Sae Technical Paper Series: Andrew John Prusinowski

Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES
2008-01-2952
Exploring the Effect of Manufacturing Tolerances

on the Front Suspension Performance of a
Formula SAE Vehicle Relative to Design Targets
Andrew John Prusinowski
University of Michigan Ann Arbor
Motorsports Engineering Conference

Concord, North Carolina
December 2-4, 2008
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-0790 Web: www.sae.org
The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed
SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. This process requires a
minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.
For permission and licensing requests contact:
SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel:
724-772-4028
Fax:
724-776-3036
For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service
Tel:
877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel:
724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax:
724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2008 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract to Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
2008-01-2952
Exploring the Effect of Manufacturing Tolerances on the

Front Suspension Performance of a Formula SAE
Vehicle Relative to Design Targets
Andrew John Prusinowski
University of Michigan Ann Arbor
Copyright 2008 SAE International
ABSTRACT
The objective of this paper is to analyze the effects of
machining and build tolerances on the front suspension
performance of a Formula SAE (FSAE) race vehicle.
This problem will be approached analytically using the
MSC ADAMS software package, more specifically with
the development of vehicle suspension models and the
design of experiment (DOE) method to evaluate the
changes in suspension curves resulting from specified
tolerances. The results that will be provided will
comprise of the DOE results and the suspension curves
for the camber angle, toe angle, and vertical roll center
position, including their migrations through the complete
wheel travel of the vehicle. The conclusions to be drawn
from this research are to demonstrate how optimized
design targets for the suspension will change when
tolerances are considered during the manufacturing of
the vehicle.
Yamanaka, and Hoshino performed a study on

automobile suspensions for optimization using the
ADAMS software [1]. The objectives of this report are to
present the results of specific DOEs for the front
suspension of a FSAE vehicle. These DOEs evaluate
the camber angles, toe angles, and vertical roll center
positions given a set tolerance, and present relevant
conclusions to be used in future FSAE vehicle designs
at the University of Michigan.
RESEARCH FOCUS
In completing this research several decisions were
made to narrow the focus of the project. The first
decision was to focus on the front suspension, and to
not include the rear of the vehicle. Due to geometric
similarities, the rear suspension can be expected to
provide similar results. Figure 1 below shows the
computer model of the front suspension created in
ADAMS.
INTRODUCTION
The key issue of this research is to understand how
manufacturing tolerances will impact the suspension
performance of a Formula SAE race vehicle. The design
process behind such a vehicle consists of developing
design targets for the vehicle and constructing the
vehicle to reflect those targets. It is understood that the
suspension design is an important aspect, controlling the
stability and handling of the vehicle. When small
changes to the suspension hardpoints are introduced,
the impact on the suspension characteristics can be
magnified, potentially providing less than ideal
performance.
Consequently,
the
manufacturing
tolerances on the vehicle may result in these small
changes. The motivation behind this research is not only
to develop knowledge about the suspension and the
effects of such tolerances, but also to better understand
the ability to tune the vehicle in a controlled manner by
manipulating suspension hardpoints. This process of
using a DOE optimization method for suspension design
and evaluation is not new to the field of vehicle
dynamics, and is a relatively standard practice
throughout the world. In fact in 2000, Motoyama,
Figure 1: FSAE Front Vehicle Suspension Model
The design utilizes a pushrod and rocker suspension

type, the pushrod is mounted to the lower control arm
and activates the spring/damper through the rocker
which pivots on the chassis. A description of the location
of the suspension components can be seen in Figure 1
above.
Following the choice to focus on the front suspension,
the research was then limited to the camber, toe, and
vertical roll center position. The reason the research was
limited to these characteristics is due to the unknown
outcomes of the experiments, and the decision that
initially they are the most important to be examined.
The final limitation for the focus of the research was
exploring a tolerance in only the lateral (Y) and vertical
(Z) directions of the vehicle. The longitudinal axis may
add additional changes to the camber and toe angles,
however due to the process of defining and locating the
vertical roll center, tolerances in this direction are not
expected to impact the roll center location. To maintain
consistency in the experiments, the longitudinal
direction was removed from the initial phase of the
research.
CAMBER Camber refers to the tilt of the top of a

