Structural Report

Sunseeker
Western Michigan University

American Solar Challenge

Revision C
June 7th, 2010
Addendum
1. Reference page 3. Why do you say you are using snap rings to hold spherical bearings in
place? What spherical bearings? You are using rod ends. Am I correct in assuming
you are using HXAM-7T rod ends for both top and bottom a-arms? Have you checked
with the manufacturer regarding the thrust load capacity of the rod end you are using?
Data was removed. Snap rings are used to hold spherical bearings in place on the rear
axle. On the front suspension, both the top and bottom A-arms connect to the upright via
HXAM-7T rod ends. Aurora Bearing lists an ultimate radial static load of 17,105 lbs.

2. I am assuming that you are applying equal braking to all three wheels. I also assume you
are doing a front-rear dual/redundant braking system, each with its own master cylinder.
Your section on brakes lacks detail. In your first structural report, you indicate that you
are using a Shimano parking brake. Is this still true? How do you activate the parking
brake in a locked "on" condition?
We are using a dual/redundant braking system with a 6 to 1 ratio providing equal braking
to all three wheels. We are using a Shimano mechanical caliper and Hayes rotor for our
parking brake. The parking brake is activated by hand via a ratcheted lever, this is the
same system used in the 2008 vehicle. More information has been added to the brakes
section.

3. Reference page 11. As I wrote in my first reply to a previous version of your structural
report, I have concerns regarding the way your battery box is constructed. I get nervous
when I see honeycomb panels glued together where corners are not wrapped or
reinforced. Please read my earlier comments.
No Comment. We feel the battery box is adequately manufactured and are prepared to
present this at scrutineering.

4. Reference page 33 and 34. Your analysis is not correct. Why are you dividing the G-
loads by 4 when you have a three wheel vehicle? Also, your static analysis on the top of
page 34 does not account for the overhanging bump load on the wheel. Your value for
L, the cantilever length of the rod end equal to .85 inch, is unrealistic. For the rod end I
think you are using, the value for L will be more than an inch with a required jam nut.
The value for L should be measured to the bottom of the jam nut. (Also the jam nuts
need to be secured by safety wire or with the use of flex-loc nuts). I've attached a
drawing from your report with the dimensions you are using in your analysis. Please fill
in the missing dimension and send the sketch back to me. All in all, the FOS that you
calculate at the bottom of page 34 is not correct. It will be much lower.
Calculations were updated for a three wheeled vehicle with the proper cantilever length,
See Appendix E. It is unclear how safety wire affects the lock nut in a situation where
removal would not be possible. For the lock nut come loose, Both of the A-arm
mounting brackets would have pulled out of the car, the upright would be spinning with
the wheel (requiring at least one of the rod ends to have already failed), or the rod end
would have sheared off. In these situations considered, the team feels that safety wire is
highly unnecessary.
5. The missing dimension in the figure below is 5.52”

6. I hope there are no surprises when I inspect your vehicle at the qualifier. One thing I will
be looking at is the manner in which you are attaching your roll cage to the composite
frame. The roll cage FEA is usually based on rigid and adequate constraints at the points
of attachment. The interface between composite and metal framing is always one of my
major concerns. The FOS for some of the loading scenarios on the roll cage are less than
1.0. This predicts failure.
The Sunseeker team also feels the interface between composite and metal framing is a
major concern. This is true for the suspension mounting and roll cage mounting. We feel
the real concern is with the adhesive between the metal framing and composite. The
proper research has gone into material properties and findings were factored into the
manufacturing process, including surface finishes and surface preparations.

7. It really bothers me when I see an upright designed the way you have done your design; the
weakest cross section is the point where bending moments are the highest. At the qualifier, you
and I will go through a bending stress analysis of your upright and check out your FEA on page
21.
The uprights were used in the 2008 vehicle. You were
correct to have concerns on the analysis. FEA was
checked and re-performed using the correct loading and
a proper mesh. The resulting highest von Mises stress
was 28270 psi with a safety factor of 1.4 (Appendix A).
Analysis was run on only the upright where in reality it
has a 6061-T6 aluminum insert. This allows access to
the rod end on the lower A arm. In reality the cross
section is much larger than the one seen in the analysis.

