2011

BRAKING SYSTEM DESIGN FOR NUTA_BOLT FS CAR

Final design report

Braking is a huge aspect of the formula car. The formula car must be able to brake very efficiently, as nearly every part of the competition involves braking. In our design we ensured that it conforms to the FSAE rules. The braking system must be controlled by a single control which will have two independent hydraulic circuits in case of a leak or failure. This system will allow the car to maintain braking power in the case of a leak or failure.

DANIEL Nuta_bolt racing 5/16/2011

DESIGN OF THE ANAMBRA STATE UNIVERSITY FORMULA STUDENT BRAKING SYSTEM

OTUOKWU DANIEL N: 80103069 KALU MATTHEW O: 80124459 AKUBEZE CHUKWUEBUKA:

A design report done for the effective and successful participation of the first ever Nigerian university at the 2011 formula student educational motorsports competition @ Silverstone circuit-London, UK

Supervisor: Engr Dr C. Nkworka

Department of mechanical engineering Anambra state university

July, 2011

DEDICATION
This Design Report is dedicated to the Almighty Father the Author and Finisher of our Faith, the Grand Insulator of our Academic Pursuits of life. To all well-wisher of our Stable Success, and to all Mechanical Engineer. And valuers of our Decades. Once more, we respect all Scholars Good Attribute, which against all odds was able to provide a suitable Mechanism that Culminated in the Realization of our long Conceived Engineering Dreams.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to take this Opportunity to thank the following People and Organisations for their Invaluable Support and Constructive Counsel throughout the Duration of this Project:

Engr Dr Chucks Nkworka, Design Supervisor, Jayey Jon Engineering Company, for his Patience and Unconditional Guidance During this Undertaking. Engr Dr Philip Atanmo, staff adviser for the Nuta-Bolt Team, for his Fatherly Care, Support and Guide. Much would not have been achieved without his effort. The Vice Chancellor Anambra State University, Uli for his Invaluable Support and Encouragement To the team. To the Head of Department (Mechanical Engineering) Engr AA Echezona for his Fatherly Care and Advice. Engr Egboka David C (Nuta_Bolt staff adviser 2) for his Relentless and Ceaseless Efforts to bring out The best in the Team. To Scientific Equipment Development Institute (SEDI-E) Enugu Nigeria for the software trainings, Supervisions, Facilities for the Prototyping and Manufacturing Excellence. The National Engineering Design Development Institute (NEDDI) for its Supervision and Supports. Imeche Nigeria Young Members Section To all our Numerous Sponsors, who as in one way or the other Contributed Immensely to Ensure The Project is achieved as proposed. Finally to all Members of the Team (Nuta_Bolt) who has labored very hard to achieve our set Goal.

PREFACE
This Report Describes the Apt Design process used to Approach the Manufacturing of the Anambra state University Formula Student Braking System. It is also the intent of this report to develop a braking system that is specifically designed to meet the Operating Conditions of the Nuta Bolt racecar. This paper is meant to be the final report for the 2011 undergraduate work requirements for the design of the brake system and Outlines the work performed by the Sub-team which is responsible for the Braking system of our Formula Student Car.

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 3.1 Front Rotor Fig 3.2. Definition of inboard and outboard style Fig 3.3 Effective radius of brake disc Fig 3.4 Brake pad coefficient of friction vs temperature for steel rotor material Fig 3.5 Brake pad coefficient of friction vs temperature for aluminum rotor material Fig 3.6 Fig 4.1 Fig 4.2 Fig 4.3 Fig 4.4 Fig 4.5 Fig 4.6 Fig 4.7 Fig 4.8 Fig 5.1 Fig 5.2 Fig 5.3 Fig 5.4 Fig 7.1 Fig 7.2 Fig 7.3 Fig7.4 Fig7.5 Swept area of brake disc Brake pedal Diagram of bias bar and brake adjustment Brake pad Pressure distribution of brake pads Front caliper Engineering drawing for front caliper Rear caliper Engineering drawing for rear caliper Rear rotor mounts Engineering drawing of the brake pad Wilwood dual cylinder brake assembly Engineering drawing of the brake pedal Diagram of geometry and forces acting on the car Longitudinal weight distribution static on rear and front axle Longitudinal weight distribution under 1.7G of deceleration Linear relation of traction and load on a FSAE tire Brake force pedal

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.0 Table 2 brake system specifications cost analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page Dedication Acknowledgements Preface List of figures List of tables Table of contents CHAPTER ONE 1.1 1.2 1.3 INTRODUCTION v vi vii viii ii iii iv

Project overview Project objectives Motivation PROJECT DESCRIPTION

CHAPTER TWO 2.1 2.2

Context of project Scopes BRAKE SYSTEM

CHAPTER THREE

3.1 Design overview 3.2 Important brake system parameters 3.2.1 Inboard vs outboard rear brakes 3.2.2 Heat capacity 3.3 Brake disc diameter 3.4 Brake rotor 3.4.1 Brake disc material 3.5 Swept area 3.6 Maximum deceleration 3.7 Brake bias CHAPTER FOUR BRAKING FORCES

4.1 System compliance 4.2 Brake pedal force 4.2.1 Brake pedal ratio 4.3 Brake pedal choice 4.4 Caliper design 4.5 Master cylinder 4.6 Hydraulics