wheel on a vehicle, more specifically the angle between
the wheel and the vertical plane of the vehicle [3, p. 46]
Following SAE sign convention, positive camber is
defined as the wheel tilting outwards from the vehicle,
while negative camber is the reverse. In the front of the
vehicle, the camber angle greatly impacts lateral forces
on the vehicle through the contact of the tire with the
ground. This generation of a lateral force, or camber
thrust, impacts the handling and stability of the vehicle,
particularly for a race car during sharp cornering. The
contact patch is the area of the tire that is in contact with
the ground. This contact patch induces camber thrust
which is an additional lateral force on the tire. It is
important to note that this lateral force due to camber
thrust is dependent upon the tilt of the wheel relative to
the ground and not the vehicle, and acts in the direction
of the tilt. A diagram describing positive and negative
camber as well as these lateral forces is shown in Figure
2.
Figure 2: Camber Angle Reference Diagram
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Before discussing the design considerations, it should
be made clear that this research investigated
manufacturing tolerances that result in suspension
hardpoints being shifted from their design, and does not
consider the compliance effect of the suspension
components. This research focused primarily on the
suspension geometry and kinematics, which does not
describe the full detail involved in an overall vehicle
design.
Designing a suspension is a complex process and
involves compromise and the ability to design the
components and vehicle to best fit a given application.
Suspension geometry influences the relative motion of
the suspension components and how forces and loads
are transmitted across the vehicle [3, p. 607]. The
chosen suspension geometry and overall design should
be the one to most adequately provide the desired
performance and response. One compromise to the
design is that the suspension of a vehicle and its design
are limited by the packaging constraints; there are limits
to the amount of space permitted for each component.
Typically in racing applications the packaging area is
more compact which limits the suspension further,
however this is not always the case. From the feasible
suspension geometries, the design is refined by
optimizing the suspension through design targets and a
system of tradeoffs which ultimately decide the final
geometry. This is a generalized overview of the
processes involved in designing a suspension and the
following sections will detail the importance of each
suspension characteristic involved in this research.
The amount of camber on a vehicle is determined based

upon the desired response of the vehicle and the type of
event the vehicle will be running. This includes the
duration of the event, track conditions, and the
maneuvers the vehicle will need to perform. In order to
compensate for camber loss through roll of the vehicle,
additional negative camber can be applied to the static
position, as well as the design for negative camber gain
during wheel travel. Designing the vehicle to effectively
utilize camber results in a need to understand how the
camber angles and camber gain through the wheel
travel change due to the manufacturing tolerances of
the vehicle.
TOE The toe angle is defined as the angle between
the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and the vertical plane
of the wheel. The term toed-in, or positive toe, refers to
the front edge of the wheel being turned towards the
central axis of the vehicle, while toed-out, negative, is
the opposite [4, p.8]. A visual description of the toe
angle can be seen in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: Toe Angle Reference Diagram
The toe angle of a vehicles tires impacts the handling

ability of the vehicle when cornering and the stability of
a vehicle moving in a straight line direction. As with any
characteristic being considered in the design of a
suspension, the toe angle is a system of tradeoffs. The
vehicle is typically more stable in a straight line with
positive toe because the tires resist the motion of a turn.
If the wheels are setup with negative toe, small steering
angle inputs will help force the vehicle into the turn
improving handling, but reducing straight line stability.
The severity of these issues not only depends on the
direction of the toe, but also the amount of toe being
used on the vehicle. The toe angle setup will also result
in additional wear on the tires relative to running the
vehicle with zero toe.
Figure 4: Process of Finding Instant Centers
Once the instant centers have been determined,

geometrically it is possible to find the roll center
position. The roll center is the point of intersection
between imaginary lines drawn from the contact patch of
each tire to the instant center for each respective side of
the vehicle [3, p. 613]. The vertical roll center position is
quantified as the distance between the roll center and
the ground. The geometric relationship between the
instant centers and the roll center is described in Figure
5.
Figure 5: Geometric Description of the Roll Center
For the reasons listed above it is important to consider

the application of your vehicle, which also includes the
driver skill and experience for that application. In racing,
it can often be assumed that a driver would prefer to
have better handling through corners than straight line
stability. In this same regard, the ability to enter and exit
corners smoothly and as fast as possible is a huge
advantage on the track. Improving the handling and
helping the vehicle enter a turn with toe out can also
provide better results when the driver has limited racing
skills and/or experience. However, driver skill and the
permissible amount of instability are directly
proportional. When the vehicle is moving, the initial
setup of the vehicle is more relevant to effectively
controlling the dynamic changes to the toe angle
resulting from wheel travel and other disturbances to the
vehicle. With all of this considered, understanding the
changes to the toe angle through the wheel travel is
important not only for the intended design, but also what
changes result due to manufacturing tolerances.
Since the roll center is dependent upon suspension