8. Reference page 19. Did your FEA for the a-arms include braking forces?
Yes, the finite element analysis for the a-arms included braking along with bump and
steer. The loading applied to the suspension components are highlighted in Table 4:
Load Cases at Wheel Contact Surface.
Table of Contents
SECTION 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
A: Layout .................................................................................................................................... 2
SECTION 2: Mechanical Systems Analysis................................................................................... 3
A: Front Suspension .................................................................................................................... 3
B: Rear Suspension ..................................................................................................................... 4
C: Brakes ..................................................................................................................................... 6
D: Steering .................................................................................................................................. 8
E: Wheels and Tires .................................................................................................................... 9
F: Battery Enclosure ................................................................................................................. 12
SECTION 3: Vehicle Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 15
A: Specifications ....................................................................................................................... 15
B: Drawings .............................................................................................................................. 15
C: Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 16
Frame .................................................................................................................................... 16
Roll Bars ............................................................................................................................... 18
D: Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 18
SECTION 4: Appendices .............................................................................................................. 19
Appendix A Mechanical Systems Analysis Supporting Documentation ................................. 19
Front Suspension ................................................................................................................... 19
Rear Suspension .................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix B Vehicle Impact Analysis Supporting Documentation ......................................... 26
Roll Cage .............................................................................................................................. 26
Appendix C Suspension and Steering Geometry Analysis ....................................................... 33
Appendix D Brake System Analysis......................................................................................... 34
Appendix E Rod End Calculations ........................................................................................... 35
Front Suspension ................................................................................................................... 35
Rear Suspension .................................................................................................................... 38
SECTION 1: Introduction
The Western Michigan University solar car team is submitting this structural report for its entry
in the 2010 American Solar Challenge cross-country rayce. We have chosen to design and
construct an entirely new vehicle although there are components of previous designs which we
have duplicated in this new vehicle because of the proven reliability of those components.

All of the solar vehicles previously designed by Western Michigan University have been four
wheel designs because of the inherent stability. The 2008 car looked like a three wheel design
because the rear wheels were closely spaced. The 2010 vehicle is a true three wheel design with
two front wheels and a centrally mounted rear wheel. This design came about as a result of the
upright seating requirement for the driver. It made sense aerodynamically to follow the taller
cockpit area with a single rear wheel. Our two CSIRO motors are attached to the front wheels
which will make this vehicle one of the few to have front wheel drive. We have used two CSIRO
motors on the 1999, 2003, 2005 and 2008 vehicles. The 2008 and 2010 cars use series connected
motor windings with higher voltage battery packs.

Aerodynamic changes should improve the car‟s efficiency slightly and add structural rigidity to
the front of the car. Adding a leading edge to the car will improve the airflow at the nose of the
car. The process of installing this leading edge effectively added a front bumper to the car. The
addition of front wheel fairings is a permanent feature which was never fully implemented on the
2008 design. Top down, the vehicle is 4.95 meters long and 1.6 meters wide.

Some of our drivers complained about cockpit temperatures and visibility. We have added fresh
air intake ducts to help keep the drivers cooler and also to provide better cooling for some of the
electronics. Our canopy windscreen has darker tinting to reduce the sun‟s heat. The rear part of
the canopy has been replaced with a solid cover of fiberglass. This will also reduce the amount of
solar radiation entering the cockpit.

The analysis shows that the Sunseeker 2010 is more structurally sound than it was in 2008, and
meets the safety requirements of the NASC 2010 regulations.

