Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES
2008-01-2952
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
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
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.
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
2008-01-2952
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.
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,
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
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.
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
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.
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
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
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Minimum
Nominal
Maximum
Full Jounce
-0.71
-0.75
-0.79
Full Rebound
0.58
0.62
0.66
Minimum
Nominal
Maximum
Full Jounce
0.10
0.43
0.76
Full Rebound
-0.17
-0.50
-0.84
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
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.
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
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
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.
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.
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
CONTACT
Andrew John Prusinowski. APRUZ@UMICH.EDU.
Senior in the Mechanical Engineering Program at the
University of Michigan.
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
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
Effect (%)
-2.01
1.32
1.15
-1.00
0.88
-0.19
-0.65
0.50
-0.25
0.17
0.15
Downloaded from SAE International by Ecole de Technologie Superieure, Tuesday, January 24, 2017
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
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
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
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