geometry, at zero wheel travel the roll center is located
on the vertical axis of the vehicle when a symmetric
suspension design is used. The roll center can move
both vertically and laterally due to wheel travel. If
parallel wheel travel is considered, where both wheels
deflect in the same direction by the same distance, the
roll center will remain on the vertical axis of the vehicle.
When opposite wheel travel is induced, where the
wheels move opposite of one another, in this case the
roll center is not necessarily constrained to the
centerline of the vehicle. The vehicle can be design to
only allow vertical movement of the roll center. This
research will focus only on parallel wheel travel.
VERTICAL ROLL CENTER POSITION In explaining

the definition of the roll center, it is first required to
define the concept of instant centers. It should be noted
that ADAMS finds instant centers through a perturbation
method and the roll center location comes from the
jacobian matrix, not geometrically. Looking at a two
dimensional plane in the lateral direction, the instant
center for a given side of the vehicle is defined as the
intersection of imaginary lines drawn through the ball
joint and chassis mount point for the upper and lower
control arms [3, pp. 610-612]. The process of drawing
these intersecting lines is shown in Figure 4, where the
dashed lines represent the imaginary lines being used.
The roll center impacts the lateral loads on the vehicle,

as it allows for the lateral forces to be transmitted to the
roll center. The roll center results in a rolling moment
that is a function of the distance from the roll center to
the center of gravity. The roll center also creates a
moment known as the nonrolling overturning moment,
which is a result of the lateral forces on the vehicle and
dependent upon the roll center height [3, p. 614]. A
higher placement of the roll center reduces the rolling
moment as the roll center is moved closer to the center
of gravity, therefore reducing the length of the moment
arm. The downside of this change is that the nonrolling
overturning moment is increased due to the roll center
being positioned higher off the ground. As mentioned,

the roll center relates the suspension geometry and the
contact patch of the tires through instant centers. When
the vehicle performs a turn, lateral load is transferred
from one side of the vehicle to the other, and the
vertical position of the roll center relative to the ground
impacts this load transfer.
When load transfer occurs during cornering, the lateral
forces present at the contact patches for the inside and
outside tires are no longer equal. As a result, the vertical
force components of the suspension linkages do not
result in a net zero vertical force at the roll center. As a
result a vertical force is applied to the vehicle through
the roll center; this force is commonly referred to as the
suspension jacking force [4, p. 3]. This vertical force is
reacted through the suspension pickup points, and
changes the position of the vehicles center of gravity.
This change in center of gravity position will increase or
decrease the distance between the center of gravity and
the roll center. As mentioned before this vertical
distance impacts the rolling moment. The end result of
this is the need to understand the location and migration
of the roll center during wheel travel to better
understand lateral load transfer and the generation of
vertical forces, for both design and vehicle setup
purposes.
DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS The process of using
design of experiments (DOE) involves a systematic
method of determining the impact of a set number of
factors on the specific outcome of an experiment. In the
context of this paper, DOEs were used to evaluate the
effect of suspension hardpoints being varied in position
to find the resulting changes to different suspension
characteristics. The design of experiments method
involves developing a matrix of experimental
parameters. Each row of the matrix is a permutation,
and describes the value of each suspension hardpoint.
The number of permutations chosen to be included is
based upon how the points are interacting and the
complexity desired.
METHODOLOGY
In order to determine the effect of manufacturing
tolerances on the suspension performance of the
vehicle, vehicle simulation software was required. MSC
ADAMS was chosen as the software to be used in this
research. MSC ADAMS is an advanced software
package that provides the ability to perform design, in
depth analysis, and simulations of a suspension.
ADAMS was used to construct the suspension models,
design and build the DOEs, and to analyze specific
results. With the help of the FSAE suspension template
from MSC [2], the suspension models were built using
ADAMS Car. The DOEs were designed and built using
ADAMS Insight, and the DOEs were run externally using
the built-in solver for ADAMS. Results were obtained
and analyzed using ADAMS post-processing.
The baseline, or nominal, values for the camber angle,