1
A: Layout

Figure 1: 2010 Sunseeker Component Layout

Center of
Gravity

Figure 2: Vehicle Wheel Base, Track Width, and Center of Gravity

2
SECTION 2: Mechanical Systems Analysis
A: Front Suspension

The front suspension is a four bar linkage that allows an upright to pivot about a 7.145 degree
kingpin axis (also called steering inclination axis) to provide steering. This arrangement (Figures
3 and 4) allows maximum wheel travel while minimizing bump steer and wheel scrub. The
upright is inclined with a 3.212 degree castor angle, improving the directional stability of the car.
The roll center of the front suspension is one inch above the center of gravity. To ensure the yaw
stability of the car the suspension is designed to prevent pitching moments reducing load transfer
longitudinally and laterally. Analysis can be seen in Appendix C. The suspension was
redesigned using the 2008 upright. The axle was redesigned to accommodate a castle nut and
keyway as the team did not feel the press fit used in 2008 was adequate.

Figure 3: Front Suspension Back View

Figure 4: Front Suspension Top View

3
The suspension was analyzed and optimized using WinGeo3. Finite element analysis was used
to ensure the safety of suspension components. See Appendix A for mechanical systems
analysis.

RockShox Vivid 1.5 downhill racing mountain bike shocks (Figure 5) are used on both the front
and rear suspension. Calculations were done for a ride frequency between 2.0 and 2.5 Hz. The
center of gravity was found by specifying material properties and relative densities of each
component shown (Figure 2). Based on careful analysis we chose to use 2.25” 500lb steel coil
springs in the front suspension and 2.25” 600lb steel coil springs in the rear suspension. The
front suspension is designed for 2 inches of total travel, 1 inch up and 1 inch down.

Figure 5: RockShox Vivid 1.5 Mountain Bike Shocks

B: Rear Suspension

The 2010 Sunseeker rear suspension is a modification of the 2008 rear trailing arm. The rear
suspension is a trailing arm design that offers a total of five inches of travel. This is seen as 2.5
inches positive and 2.5 inches negative. The brakes are located on the inside of the trailing arm
bracket.

The rear axle was modified to accommodate one rear tire centered (Figure 6). The brakes and
wheel are kept in the same axis of motion by use of a keyway machined into the axle. The
material used in the construction of the rear suspension components is 4130 steel (Chromoly)
with a 7/8 inch OD and a wall thickness of .064 inches. The motor axle and wheel flange were
machined from 7075-T6 aluminum. The properties of the steel used in the rod ends were
assumed to be of a minimum strength equal to that found in SAE-grade 5 bolts. Rod end
calculations are shown in Appendix E.

The loading conditions used to design the rear suspension were based on the estimated static load
of 200 lbs at each rear wheel. The stresses in the suspension were calculated using a 2G bump, a
1G turn and a 1G braking load simultaneously. The loads were applied at the location of the
bearings on the axle as they would be seen through the wheel, including the brake caliper load.

4
The rear suspension was designed with the following assumptions on fatigue, loading, and
fabrication effects. First, fatigue would not be a concern as the product life would be short and
the stresses resulting from braking, bumps, and cornering individually would not create stresses
above 20% of the yield strength of the material used. Only a combination of the three loads
would be able to create loads above half of yield, and would be rare. The loading assumptions
were based on a total vehicle weight of 625 lbs. The fabrication of the rear suspension involved
welding of 4130 steel and it was assumed that 65% of the original yield stress would remain.

In 2008 this trailing arm mounted to a roll cage. The 2010 Sunseeker is a composite chassis,
therefore a 4130 steel mount is used to evenly distribute stresses throughout the vehicle. The
mount is 1.125” diameter tubing with a 0.120” wall thickness (Figure 7). Welding was used to
assemble this structure. All tubular components were made of 4130 steel. Finite element
analysis was performed on the rear trailing arm and can be seen in Appendix A.

Figure 6: Rear Axle Assembly

Figure 7: Rear trailing arm and mounting assembly

5
C: Brakes

The 2010 Sunseeker is equipped with Wilwood PS1 calipers and BP-10 brake pads on all three
wheels. These brakes are designed for use on small motorcycles and karts (Figure 8). It is
reasonable to say the brake system is overdesigned for the vehicle. A summary of the rotor and
caliper is shown in Table 1. The 5/8 bore master cylinders are also manufactured by Wilwood
Engineering and are specifically designed for the calipers in use. Calculations were performed
using designed system parameters, meaning the actual Wilwood caliper, brake pads, master
cylinders, and vehicle dimensions. The motion ratio of 6 to 1 was chosen by requiring a pedal
input force of 35 lbf to stop the vehicle at scrutineering. Using a force gage we determined the
lowest pedal input, out of all of the drivers seated in the car, is 48 lbf.