CHAPTER FIVE 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

BRAKE SYSTEM COMPONENTS AND MANUFACTURING DETAIL

Rotors Calipers Pads Master cylinder Pedal cylinder Brake balance bar Hydraulics SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE/ITERATIONS

CHAPTER SIX 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Caliper design Rotors Pads Brake bias

CHAPTER SEVEN 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

CALCULATIONS

Assumptions Longitudinal weight transfer Brake torque Brake force calculations

COST ANALYSIS CONCLUSION REFERENCES

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1

project overview

The following report details the design process and methodologies used for the 2011 Anambra state university formula student braking system. A typical FS braking system is comprised of an assembly of components: brake calipers, brake discs (rotors), master cylinders, brake pads, brake line, etc. this report will primarily focus on the comprehensive design report of the braking system, and its approach. First, researches were carried out to ensure that we conform to the regulations for the formula SAE. The design of certain components and selection of non in house manufacturable components depends on the design criteria, which combines both vehicle parameters and braking requirements. Due to the nature of the formula SAE dynamic events tight radius turns and short straight-aways a formula Student car s brake system has provide high levels of deceleration repeatedly. In the interest of reliability and safety, the authors have decided to use disc brakes for both the front and rear axle. The front axle consists of two outboard floating single-piston calipers while the rear axle uses an inboard fixed dual-piston caliper.

1.2

project objectives

The intent of this report is to design a braking system that is balanced, reliable, cost effective, and specifically designed to meet the operating conditions of Nuta_Bolt race car. The design will be in response to the specific requirements to the 2011 Anambra state university FS race car design goals while preserving the following characteristics: High stiffness to weight ratio Reliable ease of manufacturability In addition, this project will serve as a reference for future FS teams to assist in designing (and selecting) brake components and how these relate to the overall braking performance.

1.3

motivation

Brakes are an essential system to any race car or vehicle. They are the most important component on any vehicle second to tires. From the onset, the team did not give high priority to the braking system, but using resource materials gotten we were able to commence the design. Contrast to road circuits, FS

t racks exhibit scores of corners and turns, which require extensive use of the brakes to decelerate from high rates of speed. Furthermore, a braking system that is powerful and consistent instills confidence in the driver (and race team). Respective racecar engineering experts often suggest that improved braking performance can result in enhanced on track performance of racing vehicles. Furthermore, asserts that the overall time spent on the brakes is only 10% during a race, but this often equates to the difference between second place and a championship in racing. The overall design for the system would conform to the formula SAE rules.

CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 context of project

The formula student competition is for students and aspiring engineers, to conceive, design, fabricate, and compete small formula-style racing vehicles. The FS series competition challenges students and their respective teams of their design choices and validation techniques, and on track performance in comparison to other universities around the world. Governed by a strict safety rules to protect participants from any foreseeable injury, the overall design on FASE cars only limited by the knowledge, creativity, and imagination of the students. The FSAE competitions enforce certain vehicle requirements and restrictions; the major design requirements being the following: Open wheeled and open cock-pit (formula style body) configuration Four wheel independent suspension Engine air intake restriction to 20mm in diameter Maximum four-stroke engine displacement of 610cc braking system must act on all four wheels Each team will have the chance to demonstrate their hard work and prove their analysis and design through their engineering work, presentation, and driving skills. All the competitions in the FS series consist of a series of dynamic and static events in which points are distributed accordingly as illustrated in below. Autocross and endurance are worth the most adding up to 50% of the competition s points, both exploiting the vehicle to punishing on track conditions. These and the other remaining dynamic events necessitate superior dynamic vehicle performance.

With this notion in mind, it is the motivation for the Nuta-Bolt FS team to develop new vehicle with greater power, handling and superior stooping power to improve on track performance and thus, maximize the points awarded in these events. As mentioned in chapter 1, the consistency of the driver s performance can be dramatically increased through well-designed brakes

2.2

scopes

The scope of this report is intended to design the braking system for the Nuta-bolt FS team to ensure it conforms to the formula SAE rules. The design and selection of all braking subsections will be investigated.

Chapter 3: Brake System

3.1 DESIGN OVERVIEW
Due to the nature of the formula SAE dynamic events tight radius turns and short straight ways a formula student car s brake system has to provide high levels of deceleration repeatedly. In the interests of reliability and safety, it was decided to use disc brakes for both the front and rear axle. The front axle consists of two outboard floating single-piston calipers while the rear axle uses a single inboard fixed dual-piston caliper acting through the spool axle or the input shaft of a torque sensing limited slip differential.

Fig 3.1 Front rotors

TABLE OF BRAKE SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS

FRONT Design deceleration Design pedal force Swept area Rotor diameter Total caliper piston count Caliper piston diameter Master cylinder diameter Fluid line pressure Nominal brake bias 1.7 90 350 190 1 35 19.05 223.49 60 203 2 35 22.225 109.72 40 REAR UNITS G N Sq. in/ ton mm

mm mm N %

Table 1: brake system specifications

3.2

IMPORTANT BRAKE SYSTEM PARAMETERS

Much of brake system can be characterized by its limits. Among many factors, the important limitations of a system s performance include force, deflection, wear, temperature and tire traction. The discussion below will look at these limitations indirectly.