toe angle, and vertical roll center position, as well as
their migrations, were determined through simulations
that moved the wheels of the vehicle through their
complete travel, approximately one inch in jounce and
rebound. These nominal results were used to
demonstrate how the static values of each
characteristic, as well as the slope/linearity during wheel
travel, will change as a result of manufacturing
tolerances. The response curves that resulted from
ADAMS simulations were verified for accuracy against
the original designs achieved using an in-house
MATLAB kinematics solver.
SCREENING DOE For each of the suspension
characteristics, a screening DOE was built and run to
determine
which
suspension
hardpoints
most
significantly impacted the particular characteristic being
examined. The screening DOEs apply small
perturbations to each hardpoint and output the overall
percent effect of the individual hardpoints on the
suspension characteristic. Based on vehicle symmetry,
the camber angle, and toe angle, and vertical roll center
position used screening DOEs comprised of each
suspension hardpoint for the front left corner of the
vehicle. The results of the screening DOEs provided the
basis for designing the full DOEs. From the screening
DOEs, the hardpoints chosen to include were those that
impacted the characteristics by the largest percentage.
The inclusions were limited to the hardpoints affecting
each characteristic by a minimum of approximately one
percent. In some cases, hardpoints below this threshold
were chosen to complete the selection of a control arm
in a given direction, where one or more control arm
hardpoints had met this requirement. In addition, if
hardpoints met this requirement for jounce or rebound
but not the other extreme, they were included to reflect
symmetry in the DOEs.
FULL DOE- A complete DOE was designed and built
independently for each suspension characteristic. The
DOEs assumed maximum tolerances of 2.5 mm,
which was estimated based on the quality and
capabilities of the machines and processes used during
the manufacturing of the vehicle. Each DOE runs a
simulation of the full wheel travel of the vehicle for each
permutation. It is recommended to run the simulation
externally in ADAMS Car so that a results file for each
permutation is created. These results files provide the
ability to examine the migration of a given characteristic
for any permutation within the DOE. The DOEs also
require that responses be set which specify the outputs
for each permutation. In order to limit the complexity
and time requirements of the research, the DOEs were
limited to a smaller number of runs. With the DOEs set
up in this manner the permutations focus on moving the
points near the maximum allowable tolerance. This
provides the results of the worst case scenarios in which
hardpoints deviate from the design by the largest
amount. As a side note, when the DOEs include the
control arms, each one of the control arms have all
mount points tied together in a given direction. This
means that as one hardpoint moves by a given amount
in any direction, so do each of the other points. The

reason for this is that each control arm is manufactured
with a very tight tolerance and it can be assumed that
the mount points cannot move independently of one
another. The full DOEs are described for each
suspension characteristic in the following sections.
Camber Angle The DOE that was designed to
examine the camber angle of the vehicle was built as a
DOE response surface utilizing a quadratic full factorial
DOE, which yielded a total of 243 permutations. The
suspension hardpoints used in this DOE are listed below
(in no particular order):
x Inner Tie Rod Mount Z Direction
x Outer Tie Rod Mount Z Direction
x Lower Control Arm Z Direction
o Front Chassis Mount Point
o Rear Chassis Mount Point
o Outer Ball Joint
x Upper Control Arm Y Direction
o Outer Ball Joint
x Upper Control Arm Z Direction
o Outer Ball Joint
The response outputs for the camber angle DOEs were
the maximum (positive) change which occurs at full
rebound, as well as the minimum (negative) change
which occurs when the wheels are at full jounce.
Toe Angle The DOE designed to examine the toe
angle of the vehicle was built as a DOE response
surface utilizing an interaction full factorial DOE, which
yielded a total of 128 permutations. The suspension
hardpoints used in this DOE are listed below (in no
particular order):
x
x
x
x
x
Inner Tie Rod Mount Y Direction

Inner Tie Rod Mount Z Direction
Outer Tie Rod Mount Y Direction
Outer Tie Rod Mount Z Direction
Lower Control Arm Z Direction
o Outer Ball Joint
o Outer Ball Joint
o Outer Ball Joint
The response outputs for the toe angle DOEs were the
maximum (positive) change which occurs at full jounce,
as well as the minimum (negative) change which occurs
when the wheels are at full rebound.
Vertical Roll Center Position The DOE designed to

examine the vertical roll center position was built as a
DOE response surface using a linear full factorial DOE,
which yielded a total of 256 permutations. The
suspension hardpoints used in this DOE are listed below
(in no particular order) assuming that each hardpoint
was used for the left and right side of the vehicle:
x Lower Control Arm Z Direction
o Outer Ball Joint
x Lower Control Arm Y Direction
o Outer Ball Joint
o Outer Ball Joint
o Outer Ball Joint
The response outputs for the vertical roll center position
DOEs were the maximum (positive) position which
occurs at full rebound, as well as the minimum
(negative) roll center position which occurs when the
wheels are at full jounce.
RESULTS
This section details the results of each DOE that was
performed, providing the plots and important values for
each suspension characteristic that was examined.
SCREENING DOE The results obtained from the
camber angle screening DOE are shown below,
complete results can be found in the APPENDIX.
In Table 1 below, you can see the hardpoints chosen to
be included in the full camber DOE as well their effect
on the maximum change in the camber angle as a
relative percentage of the overall effect due to small
perturbations.
Table 1: Changes in camber angle at full
rebound resulting from small 1 mm
perturbations to the suspension hardpoints.
Suspension Hardpoint
Upper Control Arm Outer Z
Upper Control Arm Front Z
Upper Control Arm Rear Z
Lower Control Arm Front Z
Lower Control Arm Outer Z
Lower Control Arm Rear Z
Tierod Inner Z
Tierod Outer Z
Upper Control Arm Outer Y
Upper Control Arm Front Y
Upper Control Arm Rear Y
Effect (%)
9.74
-6.29
-5.22
4.85
-4.37
0.72
3.12
-2.53
0.63
-0.39
-0.32
FULL DOE The purpose of each full DOE was to