Figure 8: Wilwood Caliper and Brake Rotor

Caliper Rotor
Fits Rotor Diameter 6.00 – 9.00” (152.4 – 228.6 mm) Rotor Diameter 7.204” (183 mm)
Fits Rotor Thickness 0.15 to 0.20” (3.81 – 5.08 mm) Thickness 0.15748” (4 mm)
Table 1: Brake Caliper and Rotor Compatibility

The Sunseeker 10 is a dual/redundant brake system with two brakes in the front and one in the
rear. The two master cylinders have a 6:1 ratio which is achieved with a Wilwood brake pedal
and balance bar specifically designed for the system. Fine tuning of the front and rear brake
balance can be achieved by adjusting the balance bar, a threaded rod and nut (Figure 9). With
two independent hydraulic systems, should one master cylinder fail, the other system may
remain functional.

6
 Figure 9: Sunseeker 2010 Brake and Accelerator Pedals

The Wilwood BP-10 brake pads are a medium friction compound with low noise and increased
friction characteristics of a semi-metallic race compound. They provide smooth engagement
with consistent response from a flat torque curve through its entire effective temperature range
(Figure 10) The BP-10 pads are ok for street use.

Figure 10: BP-10 Temperature Range and Torque Value

The parking brake consists of a Shimano mechanical brake caliper, Hayes rotor, and a ratcheted
lever. The brake is operated by hand and actuated by pulling the lever. The brake is released by
disengaging the ratchet lock or turning the lever over 90 degrees so that the lock is no longer
seated in a ratchet tooth. The caliper and actuator is shown in Figure 11. This brake is located to
the right of the rear wheel.

7
 Figure 11: Shimano Mechanical Parking Brake and Actuator

D: Steering

A rack and pinion steering system is used in Sunseeker „10. It is the same steering system used
in Sunseeker 2008, Sunseeker 2005, and Sunseeker 2003 and it performed extremely well. To
accommodate for the 2010 vehicle dimensions, the tie rod linkage and rack sleeve have been
shortened to provide travel for proper Ackerman steering. The rack is fabricated from 7075-T6
Aluminum. The steering wheel diameter and the steering gear ratio have been optimized to
reduce driver fatigue and minimize the possibility of injury due to a sudden movement of the
steering system. Steering stops are external plates attached to the end of the rack at the tie rod
joints (Figure 12)

The steering shaft is fabricated out of 6061-T6 Aluminum tubing. The position of the steering
gear is located outside of the chassis crush zone and eliminates the chance of the steering shaft
being forced toward the driver in the event of a collision. The suspension and steering system
was analyzed in WinGeo3. Results can be seen in Appendix C.

8
 Figure 12: Rack and Pinion Steering

E: Wheels and Tires

The 14-inch motorcycle-type wheels used on Sunseeker 10 are a carbon fiber and honeycomb
composite, specifically designed for solar cars by GH Craft, Ltd. of Japan (GH Craft Part No.
42226-CFW-WM1, Sunseeker Part No. 454-C-SUS-3110).

The Western Michigan University solar car team has used these wheels on Sunseeker 454 and
Sunseeker 295. The 454 and 295 vehicles weighed nearly 1000 lbs including the driver. These
wheels were also used on Sunseeker 03, Sunseeker 05 and Sunseeker 08. We experienced no
failures of these wheels in five previous cross-country rayces and have great confidence in their
performance.

9
 GH Craft, Ltd. provided the following data for this wheel:

Radial Load Test

Q = 200 kgf 500,000 Cycles

Figure 13: Wheel Radial Load Test Setup

Axial Moment Test

M = 24 kgf . m 100,000 Cycles

Figure 14: Wheel Axial Moment Test Setup

10
Impact Test

Weight 1 + Weight 2 = 220 kgf H = 150 mm

Figure 15: Wheel Impact Test Setup

GH Craft, Ltd. states that the tire pressure should be kept under 8kgf/cm^2 (114 psi), matching
the load rating for the Bridgestone Ecopias (See Table 2).

