3-D Modeling: NX5 Objective: Choose a suspension system reasonable for a low-cost, multi-passenger vehicle.

lti-passenger vehicle. Result: A beam axle complete with a Watts Linkage was implemented in the rear-end suspension.
Result: MacPherson Struts were implemented in the front-end suspension

Figure 1. Macpherson Strut Figure 2. Integration of Front Suspension Figure 3. Beam Axle Suspension Figure 4. Integration of Rear Suspension
Named after Earle S. Macpherson, the Macpherson Strut is distinguishable by the coincidence of the upper Also known as a Parallel Linkage, the Watts Linkage was invented by James Watt in the late 18th century. It is a
steering pivot point with the damping mechanism. simple three-bar-linkage designed with the intent to restrict locomotive pistons to linear motion.

Static Analysis: ANSYS Objective: Determine stresses due to the

Objective: Determine stresses due to the maximum maximum braking force, a force caused by
steering force, braking force and force caused by a a bump in the road on one tire and the force
bump in the road. caused by a bump in the road acting on both
tire.
Results: The stresses were under the tensile strength Results: The stresses were under the tensile
of 825 MPa for all cases. When the number of elements Strength of 825 MPa for all cases. When the
were increased, the stresses converged so the results number of elements were increased, the
from the models were determined to be accurate. Figure 5. Front Suspension Mesh stresses converged so the results from the
models were determined to be accurate. Figure 9. Rear Suspension Mesh

Figure 6. Max Stress - Steering Force. Figure 7. Max Stress - Braking Force. Figure 8. Max Stress - Force from a Bump. Figure 10. Max Stress - Braking Force. Figure 11. Max Stress - Force from a Bump. Figure 12. Max Stress - Force from Two Bumps.

Dynamic Analysis: MSC ADAMS/View

Objective: Determine if the spring stiffness and damping coefficients found using hand calculations gives the vehicle a resonant frequency between 1.5 -2.3 Hz.
Vehicle Resonant Frequency Contact Force
10cm bump @8km/hr Speed(km/hr) Bump(cm) Front Force(N) Rear Force(N)
0.8 10cm bump @16km/hr 8 10 8774 8723 Front Wheel Displacment Rear Wheel Displacment
10cm bump @32km/hr 16 10 13347 13818 2500N 2500N
0.7 2.5cm bump @64km/hr 3000N 35 3000N
32 10 22158 21534 30
2.5cm bump @96km/hr 3500N 3500N
Yaw, Pith, and Roll (Degrees)

64 2.5 23145 26844 4000N 30 4000N

0.6 96 2.5 49291 58230 25 4500N 4500N
5000N 5000N
25
Table 1. Maximum forces between the bump and

displacement(mm)
displacement(mm)
20
0.5
the tire to use for the static analysis. 20

15
15
0.4 Spring Force
Speed(km/hr) Bump(cm) Front Force(N) Rear Force(N) 10 10
0.3 8 10 3399 3159
5 5
16 10 6228 5499
0.2 0
32 10 7998 12115 0

0.1
64 2.5 10000 15942 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
96 2.5 13672 27388 time(s)
time(s)

0 Table 2. Maximum spring forces collected in

5 10 15 20 ADAMS and used for the static analysis.
Frequency (Hz)

Results: At different speeds and bump sizes the resonant frequency of 1.667 Hz was found when the front spring stiffness
was 16 N/mm with a damping coefficient of 30 N-s/mm and the rear spring stiffness was 18.7 N/mm with a damping
Figure 13. Full suspension system, with vehicle frame, in Figure 14. Simulation of the vehicle going over a bump on coefficient of 30 N-s/mm.
ADAMS/View. the road.