MAE 4152W

Mechanical Engineering Laboratory

The George Washington University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences

SAE Baja Front Suspension

Final Report

Written By:
Jason Bracco
Coleman DeAnda
Jaime Deschenes
Tara Olson
Austin Sabbagha

Submitted on: May 9th, 2018

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Each year Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) challenges engineering students to
design and build an offroad vehicle that will survive and compete in their annual competitions. For
this senior design project, the objective was to design and build the front suspension for the GW
Baja vehicle to compete in the 2018 Maryland SAE International Competition. The customer
required an all weather, rugged, single-seat, off-road recreational vehicle, that complies with all of
the competition requirements and can withstand the demands of the the various dynamic and
endurance competitions. The front suspension plays a key role in providing stability of the vehicle
and maintaining consistent tire contact with the control surface.

The geometrical design chosen for the front suspension was a dual, unequal length A-arm
system. With the upper arm slightly shorter than the bottom, the system provided high stability
and a negative camber to lower chances of a vehicle roll over. The upper arm swings through a
shorter arc than the lower arm and pulls in the top of the tire as the wheel travels upwards in
reaction to the ground surface. This system meets all specifications and parameters outlined by the
competition, in addition to providing the driver with ideal road handling control and a preferable
ride height. Additionally, the suspension system design made the adjustability of the lengths easy.
The stiffness was tunable with the shock absorbers dual chambers, each providing optimal
pressures to handle the specific driving terrain and tests. During the actual testing phase, the group
conducted both physical test drives and Solidworks analysis of the system. After testing, all
requirements and results were satisfied as the suspension had the ability to handle various stresses
and loads on all of the critical areas.

II. INTRODUCTION
An independent suspension system is a system of linkages that hold the shock absorbers
and connect the frame of the vehicle to the wheels. It compensates for vertical acceleration of the
wheels and impacts both the ride and handling of the vehicle. A suspension system should offer
control over the camber angle of the wheel, provide minimal roll and sway to provide consistent
steering, give firm contact of the wheels to the road, and allow driver comfort/ride quality. Due to
the impact the front suspension has on not only the ride quality of the vehicle, the front suspension
is one of the most critical subsystems of any vehicle. The scope for this project was to have
successfully designed and built an improved front-end suspension system to be used at the SAE
Mini Baja Competition from April 17th to April 20th.

The design requirements for the front suspension were not only governed by the customer
(SAE Baja), but also the other subsystems on the vehicle. The front suspension had to work in
conjunction with the steering system and the braking system, in order to ensure a smooth and
effective driving experience. With all customer constraints laid out, and the chassis of the Baja
vehicle already built, the design requirements were calculated based on the optimal geometry of
the suspension system. The vehicle ride height was set at a minimum of 11 inches, the track width
to 56 inches, and the wheelbase to 60 inches. The suspension had to achieve a leverage of 11:1,
and the camber needed to be between -1 to -3 degrees.

1
III. DESIGN DESCRIPTION

The design of the double-wishbone system was constrained by the overall track width,
steering knuckles, and wheels. Because the steering knuckles were used by the previous vehicle
and the wheels and tires had already been selected, there was not much flexibility allowed in terms
of design. An opportunity was noticed in the frame suspension mounts to specifically chose where
the arms mounted to the frame. Because the frame was incomplete at the time of design, the
location of the upper control arm had not been set. The frame at the front of the car was also too
narrow for the required track width, so the control arms would need to be spaced out from the
frame.

III.I THE GEOMETRY

The design of the double-wishbone system was constrained by the overall track width,
steering knuckles, and wheels. Because the steering knuckles were used by the previous vehicle
and the wheels and tires had already been selected, there was not much flexibility allowed in terms
of design. An opportunity was noticed in the frame suspension mounts to specifically chose where
the arms mounted to the frame. Because the frame was incomplete at the time of design, the
location of the upper control arm had not been set. The frame at the front of the car was also too
narrow for the required track width, so the control arms would need to be spaced out from the
frame.
The initial suspension geometry design was performed using a GUI suspension analysis
software RacingAspirations. The software allowed for iterative design and analysis of different
geometries, while staying within the design restrictions. Varying geometries effect the camber of
the wheel through its range of motion. A system was considered effective if the wheel
maintained an overall negative camber as well as contact with the surface.