3.2.1

Inboard vs. outboard rear brakes

A preliminary design decision involved whether the brakes for the rear were to be of an inboard or outboard design. The primary argument for an inboard system is the reduction of mass, especially unsprung mass. Whereas outboard brake components add mass to the vehicle corners and are thus unsprung units, an inboard system has its components near the center of the rear axle, some of the components are supported by the springs of the car. furthermore, whereas an outboard brake system would require a pair of all components (one at each wheel) such that braking is balanced left to right, one set of components suffices for an inboard brake system because an inboard brake acts on part of the drive system before the torque to the left and right wheels are split. An inboard system thus allows the use of half the number of components with its mass being sprung. Utilizing an inboard design also reduces the complexity of the components in the wheel area, which can provide for better compromises for suspension characteristics. However, an inboard system places torque onto the frame. That is, whereas the control arms provide the reaction torque to the brake calipers under brake application with outboard brakes, the frame directly provides the restoring torque. This may mean that the frame area where the inboard caliper is mounted needs to be more substantial and heavier. Depending on the driver configuration, the center of the rear axle may already be sufficiently crowded with the chain sprocket and differential components, so using an inboard setup may not be very straightforward either.

Fig 3.2 definition of inboard and outboard mounting styles With these considerations in mind, it was decided to implement an inboard system for the rear axle. As mentioned above, an inboard system applies its brake torque to a point upstream of the differential.

This means that the left-right torque distribution is very dependent on ground traction as the braking torque distribution will depend greatly on the rear axle configuration such as the type of differential, or the lack of one. In general, with a solid or locked axle, or a good torque sensing limited slip differential, the brake torque distribution is not a grave concern.

3.2.2

Heat capacity

A brake system must be able to dissipate efficiently the heat that is built up through deceleration. Improper management of heat dissipation will lead to brake fade, where either the pad is working beyond its designed temperatures or the brake fluid boils and is unable to apply brake pressure because the fluid is now gaseous and can compress. Typically, the heat sinks are the rotors, although surrounding components such as the caliper and brake fluid and suspension components will often see an increase in temperature through conduction and convection. Because the brake pads coefficient of friction changes with temperature and the brake fluid itself may boil and cause excessive pedal travel, it is important to use as large of a heat sink as possible. For the nuta-bolt FS vehicle, brake cooling is of special concern since the wheel faces are solid so no air flows from the outside to cool the rotors. Also, the rotors are deep within the wheel, so airflow from inboard side of the brakes may not be that effective either. The rotors, in rotating, may aid convective cooling, but the flow in the wheel well area is not well understood and cannot be assumed to offer large amounts of cooling. Therefore, it was decided to use rotors that are as large as possible. The front rotors are 190mm in diameter and 12.5mm thick. The rear rotors are 203mm in diameter with the same thickness. They are made of hardened steel, which has been known to be durable and are cross drilled (on their faces). Although drilling and slotting reduces the mass and thus the heat capacity of the rotor, these procedures are common in the racing industry because airflow and thus convective effects more than offset the reduction in mass. Calculations revealed that, for a 1.7 G deceleration from 50 mph to 10 mph, 45 kj of energy needs to be dissipated, resulting in the rotors heating up about 19 C. This figure is based on dissipation from the brake rotor to the surrounding air by convection or to the adjacent components by conduction. Although this temperature rise is not very significant, closely-spaced repeated stops may drive the rotor temperatures much higher. It is also worth noting that, although the energy dissipation from 50 mph to 10 mph is the same regardless of the rate of deceleration, stronger deceleration will require the heat to be dissipated more quickly. Because the rotors are a large heat sink, temperatures across them are usually not uniform during and shortly after brake application. Thus, proper cooling is necessary as strong temperature gradients between rotor areas can lead to warping of rotors. In addition to the translational energy of a car in motion, some energy is stored as rotational energy of the wheels, tires, hubs, rotors, etc. this energy is usually not that significant and adds about 10% to the non-rotating kinetic energy that needs to be dissipated.

3.3

BRAKE DISC DIAMETER

The brake disc diameter Dod is determined from outside most edge to the center of the rotor, doubled. More importantly, effective radius (Reff) is the radial distance from the center of the rotor to the center of the brake pad contact patch as illustrated below. This location is also the center of the caliper piston where the clamping force is applied by the caliper to the rotor.

Figure3.3 effective radius of brake disc To obtain the most possible braking torque, the brake disc diameter should be as large as possible, thus maximizing the effective radius. It should be noted that the maximum diameter of the brake disc is limited by the inner diameter of the wheel rim and caliper size. This will be kept in mind during the choice of caliper. With these factors, it was decided that the front rotors would be 190mm in diameter and 12.7mm thick. The rear rotors are 203mm in diameter with same thickness.

