Paper Number 2 Material chosen for the frame is ASTM A106 schedule

40 steel with a radius of 1” and a wall thickness of

3mm. Some bracing members have 2mm wall
FINAL DESIGN REPORT thickness. In accordance with section 31.5 sub-section
A of the rule book, the material chosen has a carbon
content of 0.265% which is >0.18%.
TEAM STRATOS, BIT
Team #8, Car #8 Joining method used will be Flux Metal Arc Welding.
This method was compared with Metal Inert Gas
Copyright © 2009 SAE International
Welding and found to be giving welds of equal
strength. FMAW was chosen since it is more
economical.

ABSTRACT The earlier frame design is shown below. The forces

used in its analysis were too low in magnitude. New
The aim of this report is to highlight the final design of values of impact and torsional forces were calculated.
Team Stratos’ mini-Baja vehicle which will compete in
Baja SAEASIA 2010.

The team’s primary objective was to design a safe and

functional vehicle based on a rigid and torsion-free roll
cage and chassis, well mounted powertrain, and
dynamically tested steering and suspension systems.
The secondary objective was to enhance performance
and maneuverability of the vehicle.

The team was divided into core groups responsible for

the design and optimization of major sub-systems
which were later integrated into the final blueprint.
Current CAD modeling and FEA approaches were
used.

INTRODUCTION
fig i
We approached our design by considering all possible
When the entire powertrain was modeled, the engine
alternatives for a system & modeling them in CAD
bay area was found to be insufficient. A mockup of the
software like CATIA, AutoCAD etc. to obtain a model
powertrain was done and the engine bay was resized.
with maximum geometric details.
When space between A-pillars was increased to
The models were then subjected to analysis using
improve field of vision, the rigidity of the frame was
ANSYS FEA software. Based on analysis results, the
significantly reduced. Also, front structural members
model was modified and retested and a final design
were too complicated to manufacture. Therefore, the
was frozen.
front of the car was redesigned.
Dynamics analysis was done in Lotus suspension
The new frame design is shown below. This was
analysis software and MSC ADAMS. The aim was to
subsequently analyzed in ANSYS for frontal impact,
optimize suspension variables to improve
torsion and rollover tests.
maneuverability. Theoretical calculations of
performance characteristics were also done.

Extensive weight reduction techniques were followed

at every stage of the design to improve performance
without sacrificing structural integrity.

DESIGN OF MAJOR SYSTEMS

FRAME DESIGN

1
 fig ii (a & b)

Frontal Impact Test:

For a perfectly inelastic collision, energy transferred is fig iii (a & b)

DE = ½ (m1m2/m1+m2)(u2-u1)2 where m1 and m2 are
masses of two vehicles and u1 and u2 are Torsion Test:
corresponding velocities. Assuming m1=m2=350kg
and u2=0 (vehicle at rest), For torsion test, a force equivalent to the gross weight
of the vehicle (3500N) was applied at one of the 4
DE = 1/4 m1u12 & F=DE/t where t=100ms corners of the frame while constraining the other 3.

Then, F= [.25 x 350 x (16.67)^2] / [10x.1] = 24315N Deformation and stresses were as follows. For a stress
of 163MPa, the FOS obtained was 2.12.
Hence, a frontal impact force of 6000N was applied at
4 points on the frame. The back of the frame was
completely constrained.

The deformation and stresses are shown below. For a

stress of 67MPa, the FOS obtained was 5.15.

fig iv (a & b)

Rollover Test:
2
In the rollover test, a force equivalent to the gross
weight of the vehicle (3500N) was applied to one of the
top corners of the frame while constraining the base.

For a stress of 36MPa, the FOS obtained was 9.58.

fig vi

For the rear upper arm, a force of 1KN was applied to

the hinges and the shock absorber mounting. Max
stresses were within limits.

fig vii

Hubs:

Front hubs are OEM and are made of cast iron with a
hardened steel stub axle. Rear hubs are made of mild
fig v (a & b) steel (hardened). Rear hubs were designed to
incorporate the double wishbone suspension and also
SUSPENSION DESIGN & WHEELS to enable mounting of disc brakes.

A double wishbone suspension setup was chosen for

the front as well as rear as it is lightweight,
independent and prevents deflection during hard
cornering which ensures that the steering and wheel
alignment stay constant.

Other types like McPherson strut and trailing arm were

rejected because of weight considerations.

Wishbones:

Material used for wishbones is same as the frame

material. As seen below, for a 1KN force on the ball
joint and shock absorber mounting, the max stress
obtained is 63Mpa, which gives a FOS of 5.46. fig viii

Front and rear hubs were both analyzed for 3500N

force applied at the bearings and were found to be
within limits. Front hub shows a stress of 157MPa

3
while the rear hub shows a stress of 65Mpa. The
design is well within yield limits for the materials used.

fig x (a & b)

Above are the graphs for bump (mm) (x-axis) versus

toe, camber and castor angles. For a bump and
fig ix rebound of 100 mm each the camber was restricted
within 0.5 deg and toe within 2 deg. This minimizes the
Shock Absorbers & Wheels: forces on the knuckle ball joints during bumps.

Shock absorbers used are completely adjustable gas Roll:

filled dampers (OEM from Maruti Omni) coupled with
compression springs.

Wheels used are tubeless bias type having R10 175 in

front and R10 250 in the rear. Rims used are
magnesium alloy.