determine the changes in the slope and the extremes to
the characteristic curves of the suspension. For each
DOE, the simulations outputted the values of the
camber angles, toe angles, and the vertical roll center
positions for the wheels at maximum jounce and
rebound. In doing so the results of each permutation
were added to a database where the full simulation for
each permutation could be examined. When these
results were added to the afore-mentioned nominal
curves, they created representative error bars at the
extremes of the curves. These error bars demonstrate
the changes to the curves that result from the tolerances
included in the DOEs. The camber angle, toe angle, and
vertical roll center position results are detailed in the
following sections.
Camber Angle The results of the camber DOEs were
oriented so that at zero wheel travel the curve shows a
camber angle of zero. This is done to show the camber
gain from the design value as the wheel moves through
jounce and rebound, and does not reflect a vehicle
designed with zero camber. The dashed lines represent
the curves for the extreme changes at maximum jounce
and rebound, with the maximum negative camber gain
at full jounce corresponding to the maximum positive
camber gain at full rebound, and vice versa for the
minimums of each extreme. The camber curves are
shown below in Figure 6.
Table 2: Changes in camber gain at full jounce and

full rebound are minimal (degrees).
Wheel Position
Minimum
Nominal
Maximum
Full Jounce
-0.71
-0.75
-0.79
Full Rebound
0.58
0.62
0.66
Toe Angle Similar to the camber DOE, the toe angle

results were shifted to show a toe angle of zero with no
wheel travel, and does not reflect the vehicle being
designed in such a way. The relationship between the
extremes of the results at maximum jounce and rebound
are more visible for the toe angle DOE and are
represented by dashed lines. The resulting curves are
shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7: A tolerance of 2.5 mm applied to front
suspension produces an average range of toe
angles of 0.33 degrees from the nominal result
at full jounce and full rebound and a slope range
of 0.014 degrees per millimeter of travel.
Figure 6: A tolerance of 2.5 mm on the front

suspension induces very small changes to the
camber gain throughout the complete wheel
travel.
The toe angle DOE showed significant changes at

maximum jounce and rebound. Considering the
tolerance of 2.5 mm used in the DOE, these results
show how sensitive the toe angle is relative to the
vehicle setup, and even the smallest changes to the
suspension hardpoints can alter the alignment of the
vehicle. The curves also demonstrate significant
changes in the slope of the curves; this slope relates the
change in the toe angle to the wheel travel.
The DOE used for camber in the front of the vehicle

presented encouraging results, showing small changes
to the camber gain at full jounce and rebound. Also, the
results showed infinitesimal changes to the slope of the
curve which represents the camber gain throughout the
wheel travel. To emphasize what is shown in the figure
above the changes in the camber angle are shown in
Table 2.
The relative changes to the toe angle at maximum

jounce and rebound are listed in Table 3 below. When
considering the magnitude of these values, the changes
are drastic in comparison with the nominal curve.
Table 3: Changes in toe angle at full jounce and full
rebound are relatively large (degrees).
Wheel Position
Minimum
Nominal
Maximum
Full Jounce
0.10
0.43
0.76
Full Rebound
-0.17
-0.50
-0.84
Vertical Roll Center Position The DOE for the