Figure 1: Geometry Modeled in RacingAspirations (Left/Right Turn)

As such, the control arm mounts were designed with a 2.5” and 1.5” spacing out from the
frame for the upper control arm (UCA) and lower control arm (LCA). The distance between the
UCA and LCA was set at 4.5”. To achieve the 56” front track width, lengths of 12.875” and 16.25”
for the upper and lower control arms respectively were selected. This gives very shallow upper
and lower control arm angles at the vehicle’s static position.

Another important handling characteristic is the vehicle’s roll center. The roll center was
determined by drawing lines through the upper and lower control arms of a double-wishbone
suspension system. The intersection of these lines is located, and another line is drawn from this
intersection point to the center of the contact patch with the ground on the same side of the vehicle.

2
The roll center lies where this final line intersects the midpoint of the front track width. Figure 1
shows the location of the roll center through the use of this instant center method. The geometric
relationship between the roll center and the center of gravity is what determines a vehicle’s
dynamic responses.

Figure 2: Roll Center Explained

It is important to note that roll center changes as the vehicle’s suspension system travels
through its range of motion. Because the roll center changes, a more appropriate name would be
an instantaneous roll center. and its motion in relation to the vehicle’s center of gravity is just as
important. As the vehicle’s suspension system compresses, the roll center typically moves upward.
This reduces body roll the more the suspension compresses. Off-road handling will be significantly
improved through a lower static roll center that moves upwards with suspension compression.

Figure 3: Model of Front Suspension Fully Assembled

As seen in Figure 3 above, the suspension was designed with two unequal length arms. The
frame side of the arms are attached with heim joints and the wheel side of the arms are attached
with ball joint mounts. The upper A arm is the shorter length arm, whereas the lower A arm is the
longer of the two. Without varying the lengths of the arms and just having a dual A-arm suspension
there is a lack of camber gain as no negative camber can be generated when the wheel moves into
a bump on the course. The result of having no negative camber is that as the car rolls, the wheel
gains positive camber and then would lose traction very quickly. Camber is defined as the angle
between the vertical axis of the wheels used for steering and the vertical axis of the vehicle when
viewed from the front. Now by using an upper control arm that is shorter than the lower one, the

3
suspension has the ability to hold a slight negative camber at rest and then gain an even greater
negative camber with any upward wheel travel while performing on the course. This happens as
the upper arm swings through a shorter arc than the lower arm does and then pulls in the top of the
tire as the wheel travels upwards.
Heim joints were chosen to join the suspension arms with the frame. They provide minor
adjustability and help account for any small dimension errors from the manufacturing stage.
Threaded rod ends for the heim joints would be welded into the end of the chromoly tube.
1” Chromoly steel with a wall thickness of .0625” was selected as the main material.
Chromoly steel was the ultimate fit as it provides high tensile strength (yield of 460 MPa) and
malleability, can be easily welded, and has corrosion resistance. Though it can be costly in
comparison to other materials, the benefits of Chromoly steel outweigh its costs. A careful
comparison of steel alloys and their properties was needed to effectively determine the best steel
for the intended purposes. Both the heim joints and the rod ends are made of high-strength steel.
Once a working Solidworks model of the suspension system was created, the next step was
to ensure that the material and design would hold up under the most extreme conditions of
competition. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was imperative to confirm the working design was
able to withstand the elements on the competition course. From reading previous group’s
competition reports, the importance of considering failure scenarios became evident. The design
may hold up fine while driving and turning with nothing impeding the course and with miniscule
obstacles such as rocks and smaller jumps in the way. The real challenge is durability and ensuring
the suspension can combat the most significant challenges presented by the course.