The tires used on Sunseeker 10 are Bridgestone Ecopias. They were used on Western Michigan
University solar cars in Sunrayce 97, Sunrayce 99, ASC 2001 and ASC 2003, and NASC 2005.
They performed very well in all five competitions, experiencing no blowouts or punctures during
Sunrayce 97 and 99 and NASC 2005, only two blowouts in ASC 2001 due to poor road surfaces,
and one puncture in ASC 2003 due to sharp stones in a road resurfacing project.

Bridgestone has provided the following tire ratings:

Static Load Rating 350 lbf

Inflation Pressure 114 psi
Table 2: Bridgestone Ecopia Ratings

The expected vehicle weight distribution to the three wheels is 250 lbs +/- 5lbs on each front
wheel and 250 lbs +/- 5 lbs on the rear wheel.

11
F: Battery Enclosure

The battery enclosure sits within the composite frame of the vehicle. It is constructed of
composite panels using a mortise and tenon type of construction to interlock the panels. The
enclosure panels are a fiberglass and Nomex honeycomb construction for electrical safety. A
biscuit fan provides 1000 liters of airflow per minute for battery cooling and for exhausting toxic
fumes to the outside of the vehicle in case of a battery fire. Air from the battery enclosure exits
through a NACA duct in the floor of the vehicle body. The battery enclosure cover is also a
composite panel designed to fit securely into the enclosure. The cover is held in place by a pair
of straps secured to the sidewalls of the vehicle frame which also serve to secure the entire
battery enclosure within the composite frame of the vehicle even in the event of a rollover. The
straps have a 200 lb load rating with a 600 lb breaking force. The battery enclosure with batteries
and associated hardware and wiring weighs about 75 lbs giving us a safety factor greater than 5.
The battery pack consists of two trays of 19 battery modules each. The modules are held within
an I-beam shaped composite frame and protected with a composite sleeve which prevents the cell
modules from coming into contact with the wall of the battery enclosure and the other battery
tray. The trays are removable to allow the battery to be placed in impound. The figures on the
following pages show the construction of the battery trays and the protective sleeve.

Figure 16: Battery tray

12
 Figure 17: Battery tray sleeve

Figure 18: Assembled tray and sleeve

13
The final wiring assembly of the battery trays has a slave module of the Battery Protection
System mounted above each of the battery modules. The slave modules will be monitoring each
module‟s voltage and temperature and reporting it to the master board. The BPS master control
board is mounted on the sleeve of one of the battery sections. Also located within the battery
compartment are the contactors, fuses, DC-DC converter, current sensor, and auxiliary battery
for powering the starting circuit.

Figure 19: Close-up of BPS master and battery integral fuse

14
SECTION 3: Vehicle Impact Analysis
A: Specifications

The 2010 Sunseeker is a composite monocoque. The body is made with two initial layers of
Innegra fiber, a layer of carbon fiber and honeycomb to improve stiffness, followed with a final
layer of Innegra. Extra thick honeycomb was applied under the driver‟s seating area. Half-inch
thick Nomex core panel beams were glued into the body. The beams were designed to be
interlocking to avoid butt joints. The beams were located strategically so that the frame would
handle reaction forces from road loads effectively. Where the beams intersect with each other
and with the body shell, light weight epoxy filler was applied to form a fillet. This fillet was
taped with fiberglass saturated with epoxy to reinforce the Nomex core paneling and to tie the
beams into each other and the body shell. The construction of the body shell was done using a
vacuum bagging process to ensure the removal of any air pockets and excess epoxy.

B: Drawings

The general layout of the Sunseeker „10 frame can be seen in the isometric view, shown in
Figure 17.