vertical roll center position provided results that show
the position at zero wheel travel as well as how the roll
center migrates in the vertical plane between full jounce
and rebound. As with the other DOE results, the dashed
curves represent the results of the simulations that
provided the largest changes to the roll center position
at maximum jounce and rebound. The results of the
DOE are shown in Figure 8 below.
Figure 8: A tolerance of 2.5 mm applied to front
suspension produces minimal (negligible)
changes to the roll center slope, and an average
maximum offset at static wheel position of
1.76 mm.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this section is to overview the results of
this research, including details on the validity and
implications of the results.
As expected, each of the DOEs provided results
describing changes in the suspension curves resulting
from the manufacturing tolerances. The amount by
which each characteristic was affected by these
tolerances was unique for each DOE, as was also
expected. This research focused on suspension
geometry and kinematics; for this reason the
introduction of the tolerances meant changes to the
suspension geometry which ultimately impacted the
desired performance.
The camber angle was shown to change very little as a
result of the tolerances. The most significant result of
the camber DOE was that the camber gain, the slope of
the curve, changed by less than 0.1 degrees per inch of
wheel travel. This suggests that significant changes to
the camber might only occur when considering larger
tolerances. It also suggests confidence in the camber
targets defined during the vehicle design stage.
The DOE for the vertical roll center position shows

that for the given tolerance of 2.5 mm, the roll
center will shift in position at zero wheel travel by a
relatively small amount. It can also be seen that the
expected migration throughout the wheel travel will be
virtually identical to the nominal curve, shifted by the
initial offset at zero wheel travel. Due to this fact, the
slope of the curves are the same, and in this case
approximately one millimeter of wheel travel results in
one millimeter change to the roll center position in the
direction of the travel. The details of the changes in
roll center position resulting from the manufacturing
tolerances at maximum jounce and rebound are
shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Description of relative movement for the
roll center position at the static wheel position, as
well as at full jounce and full rebound (mm).
Wheel Position
Minimum
Nominal
Maximum
Full Jounce
8.22
10.52
12.93
Static
Full Rebound
32.88
57.99
34.60
59.40
36.40
60.89
Opposite of the camber DOE, the toe angle showed

significant changes resulting from the tolerances. The
results show not only large changes to the toe angle at
full jounce and rebound, but also describe changes in
the slope of the curve, which controls the effect of the
wheel travel. The overall range of slopes seen in the
results is 0.027 degrees per millimeter of wheel travel,
considered as the separation of the extremes. This
range provides the possibility for the change of the toe
angle through the wheel travel of the vehicle to change
dramatically during manufacturing. More important is
the change during wheel travel, as the static toe setting
can be adjusted during vehicle alignment. Although
these results are based on tolerances, it can also be
inferred that system compliance can lead to a significant
impact on the dynamic toe angle. The overall conclusion
about the toe angle is that the toelink design in not
robust, and should be improved to reduce these issues.
The vertical roll center DOE provided results that were
encouraging. Overall the changes were relatively small,
the end result being an offset from the nominal position
at zero wheel travel. The other observation that can be
found from these results is that the migration of the roll
center held a constant slope when compared with the
nominal design curve. This relatively constant slope of
approximately 1 was found to be a reasonable result.
The roll center position is very dependent upon the
location of the control arms, and though each control
arm moved independently, the ball joint and mount
points for each control arm were tied together. As stated
previously, the control arms are manufactured to an
extremely tight tolerance and this ultimately results in
small changes to the roll center position as well as the
migration of the roll center through parallel wheel travel.
Although the results of this research were conclusive,

extensions to the objectives can be considered to further
these results. Increasing the size of the DOEs, further
investigation into the expected tolerances, and a more
random process of moving the suspension hardpoints
can all provide more detail and potentially increased
accuracy in the results. It should be noted that the DOEs
included in this research focused on the extreme cases
for permutations where the hardpoints were varied near
the maximum allowable tolerance. Therefore, using the
same tolerance, results should not be expected to be
out of the range provided by this research.
The results of this research extend beyond the initial

scope of examining the effect of such tolerances. These
results also provide the basis for improving the design
and manufacturing processes, as well the inclusion of
adjustability in the suspension. The processes used in
this experiment can be modified to implement tuning
features on the suspension of the vehicle as well as the
ability to develop a simplified lap time simulator. Future
advancements and modifications to this research will be
used to verify these conclusions, as well as further the
competitive edge gained by utilizing these processes in
Formula SAE.
The knowledge gained from this research not only

provides insight into the effect of tolerances, but also
gives the ability to manipulate the suspension geometry
in a controlled manner. The generation of the DOEs was
done by a controlled random process and the individual
results for each permutation provide the suspension
curves for a specific geometry, one that is different from
the initial design. In the world of racing, track
environments are always changing; a vehicle may be
designed to provide adequate results for most
conditions, but often it is better suited for the vehicle to
be adaptable. In terms of suspension, the concept of
having an adaptable vehicle means the ability to adjust
and tune the suspension according to track conditions.
By examining these adjustments through processes that
parallel this research, the range of adjustment and the
required actions for a desired condition can be defined.
These results can be verified through rigorous testing on
the track, and can potentially provide the added
competitive edge racers all over the world are looking
for. This specifically pertains to Formula SAE teams
where budgets are limited and design time is
constrained.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The concept of having a robust design is very important.