3.4

BRAKE ROTOR

3.4.1 Brake disc material

Various materials can b used for brake rotors, ranging from carbon steel, cast iron, aluminum, to even composite materials. For our FSAE applications, low cost, strength, and manufacturability are commonly the compromising factors when selecting the appropriate materials. Mild (low carbon) steel contains up to 0.25% carbon content allowing for excellent wear resistance. They exhibit moderate strength to weight levels but also provide excellent feel during braking applications compared to other metals such as aluminum. In addition to the improved modulation, mild steel offers greater coefficient of friction factors than aluminum when tested with various brake pad compounds. Aluminum is approximately only one third as rigid as steel, and becomes malleable at higher temperatures making it a questionable rotor material choice. On top of this, an aluminum rotor would

need to be much thicker than steel rotor due to its lower (43 ksi versus 68 ksi) compressive ultimate tensile strength than steel. Hardened steel

Figure 3.4 brake coefficient of friction verse temperature for steel rotor material

Figure 3.5 brake pad coefficient of friction versus temperature for aluminum rotor material

And because steel is expensive and is readily suitable for laser cutting, manufacturability of the rotors will only require a limited lead-time. These factors led to the material selection for the Anambra state formula student brake rotor to be of cold rolled SAE 1080 12.5mm thick hardened steel plate. The 12.5mm thick plate will be Blanchard ground to a thickness of 6.25mm to reduce its mass to approximate final weight of 1.133kg respectively.

3.5

Swept area

The total area contacted by the brake pad on the rotor during one revolution is defined as swept area. And is an important measure of the overall effectiveness of the brake disc. An increase in the potential stopping power can be harnessed through a larger swept area but at the cost of having a larger (and heavier) rotor.

Fig 3.6 Swept area of brake disc

Packaging becomes a concern since an increase of rotor diameter would have to be considered when packaging into a fixed wheel size. In addition, the overall pad size and thus caliper geometry would effectively change for a greater swept area. Our race car would incorporate a larger swept area to provide increased braking power as well as even pad wear.

3.6

Maximum deceleration

In tight courses such as those for the formula student cars, the cars spend a large amount of lap time under braking. This means that the ability for a car to decelerate will affect lap times significantly. With a greater ability to decelerate, more time can be spent building up speed to the next corner. To be competitive, the team feels that the brakes should be able to provide at least 1.7 G of deceleration. How this deceleration is attained depends on many parameters, most of which are included in the calculations shown down below. The deceleration limit is based on many factors, some of which are discussed here. First, there is a limit as to how much force the driver can apply onto the pedal. It was assumed that the average pedal force of the driver would be 40kg (90 Ib). over 68kg (150Ib) can be applied, but repeated application would not be desirable. This pedal force is then given a mechanical advantage (lever arm effect) by the pedal assembly. The team chose a system with a 5.1:1 mechanical advantage. The force is then splited into two master cylinders, each one responsible for the brakes on each axle. A hydraulic advantage results from the ratio of the pistons areas at the calipers to the master cylinder areas. The components selected allow for a hydraulic advantage of 11 at the front axle, and 8 at the rear axle. With the estimation of the brake pad coefficient of friction at 0.45 and the radial location of the brake torque

application, just under 272kg/m (600Ib-ft) of torque can be applied with 68kg (120Ib) of pedal force to slow the car. With the weight of the car 270kg, this translates to an acceptable deceleration of 1.7G. also provided is the swept area per ton. This is important because, when material is being removed from a sliding surface, the friction force is dependent on the interfacial area. Our vehicle brake system posts 350 square inches of swept area per ton. The numbers discussed here show how the physical dimensions of the brake components affect deceleration, but details concerning the tire traction characteristics need also be modeled. This is discussed in the following subsection.

3.7

Brake bias

The brake torque distribution is crucial because maximum deceleration will not be achieved unless all tires are brought to their friction peak simultaneously. In other words, if 272kg/m (600Ib-ft) is necessary to provide the deceleration, applying all of this force through the front wheels will possibly cause the front tires to lock, thereby not making effective use of the rear tire s traction. It is when each vehicle corner contributes a proportion that is similar to their vertical load that maximum deceleration can be attained. However, vertical load depends on the deceleration rate itself, so the optimum balance is, in application, an iterative process. The calculations down below show that the fore/aft vehicle distribution under 1.7 G of barking is about 58/42 and so the front/rear bias would be adjusted to mirror this distribution. However, it was suggested that the brake should be biased initially more toward the front than what is suggested by calculations. This is such that the front wheels will have the tendency to lock first. Front wheel locking is a stable effect, whereas rear wheel locking can lead to a spin. However, when road imperfections do not allow for 1.7 G of braking, or when the tires are not performing at their peak capabilities, the load transfer from the rear axle to the front axle will be less, so the brake bias should be biased more toward the rear or else the front wheels will lock too easily.

CHAPTER 4
4.1

BRAKING FORCES

System compliance

During braking applications, each component is linked together in some fashion of mechanical, hydraulic, or physical connection. Tremendous forces are exerted onto these components and thus each component must be as stiff as possible to limit the total physical compliance throughout the system. This allows each component to work to its full potential without having to compensate for system flimsiness. The brake pedal plays a crucial role in the robust braking system. As it is the only physical link connecting the driver to the braking system, a strong stiff brake pedal (and pedal tray) needs to be designed. In addition, the pedal needs to be large enough to accommodate the feet of every driver. As mentioned earlier, the actual design of the brake pedal and subsequent pedal tray will not be covered in this report, but rather only a discussion of the requirements related to determing braking force.