Dynamic Analysis:

During wishbone design it was found that size of the

engine bay and track width limitations were resulting in
extremely short rear wishbone lengths. This would in
turn limit travel of the shock absorbers and result in an
extremely harsh ride and possible damage to the
engine mounts. The back of the frame was then
extended as a narrow portion to make longer wishbone
lengths possible.

Dynamic analysis was done on the front suspension

setup to check the response of the vehicle for bump, in
roll and while steering. Keypoints were obtained from
the CAD model. Variables were tuned to reduce bump
steer, camber angles and wayward movement of roll
center.

Bump:
fig xi (a & b)

Values of toe angle, camber angle and roll center

height versus roll angle (deg) (x-axis) indicate that
driver will experience good control over the vehicle
while cornering.

Steer:

4
 fig xiii

Brakes are disc type in front and rear, with 180mm

discs in front and 130mm in rear. Brake force is
distributed via 2 master cylinders so that system is
independent.

SAFETY & ERGONOMICS

fig xii (a & b)

Steering angle (deg) (x-axis) vs. camber angle, toe

angle and roll center indicates minimum deviations of
all three. The Ackermann error is only 6%, which
indicates an accurate and responsive steering.

fig xiv

Shown above is the Impact Energy Diffuser (IED) used

ENGINE & DRIVETRAIN in the front of the vehicle to absorb energy from
impacts and prevent damage to the wishbones and tie
A Mahindra Alfa transmission (4 forward 1 reverse) will rods. It will incorporate springs and dampers to absorb
be used and will be directly coupled to the wheels. forces and keep vehicle functioning after a crash.
Gear ratios will not be modified. Engine will be
mounted on rubber bushings to reduce NVH
characteristics.

Using a directly coupled final drive also enables the

engine to be mounted as low as possible, thus
lowering the C.o.G of the vehicle.

STEERING & BRAKES

Steering is a rack and pinion system having a lock-to-

lock of 2.5 turns. Steering ratio is 15:1 with Ackermann
angles of 24deg and 36deg. The turning radius of the
vehicle is 3.46m. The rack is placed ahead of the front
wheels’ center axis to improve handling.
fig xv

The driver cabin is ergonomically designed keeping

anthropometry in mind. The seating is adjustable.
Shown above is the tilt steering assembly used to

5
provide different steering settings depending on the Thus, net deceleration Acc=[2*F(Rw)+2*F(Rr)]/Weight
user’s preferences. It utilizes a spring loaded locking of the vehicle(W) = 2(77.36+218.72)/3500 =
mechanism to hold the steering column in preset 16.9m/s^2.
positions. It can also be moved completely out of the
way to enhance ease of ingress/egress. And, Stopping distance D(s) = V^2/2*a =
(14*14)/2*16.9 = 2.89m.
EXPECTED PERFORMANCE
CHARACTERISTICS C.o.G & WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION:

POWER & TORQUE: C.o.G calculations were done by considering the

origin at the front end for X, at the chassis for Z and at
Power to Weight ratio is (10.72/275)*1000 = 39 the wheels for Y. The final value for Z was arrived at
bhp/ton. Torque is calculated as follows. after adding the ground clearance.

BRAKING DISTANCE:

Using OEM master cylinders & assuming force applied

by driver on pedal to be 85lbs = 386N, force on master
cylinder = 386 x 0.26 (dist in m from pedal to cylinder)
= 100.36N

Now, this is equal to F x ram length, i.e. 100.36=Fx.08

so F=1254.5N

Then, pressure delivered by the cylinder P=F/A =

1254.5/314.15e-4 = 39,933N/m^2

Assuming front:rear brake bias as 68:32 gives

P(f)=27154.4N and P(r)=12788.6N.

Hence, force applied by the rear cylinder F(r) = P(r)*A

= 490.9e-4*12788.6 = 627.70N and similarly, F(f) =
1333.1N.

Also Force applied on the discs by the cylinder F(R) =

2*F(r)*µ = 2*627.70*0.3 = 376.62N and F(F)=798.7N.

Which implies torque on each disc in the rear= T(R)=

F(R)*Radius = 376.62*0.06 = 22.6N and that on the
front (with radius of the disc=0.08 m) T(F)=63.9N

Finally force per wheel in the rear becomes F(Rw) =

T(R)/Radius of the wheel (R(w)) = 22.6/0.292 = 77.36N
and also F(Rr) = 218.72N.

6
 Using the graph, this gives our vehicle a four star
rating.

FULL VEHICLE 3D VIEWS

fig xvii

Stability Analysis:

According to the National Highway & Traffic Safety

Administration, most vehicle rollovers occur by tripping fig xviii
over low obstacles. For a Baja vehicle, this would also
be the case. Then stability is obtained from the
following graph.

fig xix

VEHICLE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

fig xvi

Static Stability Factor (SSF) = T/2H where T= track

width and H= height of centre of gravity.

SSF=1324/(2x553)= 1.19

7
 Manish O. – Team Captain – 91-9844421914

Mokshith S.N – Design Head – 91-9611666646

Karthik N – Marketing Head – 91-9036227798

CONCLUSION

This being Team Stratos’ first attempt at Baja SAE ,

our team’s objective was to design and build a vehicle
that can complete all competition events without
failure. All designs and calculations were done to
realize this aim.

Reliability and safety were considered paramount,

keeping the nature of the end-user in mind. Finally, a
high level of manufacturability was incorporated to
ensure feasibility for mass-production.

REFERENCES

1. Chassis Engineering by Herb Adams

2. Automotive Mechanics by Crouse Anglin
3. Race Car Vehicle Dynamics by Millikens &
Millikens

CONTACT