As mentioned previously, the control arms are
manufactured to a very tight tolerance and limited the
impact of movement to these suspension hardpoints.
These results provide conclusions that greatly impact
the design and manufacturing processes to be used in
the future. In the design phase, it is now concluded that
more focus should be put on creating a robust toelink
design so that significant changes to the toe angle can
be eliminated. It is also known that the manufacturing of
the toelink should be reconsidered to be more robust
and include the ability to be adjusted.
CONCLUSION
The results of this work have shown the impact of
manufacturing tolerances on the front suspension
performance of a Formula SAE vehicle that utilizes a
pushrod rocker design. The conclusions are that in this
design, a chosen manufacturing tolerance of 2.5 mm
shows minor effects to the camber gain and changes in
the vertical roll center position. However, there is a
significant impact to how the toe angle changes
throughout the wheel travel of the vehicle.
First, I would like to acknowledge Dr. rer. nat. Volker

Sick for his full support and advisement of this research.
As a Professor at the University of Michigan and faculty
advisor to the Formula SAE team, he has increased the
knowledge of many students. He has also provided
unique opportunities for numerous students, including
myself. Secondly, I would like to acknowledge the help
and input of Ryan Kraft who as the suspension team
leader provided the basis and need for this work to be
completed. Throughout the research he also provided
me with insight and the benefits of a fellow students
opinion on how to approach certain aspects of the
problem. Thirdly, I would like to acknowledge the help of
Professor Leslie Olsen of the University of Michigan,
whose technical communication expertise allowed me to
prepare and present a much better paper. Finally, I want
to extend my sincerest appreciation to Jesper
Slttengren of Pratt & Miller Engineering and
Fabrication, whose unparalleled knowledge and
understanding of both vehicle dynamics and the MSC
ADAMS software has aided me in developing the skills
required to complete this research.
REFERENCES
1. Motoyama, K., Yamanaka, T., Hoshino, H., 2000, A
Study of Automobile Suspension Design Using
Optimization Technique, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics.
2.
MSC Software, 2006, FSAE Template for ADAMS

2005 r2, www.mscsoftware.com/university/programs.
3. Milliken, W.F., Milliken, D.L., 1995, Race Car

Vehicle Dynamics, SAE International, Warrendale,
PA.
4. Gerrard, M.B., Roll Centres and Jacking Forces in
Independent Suspensions, SAE SP-1438, Society of
Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA, March
1999.
5. Vehicle Dynamics Terminology SAE J670D,
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale,
PA, July 1975.
CONTACT
Andrew John Prusinowski. APRUZ@UMICH.EDU.
Senior in the Mechanical Engineering Program at the
University of Michigan.
DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS

The following is a list of definitions detailing terminology
and abbreviations to be used as a reference when
reading this report.
ADAMS: Acronym for the MSC software package
standing for Automatic Dynamic Analysis of Mechanical
Systems.
Camber: The inclination of the wheel relative to the
vertical axis of the vehicle, defined as positive when the
top of the wheel is tilted outward from the vehicle, and
negative when tilted towards the vehicle [5, p. 8].
Camber Gain: The change in camber angle resulting
from positive or negative wheel travel from the static
position.
DOE: Stands for Design of Experiment which consists of
a matrix of system parameters designating permutations
of the included variables.
Hardpoint: Refers to a specific reference point in the
suspension geometry with an X, Y, and Z coordinate
referenced from the origin.
Instant Center: Looking at a two dimensional plane in
the lateral direction, the instant center for a given side of
the vehicle is defined as the intersection of imaginary
lines drawn through the ball joint and chassis mount
point for the upper and lower control arms [3, p. 610612].
Jounce: Defined as the suspension travel of the vehicle
in which positive wheel travel occurs, reducing the
displacement between the sprung and unsprung
masses.
Screening DOE: Same as DOE, except is designed to
relate chosen variables to a given output, determining
their relevance.
Rebound: Relative displacement of the sprung and
unsprung masses in which the distance between the two
is increased when compared with the static
displacement, considered negative wheel travel in this
experiment [5, p. 8].
Toe: The toe angle is defined as the angle between the
longitudinal axis and the vertical plane of the wheel. The
term toed-in, or positive toe, refers to the front edge of
the wheel being turned towards the central axis of the
vehicle, while toed-out, negative, is the opposite
[5, p. 8].
Vertical Roll Center: The roll center is the point of

