stops placed either on the uprights or on the rack.This is to prevent t he

steering linkages from locking up and the tyres from contacting suspension, body or frame members during track events. The initial decision of zero degree kingpin inclination had to be reconsidered since the 56 mm of scrub radius resulted is large and will give an excessive feedback to the driver. Therefore 4 degree kingpin inclination is to be build in the front upright design that will result in an amount of scrub radius of 30mm calculated for last year wheel offset. Since this amount is still grater than 10 % of the thread width (Heisler 1989), new wheels with less offset have been found therefore the resulting scrub radius is about 20 mm that is the amount we aimed for. The amount of castor angle was set to 3.5 degree and is also build in the front uprights. However, castor angle can be adjusted by adjustment of the upper wishbone. This requires that one arm of the wishbone to be shortened while lengthening the other arm by screwing in or out the adjustable spherical rod ends. Another possible adjustment is to assemble the upright in an inclined position on the hub axle but this is not a handy method of adjustment. For this location the steering assembly is at a g arm even though the steering arm is attached to the wheel. Therefore, the steering linkages had was to use a rocker arm but this will result in d relative to the rack as seen in Figure 30. higher position than the steerin the upright above the centre of to be redesigned. The solution a reversed movement of the tiero

The 2004 uprights design have been analysed and thorough consideration for the competition rules that allows for spherical rod ends in single shear capture d by an appropriate screw/bolt had been given. However, the judges did criticise this practice and strongly encouraged for the double shear design of the spherical rod ends pivot points. Method of fabrication 1. Option 1 Machine the component from one piece of material.

This option can result in a compact design with intricate shape if necessary and allows the use of a wide range of materials like aluminium alloys which will result in a much lighter component. Option 2- Fabricate the component by casting In addition, the method requires some machining but the amount of metal to be removed is minim. Also the method requires the design of special tools like dies as well as 53 special facilities for casting process. Although the initial cost of the dies is high, it is divided by the number of components produced so, for a thousand units production the cost per unit will be relatively low. Once again, the desig n dimensions must be accurate. Option 3 Fabricate the component by welding parts together

The advantage of this method is that the materials are inexpensive and available in the workshop shelves and does not require skilled labour to fabricate the component. It is also possible to modify the design at a later stage if necessar

y. This option will result in a relatively heavier component compared with option one but with a lower total cost. hubs The maximum accelerations are (Fenton 1980): - 3g vertical (hitting a bump); - 1g lateral (cornering); - 1g longitudinal (breaking/accelerating); Multiplying this accelerations with a factor of safety of 1.5 the resulting desi gn loads for the wheel are: -4500 N in vertical direction applied at the centre of the wheel; -1500 N in lateral direction applied at the centre of tyre contact patch; -1500 N in longitudinal direction applied also at the centre of the tyre contact patch. 3.1 ANSYS analysis solution The element solution was obtained by plotting stresses using von Misses theory of failure.

Potrebbero piacerti anche