4.2

Brake pedal force

[1] States that the average person can stop a road car with 45kg (100Ibs) of pedal effort. Since numerous drivers in competition pilot the FS vehicle, individual pedal efforts from current and potential drivers were collected by experimental trials.

fig 4.1 brake pedal

4.2.1 Pedal ratio

Optimal braking torque requires careful manipulation of the brake bias, hydraulic force, and pedal ratios. The pedal ratio or mechanical advantage is the ratio of the distance from the brake pedal pivot point (commonly at the driver heel) to the point of pedal input force application over the point of master cylinder attachment to the brake pedal to the pivot point. This is graphically explained with the aid of figure 4. In essence, a greater amount of braking force can be generated by using minimal input force by adjusting the leverage of the pedal ratio.

Figure pedal ratio (mechanical advantage) Based on foot size of the largest and smallest drivers an average basis for H was determined for our racecar. Bending load tests were conducted with varying dimensions of h to ascertain a maximum pedal ratio before the pedal would fail (yield). Average pedal dimensions consisting of an input height H of 190.5mm (7.5 inches) and a distance h of 101.6mm (4 inches) give way to a pedal ratio of 2.5. This will allow for maximum force output without excessive driver input force, helping the endurance of the driver during numerous braking applications over a competition. Hydraulic ratio is the relative area of the master cylinder bore and the total piston area of the calipers. Brake bias is the amount of brake line pressure distribution between the front and rear master cylinders. The brake bias fine tunes (changes) the brake force balance by moving the pivot point of the bias bar towards the master cylinder that requires more pressure.

Fig 4.2 diagram of bias bar and brake adjustment Setting the bias bar ratio to 50% front and 50% rear is common practice in producing a balanced braking ratio between the front and rear wheels. A balanced bias setting will give a starting point for the design of the brake discs by assuming an equal amount of braking force will be distributed to each wheel.

4.3

Brake pad choice

Brake pad comes in a variety of compounds for different friction characteristics, usually quantifiable with a coefficient of friction vs. temperature plot. The material of the rotor also has an effect on brake pad friction. Tradeoffs need to be made between how stable a brake pad is across its useable temperature range, its highest achievable friction coefficient as well as its wear characteristics. Without more quantitative data regarding the brake pads and expected temperatures, it is difficult to specify the brake pad compounds conclusively. However, in general, the coefficient of friction between the brake pad and the rotor is about 0.45. it was decided to use pads designed for colder temperatures as these are usually stable up to mid-temperatures, and also because the light formula Student cars do not usually create extreme brake temperatures.

Fig 4.3 brake pad

4.4

Caliper design

One variation in calipers is the number of pistons that they contain. The greater the number of pistons, the greater the braking torque for a given fluid pressure. Furthermore, using more small pistons results in a stiffer caliper than one large piston. Another variation is in the motion of the pistons. A fixed caliper has an even number of pistons; in a two piston design, for example, a piston from each side of the rotor moves toward the rotor to provide the clamping force. A floating caliper usually has a single piston on the inboard side of the rotor. As one piston causes the inboard brake pad to push on the rotor, the caliper moves in a direction opposite to that of the brake pads, thereby bringing the other outboard brake pad to contact the rotor. At equilibrium, both pads will apply the same clamping force to the rotor. Floating calipers are self adjusting in their design, so brake pad wear is theoretically even. However, in reality, brake pad wear is more of a problem with floating calipers because the imperfect floating mechanisms can cause binding or angled pad wear and possibly leading poor brake modulation. Fixed calipers are usually not self-adjusting, but they are stiffer and apply even force on each side of the rotor, assuming that the rotor is aligned to be at the center of the two sides of the caliper. Fixed calipers are usually wider to allow for two-sided clamping.

For this reasons of packaging within the small wheel area, it was decided to use single piston floating calipers for the front wheels. While the rear wheels, a dual piston fixed caliper is employed.

Fig 4.4 pressure distribution on brake pads

fig 4.5 front caliper

Fig 4.6 engineering drawing of the front caliper

Fig 4.7 the rear caliper

fig 4.8 engineering drawing of rear caliper

Another important parameter with caliper is their piston size. The piston sizes needs to be determined together with the master cylinder such that appropriate hydraulic advantage ratio can be achieved to provide sufficient stopping power, especially in the absence power assist.

4.5

Master cylinders

A variety of master cylinder deigns exits. The formula SAE regulations dictate two separate hydraulic systems for the front and rear brakes, so formula Student cars must have two master cylinders, one for operating the brakes at each end of the vehicle. Pushrods connected to the pedal assembly apply forces on the pistons within the master cylinders to displace the brake fluid. The master cylinders draw brake fluid from a reservoir, sometimes integral, sometimes remote. In either case, the fluid reservoir must be large enough to move the brake pads to their full clamping position.

4.6

Hydraulics

Piping and fittings for the brake fluid must not only be able to withstand the high line pressures 317kg (over 700Ib) for the front axle on our vehicle, but they must also be stiff or else the brake will feel spongy and unresponsive to a driver. Material choice is also important due to corrosion and chemical property changes that may affect brake system performance. For racing, it is common to choose brake fluid with the highest possible boiling point and to use stainless steel braided tubing and fittings throughout. Braking systems operate on the principle of hydraulics. The total hydraulic system pressure acting on a braking system at one time is dictated by the master cylinder bore size and pedal ratio. The master cylinder creates brake fluid movement and pressure through force manipulation and fluid displacement. It is connected to the brake pedal with a simple clevis linkage. The maximum brake line pressure experienced can be found through calculations. Charting the maximum brake line pressure is essential in determining how much clamping force can be developed and will affect the extent of deflection in the caliper.