III.II FABRICATION
The process of fabricating the arms and cross beams started with cutting rods of 4130
Chromoly steel to the required length. After marking off the start and end points of the arm
length, as well as the bending limits, the group used a pneumatic bender with a 4.5 inch die to
achieve the correct angle on each bend. Using a hand-held adjustable protractor, the correct
angle for each bend was achieved on all upper and lower control arms. Precise measurements
that were double and triple checked were employed during this process to confirm the bends
were not overdone. The angle measuring process was double-checked outside the bender by
using a magnetic angle finder that would adjust to being placed on an angle from a horizontal
surface.
Ensuring the correct angles was imperative, due to the symmetry needed on each upper
and lower control arm of the suspension system. If either arm was bent too far, the whole
geometry of the system would be thrown off and the suspension would not function effectively.
The cross beams were cut using an angled Bridgeport mill with a 1 inch diameter drill bit.
This process entailed adjusting the machine to the correct angle on both sides of the cross beams,
as well as centering each beam on the machine to ensure symmetry and a correct fit. Each beam
was marked to the correct length, and the orientation was double checked on each crossbeam to
confidently drill without making two of the same angled cuts on the same beam. This process
was tediously carried out due to symmetry and test fit concerns on each cross beam. If each side
of the beam was cut with the same angle, it would have to be thrown away and re-fabricated.
The ball joint mount side of each control arm had to be carried out using a different
process, due to the lack of a 1 ⅝ inch drill bit in the machine shop. A rig was constructed to

4
accurately angle each arm on a horizontal plane to the correct specifications, and a drill was
centered on the same horizontal surface to cut directly in the middle of the arm, producing an
angled fishmouth cut. This process required much more time and effort, due to chatter on the
drill bit and the need for stabilization.
Once all the individual parts were manufactured, the test-fitment process began. Due to
the high degree of symmetry in the suspension arm designs, the completed parts must match the
required arm dimensions when assembled. To do this, the individual parts were laid out on a flat
surface. Powerful magnets were used to hold the components in the correct location while the
arm dimensions were checked. Measurements were taken between the points where the arm
would meet the frame, as well as from the frame mount to ball joint.
The fishmouths must also be checked for fitment at each joint. Each must allow for clean
weldment, so no large gaps could be left. The material must also be prepped for welding by
grinding and polishing each joint. Once an arm was deemed toleranced and complete, it went on
to the initial tack welding phase.
A professional TIG welder was scheduled to perform the final weldment of the suspension
arms. Before this, the arms needed to be lightly held together once appropriately toleranced. A
MIG welder was used to perform these because of its forgiveness and ease of use.
The arms were placed on a welding table, appropriately dimensioned, and then magnetized
in place. Two small welds were then made at each joint, ideally placed on opposing faces of the
joint. Once the entire arm was secured, these tack welds were cleaned and ground down. It is
important to make these tack welds as unobtrusive as possible. This ensured the professional TIG
welder could make clean, strong welds at each joint.
Prior to the competition, the team must submit a weld sample from the same professional
welder. The sampled consisted of a small section of welded material that had undergone a tensile
strength test. At the end of the test, the material itself must yield, not the weld itself. Therefore the
strength and quality of the welds was a high priority.

IV. EVALUATION & TESTING

The testing and evaluation of the front suspension system was broken into three different
phases. The first phase was done through SolidWorks Software Simulation and the second phase
was two different days of test drives at an off road location in Virginia. After the testing the third
phase included tuning the shock absorbers with data collected, knowledge of the competition
events and using the shock manual as a valuable guide.

IV.I SOLIDWORKS
SolidWorks Software Simulation:
The suspension arms were each individually tested in SolidWorks for various loadings and
displacements. While it is useful to test random loadings and visualize where potential failure
points may be located, it is much more constructive to think of real scenarios in which the
suspension system may fail/break. The two scenarios that were taken into consideration were a fall
from 5 feet and a collision with a tree. For both scenarios, a “worst case” scenario is imagined,
where the estimated loadings and/or other related values exceeded possible capacity.