intersection between imaginary lines drawn from the
contact point between each tire and the ground to the
instant center for each respective side of the vehicle [3,
p. 613].
APPENDIX
The results presented in the appendix detail the findings
for each screening DOE performed in this research. The
camber and toe angles used DOEs to examine left front
corner of the suspension, while the roll center looked at
the front suspension as a whole. Each table lists only the
hardpoints chosen and shows the relative percent effect
of each one on the given characteristic. The vertical roll
position screening DOE showed the same results for the
left and right sides of the suspension, therefore only
details for left side are shown
A.1 Camber Angle Screening DOE Results
Table A.1.1: Changes in camber angle at full
Tierod Inner Z
Tierod Outer Z
Effect (%)
9.74
-6.29
-5.22
4.85
-4.37
0.72
3.12
-2.53
0.63
-0.39
-0.32
Table A.1.2: Changes in camber angle at full

jounce resulting from small 1 mm
Tierod Inner Z
Tierod Outer Z
Effect (%)
-2.01
1.32
1.15
-1.00
0.88
-0.19
-0.65
0.50
-0.25
0.17
0.15
A.2 Toe Angle Screening DOE Results

Table A.2.1: Changes in toe angle at full
Tierod Inner Z
Tierod Outer Z
Tierod Outer Y
Tierod Inner Y
Effect (%)
-42.32
35.49
-19.06
15.49
7.56
-15.62
9.49
7.22
-3.37
0.47
-1.86
0.55
0.34

Tierod Inner Z
Tierod Outer Z
Tierod Outer Y
Tierod Inner Y
Effect (%)
14.57
-11.59
6.04
-5.63
-2.22
5.63
-2.72
-3.51
1.12
-0.28
-0.36
-0.72
0.47
A.3 Vertical Roll Center Screening DOE Results

Lower Control Arm Front Y
Lower Control Arm Outer Y
Lower Control Arm Rear Y
Effect (%)
2.76
-2.59
0.44
1.82
-1.21
-0.91
-0.12
0.07
-0.02
0.07
0.03
-0.02

Lower Control Arm Front Y
Lower Control Arm Outer Y
Lower Control Arm Rear Y
Effect (%)
16.79
-14.28
3.18
10.68
-7.29
-6.27
0.85
-0.98
0.28
1.67
-1.26
-1.18

Sae Technical Paper Series: Andrew John Prusinowski

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Sae Technical Paper Series: Andrew John Prusinowski

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Exploring the Effect of Manufacturing Tolerances

Motorsports Engineering Conference

For multiple print copies contact:

Exploring the Effect of Manufacturing Tolerances on the

Yamanaka, and Hoshino performed a study on

Figure 1: FSAE Front Vehicle Suspension Model

The design utilizes a pushrod and rocker suspension

CAMBER Camber refers to the tilt of the top of a

The amount of camber on a vehicle is determined based

Figure 3: Toe Angle Reference Diagram

The toe angle of a vehicles tires impacts the handling

Figure 4: Process of Finding Instant Centers

Once the instant centers have been determined,

For the reasons listed above it is important to consider

Since the roll center is dependent upon suspension

VERTICAL ROLL CENTER POSITION In explaining

The roll center impacts the lateral loads on the vehicle,

being positioned higher off the ground. As mentioned,

The baseline, or nominal, values for the camber angle,

in any direction, so do each of the other points. The

Inner Tie Rod Mount Y Direction

Vertical Roll Center Position The DOE designed to

FULL DOE The purpose of each full DOE was to

Table 2: Changes in camber gain at full jounce and

Toe Angle Similar to the camber DOE, the toe angle

Figure 6: A tolerance of 2.5 mm on the front

The toe angle DOE showed significant changes at

The DOE used for camber in the front of the vehicle

The relative changes to the toe angle at maximum

Vertical Roll Center Position The DOE for the

The DOE for the vertical roll center position shows

Opposite of the camber DOE, the toe angle showed

Although the results of this research were conclusive,

The results of this research extend beyond the initial

The knowledge gained from this research not only

The concept of having a robust design is very important.

First, I would like to acknowledge Dr. rer. nat. Volker

MSC Software, 2006, FSAE Template for ADAMS

3. Milliken, W.F., Milliken, D.L., 1995, Race Car

DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS

Vertical Roll Center: The roll center is the point of

Table A.1.2: Changes in camber angle at full

A.2 Toe Angle Screening DOE Results

Table A.2.2: Changes in toe angle at full

A.3 Vertical Roll Center Screening DOE Results

Table A.3.2: Changes in toe angle at full

Potrebbero piacerti anche