The maximum line pressure was found to be 223.49kg/m, as found by calculation. Furthermore, the maximum pressure will dictate the type and size of stainless steel braided brake lines to be used where solid brake lines are not suitable for installation.

CHAPTER 5 BRAKE SYSTEM COMPONENTS AND MANUFACTURING DETAIL

5.1 Rotors
As aforementioned, the rotors are cross-drilled. The hardened steel rotors are designed by the students. The front rotors are mounted onto a hub just inboard of the wheel. On the rear axle, the rotor is attached onto the spool axle adjacent to the sprocket for the chain drive-train. The front rotors would be 190mm and 6.25mm thick, while the rear would be 203mm and same thickness.

fig 5.1 the rear rotors mounted on the differential

5.2

Calipers

Calipers is manufactured from wilwood engineering. The front floating calipers have 35mm piston diameter and float on their mounting pins. They mount on the front uprights which also have a retention mechanism such that the inside pads do not rotate about the cotter pins that locates it vertically. The front caliper mounting points need to be tapped perfectly because the floating pins are integral with the mounting bolts. As with other components for which alignment is crucial, the holes for the mounting bolts are tapped with computer numeric control. The outboard side of the front calipers is also milled down slightly to reduce the scrub radius. The rear calipers are of the fixed design but also have (two) 35mm diameter pistons and are mounted onto a plate that locates the rear axle.

5.3

Pads

Brake pads that fit the wilwood calipers would be purchased and measures approximately 43mm X 45mm. these are cold stopper pads, chosen for their cold stopping capability. Because of their light weight, formula Student cars generally do not generate extremely high brake temperatures if proper cooling is provided furthermore, high temperatures are unlikely during light duty testing.

Fig 5.2 engineering drawing of the brake pads

5.4

Master cylinder

Our vehicle would employ lightweight composite master cylinders from wildwood. The front master cylinder has a 19.05mm piston, while the rear master cylinder has a 22.2mm piston. These master cylinders fit the pedal assembly by design and have large reservoirs and long strokes.

5.5

Pedal assembly

A wilwood pedal assembly was sourced from chassis shop performance products. The pedal mechanical advantage ratio is 5.1:1, and the pedal is a swing mount design (hinged at the bottom), which is necessary given the dimensions of the car s frame the pedal assembly allows the master cylinders to be reverse mounted, i.e. with the reservoir farther rearward in the car than the pedal, again to fit within the frame constraints.

fig 5.3 wilwood dual cylinder brake assembly

fig 5.4 Engineering of wilwood pedal The assembly is mounted to the car frame via two computer numeric controlled aluminum bridges that clamp onto two transverse frame rails. The frame area near the brake pedal area receives some of the highest loads due to the mechanical advantage of the pedal system.

5.6

Brake balance bar

The nuta_bolt race car adjusts brake bias using a balance bar that comes with the pedal assembly to distribute the pedal force to the front and rear master cylinders in a proportion specified by the position of the pushrods on the bar. Care has been taken in sizing the caliper pistons and master cylinders such that the master cylinder pushrods are within specified angles since high misalignment can cause mechanical failure.

5.7

Hydraulics

The brake fluid routing has not been fully designed yet, but the authors plan to use stainless steel braided tubing throughout and high temperature racing brake fluid

Chapter 6

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE/ITERATIONS

6.1

Caliper design

Because of the binding issues associated with floating calipers, a fixed caliper design can be considered for future iterations. The current wheel size does not allow for fixed calipers at the outboard front brakes unless a significant scrub radius is introduced.

6.2

Rotors

The team has oversized the rotors due to concerns of brake cooling. Should this prove not to be problem in testing, thinner rotors can be used to decrease mass. This will also reduce the polar moment of inertia of the rotating components allowing for faster acceleration and braking. On the other hand, should heat be a problem such that it raises the temperature of the upright and wheel bearings significantly, a rotor hat can be added as an additional heat sink between the rotor and other suspension components. This has the unfortunate consequence of an increase in scrub radius.

6.3

Pads

It is recommended that a set of pads designed for higher temperatures be used during racing or under rigorous testing as the current cold stopper are not designed for very high temperatures.

6.4

Brake bias

Brake bias is tuning tool for the driver. A remote adjuster can be added to brake balance bar should frequent adjustments be necessary.

CHAPTER 7
7.1 Assumptions

CALCULATIONS

Deceleration is the measure of how rapidly a vehicle slows down. The maximum achievable velocity of the nuta_bolt FS race car would be limited to 35.55m/s. although observed competition speeds are considerably lower, this value is taken as the worst possible condition during hard braking since energy dissipation is a function of velocity squared (E=mv). Deceleration (and acceleration) is measured in units of gravity or G s . To determine a baseline G value, the racecar should stop from 35.55m/s approximately 2.5 seconds assuming constant deceleration,

7.2

Longitudinal weight transfer

The center of gravity (CG) is a point on an object where all its mass is concentrated and it is completely balanced. The CG also serves as a location where the combination of all inertial forces summed into focused single inertial force. Since the CG of the nuta_bolt FS racecars are located closer to the rear wheels for purpose of tractive acceleration as a result of engine packaging and driver placement, more weight of the car is distributed to the rear wheels while the car is static. Under deceleration forces due to rotational inertia tend to load the front tires and lift the rears (i.e. car rotates about the CG) as the CG is located above the ground (tire contact patch). The actual weight of the car does not change, rather the amount of load witness by the front and rear tire varies with dynamic conditions.