5
 First scenario: 5 foot drop and landing on all 4 wheels

In this scenario, the force of the falling car will disperse through all four tires, meaning that
one fourth of the force will be put on each tire. The first thing that was needed in this scenario
was the mass of the car. With the body weighing in at 467 lbs, and an estimated rider weight of
170 lbs, the total weight of the car/driver is 637 lbs. This value is a force, and has to be converted
to mass. That calculation was done as follows:

F=ma
637 lbf=(m)(32.2 ft/s)
m=19.78 slugs

Before the mass was used in any calculations, the scenario called for a drop of the car,
meaning that the velocity of the car upon impact also had to be calculated. Using kinematic
equations and reducing due to the lack of an initial velocity for this scenario, the impact velocity
calculation looked like this:

V=sqrt(2gh)
V=sqrt(2*32.2 ft/s*5 ft)
V=17.94 ft/s

At this point, all the components to calculate the car’s Kinetic Energy are available.

KE=(1/2)mV2
KE=(1/2)(19.78 slugs)(17.94 ft/s)2
KE=3183 ft*lbf

The final goal here is to solve for the impact force on each tire, and the final parameter to
take into consideration is the shock travel. Based on initial field testing, the length the tires can
travel vertically before the shocks bottom out is 7 inches.

d=7 in*(1ft/12 in)

d=.5833 ft

With all the necessary values available, the total impact force can be calculated by dividing
the Kinetic Energy of the falling car by the distance the wheels will travel based on impact.

Favg=KE/d
Favg=(3183 lbf*ft)/(.5833 ft)
Favg=5456.62 lbf
5456.62lbf/4=1364.155 lbf/wheel

The final line of calculations here is what really matters, because that is what can be tested
in SolidWorks. Applying the force at the ball joint mount, the stress and displacement are shown

6
in Figure 4 and Figure 5. The maximum areas of stress are where parts are welded together,
including the tube adapters.

Figure 4: Bottom Arm Stress from a Drop of 5 feet

Figure 5: Bottom Arm Displacement from a Drop of 5 feet

Second scenario: Hitting a rigid obstacle at 25 mph

The second scenario was more variable in the parameters that could be maximized. Some
of the values here were estimated based on The Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre that
related impact G-force to impact velocity. Based on initial trial runs, a safe estimate of the car’s
velocity is 25 mph, or 36.7 ft/s. Taking information from the Repair Research Centre and
estimating based on the mass of the car in use, the maximum G-force value can be taken as 6. The
calculation is a simple Newton’s Second Law problem that will give the impact force on the
suspension system.

F=ma
F=(19.78 slugs)*(6 G)*
(32.2 ft/s)
F=3821.5 lbf

This value is what is estimated to be the absolute maximum force exerted by a rigid object
on the suspension system. As shown in Figure 6, the displacement on the arm is at the point of

7
impact and propagates out into lower levels of displacement. The maximum stress value
experienced by the arm is around 50 ksi, with one or two small outliers at the tube adapter
connection points, which is to be expected since the connections are the weakest links of the
suspension arms, which is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 6: Bottom Arm Displacement from hitting a tree at 25mph

Figure 7: Bottom Arm Stress from hitting a tree at 25mph

IV.II TEST DRIVES

On two different occasions at a remote Maryland location there were various tests run on
the car and suspension system in order to best simulate how the car will react to events that will
occur at the competition.
The first test drive was completed in March after full assembly of the vehicle. The goal of
the test drive was to have a smooth run with no immediate failures as well as seek the adjustments
that would be needed. The shocks in this test drive were initially tuned to higher stiffness to
accommodate the acceleration test and overall endurance of the vehicle. They were left at the same
pressure throughout the day as the movement and durability of the suspension was the primary
concern at this stage. The vehicle was first run on pavement to achieve acceleration and maximum
speed data. Secondly, the vehicle was introduced to a slightly rougher terrain, which included mud,
sticks, rocks, and small bumps. The goal was to run the vehicle in the marked track until failure of
a system. When there was no failure, the vehicle tried a slightly rougher unmarked terrain. The test
drive ended when the vehicle ran into a large fallen tree directly onward of the left side front and
rear suspensions. The front suspension withstood the impact and had no deformation, deeming a
successful first test drive for the team.
During the second test drive the final suspension system was tested. The completed Baja
car can be seen in Figure 8. Testing for the suspension system was conducted by qualitative trials

8
that included jumping on the front tow hitch and driving the car over variable terrain in field. The
terrain included hills, rocks, drops, and brush. The goal of the tests were to understand how to
tune the shocks to optimal settings for various scenarios that would be experienced in the
competition. Unfortunately, another part of the car underwent too much stress and eventually failed
during a test drive. This failure occurred early in the day, so only minimal data could be extracted.