Figure 17: General Layout

The front view of the chassis shows the driver location relative to the structure of the frame. Note
the two vertical beams on each side of the driver to which the suspension components are
mounted. Outside the vertical beams there is an adequate crush space of more than 15 cm
between the beams and the outer edge of the car. The drawing also shows the roll cage as seen
from the front of the car. The towing hard point is located on the first rib running the width of the
car.

15
 Figure 18: Front View with Chassis

Roll cage location is also visible in this drawing. Driver‟s restraint is a six-point harness. The
attachment points are four bolts molded into the composite body. Although they are not readily
visible in this drawing, two are located below and slightly rearward of the driver‟s shoulders, two
others are located next to and below the driver‟s hips.

Figure 19: Top View with Chassis

This side view of the chassis shows the massive side vertical beams that provide rigidity and
support for the suspension attachment points.

Figure 20: Side View with Chassis

C: Analysis

Frame

16
Theoretical values for the structural characteristics of Innegra, carbon fiber and Nomex have
been used in the frame analysis. The results of this process predict a very safe frame. This
process gave very promising results, but there is a fair amount of guesswork involved with
theoretical characterization of the composite members of the frame. The actual characteristics of
a composite structure depend very much on the construction method and the materials used as
well as the number of layers of material used.

All of the frame members shown in the four previous figures are constructed out if PN1-3/16-3.0
Plascore® honeycombs panels. The structural properties of the PN1 Plascore® are shown in
Table 3. For more information on the material properties of Plascore® visit
(www.plascore.com). The ribs running the length and width of the car are constructed out of 1/2
inch thick panels. The panels interlock with each other. Each corner is reinforced with light
weight epoxy filler, 4 inch fiberglass tape and epoxy.

Compressive
PLASCORE® Density Plate Shear “L” Direction Plate Shear “W” Direction
(Bare)
Honeycomb
Strength Strength Modulus Strength Modulus
Designation lb/ft3 Kg/m3
(psi/MPa) (psi/MPa) (psi/GPa) (psi/MPa) (psi/GPa)
PN1- Avg. 290 2.00 175 1.21 105 0.72
3/16- 3.0 48 5.8 0.040 3.9 0.027
3.0 Min. 190 1.31 133 0.92 64 0.44
Table 3: Plascore Honeycomb PN1-3/16-3.0

Once complete the frame car‟s monocoque will undergo structural tests. In the first test, both
front hard points and the rear hard point will be supported by the table while one end of the
lateral beam behind the driver will be loaded in the vertical plane to measure the amount of
deflection of the frame due to the torsional load. Six dial indicators will be placed under the
body/frame to measure the amount of displacement at various points along the frame.

In the second test the load point will be moved to the midpoint of the lateral beam behind the
driver. The six dial indicators will be used to determine the amount of displacement at various
points along the frame. The purpose of this test is to detect any bowing of the frame with a
central load.

Finally in the third test the two front hard points will be secured to the table to prevent any X or
Y direction of motion. The rear hard point will be allowed to float (slide laterally) on the table. A
side load will be applied at the rear hard point to determine if there is any deflection of the frame
due to the loading.

17
Roll Bars

Finite element analysis was performed in all loading scenarios with acceptable results. See
Appendix B for details.

D: Conclusions

The most important aspect of this structural analysis is the driver‟s safety under several
conditions. Based on the finite element analysis and the driver restraint system, The Western
Michigan University solar car team has concluded that Sunseeker 2010 provides adequate
protection and constraint in all loading cases.

For further information or questions regarding material presented in this document, please
contact Abraham Poot at 269-276-3372 or abraham.poot@wmich.edu.