Figure 7.1 diagram of geometry and forces acting on the car

Figure 2 illustrates how weight transfer occurs through the forces acting on the race car while decelerating. Under static conditions, ma is nil and the weight distribution Dsf and Dsr is calculated by summing the moments about the front and rear tires at the contact patch with the road as described previously.

Moment about front tires M front = - F r B + W c B f =0 Cw+

Moment about rear tires M rear = F f B Cw+

w c B r =0

Fr = Wc B f B F= ma=mg*a/g = W*G

F f = W cB r B

Note that forces on the front and rear tires can expressed in terms of W and G.

As a result, the static weight distributions of the front D sf and rear D sf, respectively, are:

Dsf =wr G = B f wc B

Dsr = wf G = Br Wc B

Since G is a constant, it can be ignored in subsequent weight transfer equations. To account for the weight transfer during deceleration, the same process is repeated but now ma is taken into considering. Moment about front tires Moment about rear tires

m front = - Fr B + wc Bf
Cw+ -Fr B + Wc B f

mah =0

m rear =Ff B wcBr

cw+

mah =0

w c Gh =0 w c Gh B

Ff B Wc B f - wc Gh =0 Ff = Wc B r + Wc Gh
B B +

F r = w cB f B

Ddr = Dsf Gh

Ddf = Dsf

Gh

The result shows an increase load transfer to the front wheels about the CG under deceleration. Consequently load transfer to the front wheels about the CG under deceleration. Consequently, amount of braking force required at front and rear wheels will not be equal.

Figure 7.2 longitudinal weight distribution static conditions on front and rear axle

Figure above represents the longitudinal load distribution under static conditions. The longitudinal weight transfer is proportional to rate of deceleration, weight of the vehicle, and CG height and is inversely proportional to the wheelbase. Thus, the governing equation for longitudinal weight transfer is given by: LWT = weight x CG Wheelbase (kg)(mm) (mm)

Under a constant linear deceleration of 1.7G as illustrated below an increase of 74kg (168Ibs) to both front wheels (each front wheel increases by 38kg (84Ib), Again, the amount of braking force must be designed accordingly to coincide with this difference in weight transfer.

Figure 7.3 longitudinal weight distribution under 1.7G of deceleration 74kg (LWT = 168 Ibs)

7.3

Brake torque

Brake torque can be understood as the braking power of a vehicle. More specifically, it is the measure of friction force on a tire, multiplied by the rolling radius of that tire. Rolling radius is the distance from the center of the wheel to the pavement with the tire loaded. This required brake torque for any wheel can be given by

Treq = Ft x Rbr
Where Ft is the maximum tractive force (i.e. grip) at any given tire. The threshold for traction can be considered at a maximum before there is slippage between the tire and contact patch surface (i.e. skidding) and is shown

Ft = [(2.2338 x Wc) + 32.64] t

Fig 7.4 linear relationship of traction and load on a FSAE tire Table 4 shows the minimum braking torque required for each wheel on the UGO racecar to sustain a 1.7G deceleration. The actual generated brake torque by the braking system is directly proportional to the clamping force from the caliper, number of pistons in the caliper, effective radius, and brake pad coefficient of friction.

T Fgen = (FCF)X(number of pistons in caliper)X (Reff)X(pad) T Rgen = (FCF)X(number of pistons in caliper)X (Reff)X(pad)

7.4

Brake force calculations

Brake pedal: Assume that the driver input force is 40Kg (90 Ib)

fig 7.5 brake force pedal

Moment output from pedal: Moment = (input force)(distance) (40) X (0.1016) = 0.10616kg.m (360Ib.in)

The master cylinder: You can adjust the pressure output of each master cylinder by increasing or decreasing length of the piston push rod in the master cylinder. This is allows for an adjustable rear and front braking force. To account for this different in the front and rear braking a percent is applied to the pressure calculation. P = (F/A)[percent braking] Where: A= D 4

D: the master cylinder diameter F: the force from the brake pedal P: the pressure from the master cylinder

A front =

(0.01905) = 0.000285m 4

Front: P = (0.10616) x 0.60 = 223.49kg/m 0.000285

A rear =

(0.022225) = 0.000387m

4 Rear: P = (0.10616) X 0.40 = 109.72kg/m 0.000387

The caliper: The calipers have two pistons that actuate the brake pads so the force is multiplied by 2 F = 2(P)(A) Where: A = D 4 P: the pressure from the master cylinder D: the diameter of the caliper F caliper force: the clamp load A: area of the caliper Front calipers: A= (0.02133) = 0.000357m 4

F caliper force = 2 x 223.49 x 0.357 = 159.57N

Rear calipers: A= (0.02921) = 0.0006701m 4

F caliper force: 2 x 109.72 x0.6701 = 147.04N

The brake pads: There are two brake pads so the force is multiplied by a factor of two Rotor force = 2 x (caliper force) x () Where:

 = coefficient of friction = 0.45 (good assumption for most race cars) Front: F = 2 x 159.57 x 0.45 = 143.61N Rear: F = 2 x 147.04 x 0.45 = 132.33N The rotor: The torque applied on the rotor acts on both side so the torque is multiplied by 2 Torque = (2)(rotor force)(d) Where: d: the distance between the center of the rotation and the force to act at a point midway across the rotor face. Front: T = 2 x 143.61 x 5 = 1436.1N Rear: T = 2 x 132.33 x 3.5 = 926.31N

The wheels and tires: F = torque r Where: F : force generated between the tires and road n: rolling radius of tire Front: F = 1436.1 = 143.61N 10 Rear: F = 926.31 = 92.63N 10

Acceleration calculation: a = 2(F Front wheel)+2(F rear wheel) W Where: a: lateral deceleration F: force generated between the tires and the road for the front and rear tires. Force is multiplied by a factor of 2 because there are 2 front and 2 rear tires. W = total estimate weight of the car, which includes car and driver. a = 2(143.61)+2(92.63) = 1.7g 270 Stopping distance: D = Vi 2a Where:

Vi: the initial speed

a: lateral deceleration = Vi = 128km X 1 hr X 1609m Hr 3600s 1.6093km a = 1.7g X 9.796^m/s = 16.65m/s 1g D = 35.55 = 37.95m 2(16.65) Calculations based on equations from wildwood engineering (www.wilwood.com) 35.55m/s

COST ANALYSIS

PART
Brake lines(3/16 steel hard lines, 25ft Brake fluid (570brake fluid, 12ounce can) Brake disc Caliper Dual master cylinders Brake pads Table 2 cost analysis

UNIT PRICE
$24.00

QUALITY
1

TOTAL
$ 24.00

MANUFACTURE
summitt

$10.49

$20.98

jegs

$ $ $

4 2 $

$ $ $

Student designed disc wilwood wilwood

CONCLUSION
Following the theoretical guidelines of industry experts, university professors and experienced formula SAE peers, the sub-team has succeeded in designing and analyzing a set of vehicle control systems for the Nuta_bolt racecar. In terms of larger picture of creating a successful race car, however, much remains to be done. In many parts of the paper, the sub-team has raised concerns that can only be evaluated with extensive. In addition to isolated tests on the strength and stiffness of the individual components, dynamic testing is essential in evaluating the car as a whole for a race car to be successful, not only do the individual components have to perform up to expectation but the entire car also needs to work well as a system. Over two semesters, it has become obvious that the majority of the components that make up the vehicle control systems, even some of the other parts of the car need to be designed together. This is because much of the complexity of a car s systems only reveals itself when relative motion and packaging constraints are considered. As designers of the first iteration of the anambra state university formula SAE race car, the authors at times lacked foresight on clearance issues. If possible, future designers should attempt to make as complete a model of a car as possible. Technical and design recommendations have been scattered throughout this report, but little has been mentioned regarding possible test procedures. Although the team has done static checks such as verifying the locations of attachment points, this does not say much regarding the behavior of the vehicle under load and acceleration. Thus, the next step is to verify the operation of the individual components as independently as possible. Although it is true that, for instance, changing the static camber will affect toe and bump steer characteristics, and that parameters cannot be changed in isolation easily, it is possible to run relatively simple tests to make sure that camber curves, among other parameters, are to specification. Despite the testing that is required to validate the author s design in this paper and in simulating and prototyping a formula SAE race car , the team feel that they have successfully tackled the challenges of creating vehicle control system s for a dynamic and interactive system such as a formula SAE car and that they have learned a copious amount regarding not only vehicle design but also team dynamics. It is the team s hope that the technical information and suggestion provided will make future iterations of the anambra state university formula SAE car successful at the competition.

LIST OF REFERENCES
[1] [2] Fred Puhn, Brake Handbook, HPBooks, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1985. Carrol Smith, Time to Win: The Art and Science of Racecar Development and Tuning, Aero Publishers. Inc, Fallbrook, CA, USA, 1978. [3] Carrol Smith, Engineer to win: Racing Car Materials Technology, MBI Publishing Co, Osceola, WI, USA, 1984. [4] Carrol Smith, Drive to Win: The Essential Guide to Race Driving, Carol Smith Consulting, Inc, Palos Verdes Estates, CA, USA, 1996 [5] Robert l. Norton, Machine Design: An Integrated Approach, Third Edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA, 2006. [6] Hoi Sum Iu, Design for the Brake System of the Formula SAE vehicle 2007, undergraduate thesis, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, university of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 2001.

LIST OF SUPPLEMENTARY SOURCES

US Department of Defense, Military Handbook: Metallic Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle Structures, Knovel Interactive Edition, 2003, Available at HTTP: http://www.knovel.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/knovel2/toc.jsp?bookID=754 Wilwood Engineering, High Performance Braking Products, Online Catalog, Wilwood Engineering, Inc, Camaril lo, CA, USA, available at HTTP: http://www.wilwood.com/products/index.asp Brake Tech USA, Advanced Braking Systems, FAQ, brake tech USA. Inc, lake Elsinore, CA, USA, Available at HTTP: http://www.braketech.com/faq.html E. Oberg, F. Jones, et all, machinery s Handbook: 27th Edition, industrial press, 2004 Society of Automotive Engineers, 2011 Formula SAE rules, 2011, [online document], available at HTTP: http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/rules/rules.pdf