Figure 8: Complete Car at Test Drive

IV.III SHOCK ABSORBER TUNING

The shock absorbers are a fundamental part to the front suspension. They control the rate
of the motion between the chassis and the wheels while dampening the shock effects from the
ground. This helps to improve the ride quality and overall vehicle handling. The predetermined
shock absorbers were FOX FLOAT 3 EVOL FACTORY SERIES air shocks. With this selection,
it is the use of high pressure air that enables the system to dampen the encountered impacts. Built
with 6061-T6 aluminum, the shock's strength, damping consistency, and lightweight construction
prove to be a great selection with the proper pressure chamber adjustments.
There are two parts, the main air chamber and the EVOL air chamber. These chambers are
independently tuned to support the rider and vehicle's weight on a specific travel terrain. The main
chamber is primarily responsible for the vehicle's ride height and stiffness of the suspension, or
the rate at which the shock absorbers will react to the ride's ground forces. The additional EVOL
chamber supports the last third of the shock travel. This beneficial feature can control the vehicle's
ability to bottom-out or corner roll. The figure below shows the impact and adjustability the two
chambers allow versus the standard coil shock selection.

9
 FOX. 2010. FLOAT 3 EVOL FACTORY SERIES: Owner's Manual. Retrieved from http://www.ridefox.com/fox17/dl/snow/605-00-125_REV_C.pdf
Figure 9: The Flexibility that the Main and EVOL Chambers Allow to the Suspension

When tuning the shocks, it is important to consider the different conditions the suspension
system will be put through. At the competition, the vehicle will experience large jumps, long
straightaways, and a combination of the two in a long endurance race. It is permitted to change the
shock absorber pressure chambers between events; therefore, different pressures for the EVOL Air
Chamber must be effectively selected. Table 1 below gives a rough estimate in determining the
proper settings for each type of terrain while Figure 10 shows the effects of altering each of the
chambers; both were used when determining the appropriate settings.

FOX. 2010. FLOAT 3 EVOL FACTORY SERIES: Owner's Manual. Retrieved from http://www.ridefox.com/fox17/dl/snow/605-00-125_REV_C.pdf
Table 1: Reference Air Pressures for Effective Shock Absorber Tuning

10
 FOX. 2010. FLOAT 3 EVOL FACTORY SERIES: Owner's Manual. Retrieved from http://www.ridefox.com/fox17/dl/snow/605-00-125_REV_C.pdf
Figure 10: Effects of Altering the EVOL vs. Main Chamber

Table 2 below holds the optimal settings for the three aspects of the competition. The higher
pressures were selected for the speed and acceleration portions to give the vehicle a stiffer ride.
The endurance and jump competitions require more flexibility and were given less pressure.

Competition EVOL Air Chamber (psi) MAIN Air Chamber (psi)

Speed/Acceleration 250 120
Endurance 180 120
Jumps/Rough Terrain 150 100
Table 2: Air Chamber Pressure Selections

When mounting the shock absorbers, the location on the bottom arm was determined by
the optimal suspension leverage. For this system, a ratio of 1.6:1 was selected based on suspension
geometry and clearance issues. This system yields an overall wheel travel of 7.2" from the 4.5" of
the shock absorbers, see calculation below:

Suspension Leverage * Shock Absorber Travel = Wheel Travel

1.6 * 4.5" * 0.3 = 2.16"

The shock absorbers main chamber has control over the vehicle's sag height, or the height
at which the motionless vehicle sits with a driver on board in relation to the vehicle's full extension.
The sag is dependent on the vehicle weight, the rider weight, and the specific usage of the vehicle.
The recommended sag height is between 25% - 35% of the free length wheel travel. The
calculations to obtain an optimal sag using 30% are below:

Suspension Leverage * Shock Absorber Travel * 0.3 = 30% of Wheel Travel

1.6 * 4.5" * 0.3 = 2.16"

11
The true sag height calculation of the vehicle is shown below with max pressure in the main
chamber. All the determined pressures fit the optimal front sag height mentioned previously.