Abraham Poot
Sunseeker Advisor
Western Michigan University
1903 W Michigan Ave
Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5336

18
SECTION 4: Appendices
Appendix A
Mechanical Systems Analysis Supporting Documentation

Front Suspension
In order to perform finite element analysis (FEA), the resultant forces on each component had to
be determined. They were obtained using a force prediction program able to calculate each force
acting on the components based on the forces applied at the contact surface of the tire. In order to
evaluate the different conditions of the vehicle, eleven different load cases were produced. In
this analysis a mass of 780lb was used. For each case the resulting forces acting at the contact
surface of the wheel were calculated. They are as follows, with the worst case scenario
highlighted (Table 4)

Table 4: Load Cases at Wheel Contact Surface

The worst case load was analyzed with the entire weight of the vehicle transferred to one tire
during a full turn, while braking, and acting under a bump. A 1G side load was applied as well.
The forces seen above were then input into the program and the resultant forces on the
components were recorded. The majority of decisions were made based on the analysis of the
worst case scenario. Each case was analyzed to verify worst case scenario and the corresponding
minimum factor of safeties were recorded. The forces each component was subjected to were
based on worst case scenario loading determined by the mass of the car.

The A arms, upright, and steering arms are machined from a billet of 6061-T6 aluminum alloy.
The axle is 7075-T6 aluminum alloy.

Table 5: Material Properties of 6061-T6 Aluminum

19
Due to time constraints the full „worst case load‟ in Table 4 was applied to each component
where ideally it would have been distributed using basic statics. Realistic analysis should have
seen substantially lower applied forces. A summary of safety factors is shown in Table 6

Component Safety Factor

Steering Arm 2.9
Upper A Arm 1.6
Lower A Arm 5.3
Lower A Arm (without shock) 1.4
Upright 1.4
Axle 4.5
Table 6: Summary of Front Suspension FEA

Figure 21: Steering Arm Worst Case FEA

20
 Figure 22: Upper A Arm Worst Case FEA

Figure 23: Lower A Arm Worst Case FEA Fixed at Mounting Without Shock

21
Figure 24: Lower A Arm Worst Case FEA Fixed at Shock Mounting

Figure 25: Front Axle Worst Case FEA

22
 Figure 26: Upright Worst Case FEA

Rear Suspension

The system was analyzed using ANSYS. MathCAD software was used to calculate the loads that
would be present throughout the rear suspension in different loading cases. These loads were
used to calculate the stresses in the two rod ends under the appropriate axial and bending loads.
The trailing arm itself was analyzed in ANSYS with different loading cases. The case shown
below in Figure 26 gave the highest values of stress seen in the analysis.

The analysis of the rear suspension designed for Sunseeker indicates that under the required
loading conditions, the maximum stresses seen in the trailing arm will be about 66 ksi which is
about three quarters of the original yield strength of 4130. Welding reduces the yield strength to
56 ksi, but the above analysis does not account for the additional material of the welding fillets at
the joints where the peak stresses are indicated. The rod ends used in the construction of the rear
suspension offer a factor of safety under worst expected loading conditions above 1.27, even
with the conservative estimate of material yield strength.

Table 7: Material Properties

23
 Figure 27: ANSYS Rear Suspension analysis

Figure 20: ANSYS Rear Suspension analysis

Figure 28 shows the Rear suspension with the typical loads applied only to the left side.

24
 Figure 29: Rear Trailing Arm Mount Analysis

The rear trailing mount is aircraft grade 4130 steel tubing with a yield strength of 75,000psi. The
worst case loading was applied with 2/3rd applied to the shock mount and 1/3 on the rear trailing
arm mounts. The analysis (Figure 28) resulted in a safety factor of 3.5. Rod end calculations are
shown in Appendix E.

25
Appendix B
Vehicle Impact Analysis Supporting Documentation

Roll Cage

Analysis was done with G = 300 kg (662 lbs). Using the ANSYS material library the most
similar to our indented choice was specified to be ASTM A-519-06, Grade 4130 Hot Rolled. The
yield strength is 70 ksi, the ultimate strength is 90 ksi, and modulus of elasticity is 29700 ksi.

The actual roll cage material is AMS T-6736A aircraft-grade 4130 alloy steel with a yield
strength of 517 MPa. The safety factor was calculated using the actual yield strength (517 MPa)
divided by the observed Von Mises stress.

Maximum Von
Safety
Loading Condition Mises Stress
Factor
(MPa)
Front
5G Front - Horizontal 549.6983 0.94
4G Front - 30 Degree 451.1584 1.15
4G Front - 60 Degree 343.0555 1.51
Top
4G Top - Vertical 260.7942 1.98
4G Top - 30 Degree 319.7857 1.62
4G Top - 60 Degree 356.9071 1.45
Side
5G Side - Horizontal 543.6309 0.95
4G Side - 30 Degree 724.2253 0.71
4G Side - 60 Degree 451.0550 1.15
Back
5G Back - Horizontal 475.6969 1.09
Table 8: Roll Cage Rollover Analysis, Maximum Von Mises Stress

The worst case load was seen in the 30 degree side load. The maximum Von Mises stress was
located at the front left mounting point. Similarly, the maximum Von Mises stress in the 5G
horizontal side load was seen in the left front and middle mounting locations. Although the
stresses seen in the analysis predict deformation plastically in this condition, the actual
manufacturing process will significantly reduce these observed stresses. The roll cage mounting
points will be integrated into the Plascore via steel plates, both wrapped in fiberglass, providing a
much higher strength at these locations.

The 5G front horizontal loading predicted deformation plastically with maximum stresses at the
front bar and top horizontal supports. In reality, it is theoretically impossible for the roll cage to
experience such a loading scenario. The composite portion of the chassis will encounter any
front horizontal loading, even if the vehicle rolls about an axis of the front bumper.

26
Figure 30: Front – Horizontal

Figure 31: Front - 30 Degree

27
Figure 32: Front - 60 Degree

Figure 33: Top – Vertical

28
Figure 34: Top- 30 Degree

Figure 35: Top - 60 Degree

29
Figure 36: Side – Horizontal

Figure 37: Back – Horizontal

30
Figure 38: Side - 30 Degree

Figure 39: Side - 30 Degree

31
Figure 40: Side - 60 Degree

32
Appendix C
Suspension and Steering Geometry Analysis

The front suspension and steering system was optimized using WinGeo3.

Figure 41: WinGeo3 Sunseeker 2010 Inputs Showing Computed Roll Center (17.36in)

Figure 42: WinGeo3 Ride +1, Roll +1 and Steer -1

33
Appendix D
Brake System Analysis

The brake pedal in the 2010 Sunseeker is the same used in 2008. The motion ratio of the brake
pedal in combination with the 5/8 inch bore wildwood master cylinders requires a 35lb force
from the driver to stop the vehicle as required by the ASC regulations. Using a force gauge we
found all of our drivers can apply roughly 50lb to the pedal seated in the vehicle.

Table 9: Brake System Calculations

34
Appendix E
Rod End Calculations

Front Suspension
The front suspension contains two Aurora Bearing HXAM-7T rod ends. According to John
McCrory at Aurora Bearing “Material is 4340 steel, heat treated to 39-42 Rc.”. The comparative
hardness scales for steel, a table in the Machinery‟s Handbook, was used to find the Brinell
hardness values. Linear interpolation between 4340 steel at 360 and 460 Bhn was used to find
the yield at 39, 40.5, and 42 Rc ( 362, 376, and 390 Bhn). The lowest yield strength of the rod
end shank material is 157200 psi, average is 165600 psi, and max is 174000 psi.

Table 10: Mechanical Properties of 4340 Steel (Machinery's Handbook, 27th Edition)

Figure 21: Yield Strength vs. Hardness of 4340 Steel

A variety of scenarios were analyzed and are as follows.

35
Input Parameters:

36
The absolute worst case of 2G bump, 1G turn, 1G brake, and the lowest possible yield strength
of the shank material results in a safety factor of 0.98. This situation is highly unlikely, as well
as mathematically incorrect. The cantilever length of the nut was factored into the bending
moment as well as the axial force due to tightening torque. The resulting FOS is 1.72.

Again, without taking into consideration the nut, a 1G brake, 2G bump, 1G brake simultaneously
and the average yield strength of the shank (165600 psi) results in a FOS of 1.03 in the lower
ball joint and 1.65 in the upper ball joint. Upon in depth analysis of the HXAM-7T rod ends in
the 2010 Sunseeker suspension, the team feels the design is robust.

37
Rear Suspension

38
39