Full Extension - Ride Height = Sag

11.25" - 9.0" = 2.25"

The angle at which the shock absorbers were mounted also has to be accounted for when
completing spring calculations. The shock absorbers are advantageous when in a vertical position,
or perpendicular to the ground. Due to clearance issues with the frame of the upper suspension
arm, the absorbers were attached at a 20 angle from the vertical. The angle needed to be accounted
for when calculating the spring rate, or the amount of weight that is needed to compress the shock
by one inch. The calculations of the spring rate with the max stiffness and the highest pressures in
both chambers is shown below:

ACF = cos (A)

0.94 = cos (20)

Vertical Mounted Shock: Spring Rate = Weight with Driver / Sag

= 607 lbs. / 2.25" = 269.78 lbs./in

Shock Mounted at 20 = 269.78 lbs./in / 0.94 = 287 lbs./in

The shock absorbers are a crucial element in the design of the front suspension; thus, the
shocks were tuned optimally for their event and the driver.

V. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS

Through the design requirements and goals set forth by both the SAE competition rules
and the GW Baja team, the senior design group has designed and manufactured a front suspension
able to work with the vehicle and perform in all dynamic events. As shown in Table 3 below, we
were able to meet all of the design requirements.

Requirement Actual

Ride Height (before SAG) At least 11” 11.5”

Track Width 56” 56”

Wheelbase 60” 60”

Suspension Leverage 11:1 11:1

Camber -1 to -3 degrees -1 to -3 degrees

Table 3: Design Requirement Comparison to Actual Performance

12
 During and after the competition, several observations were made about the effectiveness
of the design as well as possible alterations. Principally, the arm was made to be very strong. This
was proven to be true as the arms not only survived the competition, unlike their predecessor, but
only had slight deformation due to a direct impact on a sharp rock. Even with the impact the
deformation was only slight and did not impact the effectiveness of the system. The downside of
the strength is that the arms were incredibly heavy. While this did not have an immediate impact
on the effectiveness of the system, the goal of the overall car is to be light as possible so minimizing
weight in any location is optimal. To make the arms lighter, less material must be used so a further
design would be arms that are straight without bends and have smaller dimensions. The arms could
be shorter and thinner on both the top and bottom and a crossbeam was not necessary on the top
arm at all. These modifications would also improve a large inadequacy with the car that was its
steering angle. The car in general was very large and bulky compared to other schools. This is due
to the fact that the GW had not gone to competition in several years and the previous iterations
had not been competitive in the races at all. By decreasing the track-width and also making the
arms narrower the steering angle and turning radius would be increased greatly. Another
improvement would be making the arms asymmetric with the leading edge being at a closer angle
to perpendicular to the frame than the trailing edge. This asymmetry would allow for a shorter
front edge of the car while still keeping the tie-rods protected by the leading edge. Finally, having
a suspension system where the axis of motion is off of vertical. This means that when the tire hits
something the suspension system not only travels in the vertical axis but also the horizontal axis.
The benefit of this would be that less shear stress is on the joints because any impact on the arms
can translate into motion in two axis instead of just one. The easiest way to accomplish this would
be having the mounting members on an angle themselves so that the arms are still square with their
mounting points. Furthermore, eliminating mounting braces connecting the arms to the members
would also minimize weight and track-width.
Like all designs, improvements can and should be made. In future competitions, the
improvements listed would greatly improve the performance of the car. It would have been optimal
for the designers to have previous experience with competitions or with Baja as many of the
improvements were envisioned at competition. Despite these possible improvements, the
suspension system fulfilled all of the desired goals and the team is very content with the design
performance.

13