ME 351 - Formula Electric In-Hub Motor

System for
Formula SAE Electric

University of Wisconsin - Madison

Authors: William Kucinski, Rocky Liang, Chad Davis, Matt Masucci
Issue 1.1 – 02/10/2017
Foreword
This report is written to present the collaborative efforts of a motivated group of individuals,
determined to improve upon Wisconsin Racing's legacy of excellence in design, manufacturing
and teamwork. Wisconsin Racing has entered the field of sustainable transportation with the
development of the team's first fully electric vehicle set to compete in 2017. The WR-217e
project began in early 2016 with a group of six motivated combustion members and has grown to
become a full second branch of Wisconsin Racing.

A senior design team has been created to assist in the research, design and implementation of the
front in-hub motor package for the WR-217e. This team is tasked with determining the optimal
solution for Wisconsin Racing that meets the design specifications and sets the team up for
continued success.

Abstract
This report details the development phase of the WR-217e architecture. First, an in-depth
analysis of the key performance metrics for the system is performed. Once the key parameters
for the vehicle were obtained, various concepts were developed and compared to select the final
design decisions. The transmission system was designed in Solidworks and analyzed with
student developed analysis tools, Solidworks finite element analysis and KISSsoft. The
combination of three analysis techniques resulted in an in-depth investigation along with
multiple verifications. The manufacturing design and documentation is provided for each
component in the assembly. The report ends with the discussion of the possible impact on the
FSAE Electric competition and commercial industry.

1
Table of contents
The Authors

Acknowledgements

Background

Motor Analysis

Transmission Ratio

Drivetrain Concepts

Planetary System

KISSsoft

System Design

Upright Design

Wheel Center Design

Brake System Design

Brake Caliper Design

Final Design

Manufacturing Design

Commercial Viability

Sources

Appendix

2
The Authors
The authors of this report are four students enrolled in the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s
Mechanical Engineering Capstone Design course. This is one of two design projects given to
students with a deep interest in sustainable transportation and a motivation to develop a novel
solution capable of pushing the Formula SAE Electric competition in the United States to
another level.

The primary goal of these projects is to give the Wisconsin Racing team the design support
necessary to develop the electric vehicle within one academic year. The secondary motivation of
this project is to provide a well-documented report of the development of a high voltage
powertrain capable of competing at the international level. The team saw a large gap in the level
of design between Formula Student and Formula SAE and is therefore developing an open
platform to aid in the development for Formula SAE Electric.
Education Focus
Billy’s focus has been on structural and machine element design
with a co-focus on engineering management. Through four years
of Formula SAE on the Wisconsin Racing team, he has worked
in nearly every area of vehicle design, manufacturing, testing,
procurement, sponsorship, graphic/digital design and
management.

William Thomas Kucinski

Project Leader
Architecture Design and Analysis
Technical Director Formula SAE Electric

Education Focus
Matt’s focus has been on powertrain development. He has
worked as a member of the combustion car for the last 3 years
and has worked in several powertrain development positions in
industry. The work with the electric brake system provided him
with valuable design experience through an interesting design
challenge.
Matt Masucci
Communicator
Brake Design and Analysis Support

3
 Education Focus
Chad’s interested in electric motors and electric vehicle design with a
sub-interest in green energy sources. He is currently an undergraduate
research assistant with WEMPEC and a proud member of the Formula
SAE Electric Team.

Chad Davis
Admin
Planetary Design and Analysis Support

Education Focus
Rocky intends to specialize in controls and automation, as well
as electrification of vehicles. He has conducted research in fuel
spray visualization and is currently a member of UW’s
manufacturing lab.

Rocky Liang
Accountant
Wheel Center Design and Analysis Support

4
5
Acknowledgements

6
Concept
Formula SAE is based on building a team and acquiring the resources necessary to create a
fictional manufacturing company that is contracted to develop a small Formula-style race car.
The teams compete to show their prototype has the highest potential for production. The target
market for these vehicles alters slightly from team to team but is majorly based on the non-
professional weekend autocross racer. Each student team researches, designs, builds, tests and
competes with their prototype at multiple events around the globe. The vehicles are designed to a
series of rules, whose purpose is to ensure on-track safety and promoting well developed
engineering principles and problem solving.

Wisconsin Racing Mission

The mission of Wisconsin Racing is to take the knowledge gained through coursework and work
with industry partners and apply that knowledge to the development of innovative formula-style
vehicles. Wisconsin Racing is dedicated to pushing the status quo, developing broadly
experienced students and having fun in the process. The team consists of nearly one hundred
members who apply their knowledge to various aspects of the design, manufacturing and
business aspects of the team. To a Wisconsin Racing team member, FSAE is valuable platform
to develop their skills and express their creativity.

7
Events
The Formula SAE competition incorporates both static and dynamic events to test the
engineering principles applied to the vehicle, the manufacturing quality, and the overall
performance of the vehicle in relation to the competitors.

Static Events
Business presentation: The business presentation is an event structured to pitch the prototype
design and manufacturing techniques to potential investors. Each team is allowed ten minutes to
entice the investors in the business and explain the marketing plan to manufacture one thousand
vehicles per year.

Cost Event: The cost event requires each team to document the cost associated with each
vehicle component as well as the methods used to manufacture and assemble the vehicle. The
event challenges students to present the correct documentation and answer questions focused on
manufacturing and sustainability.

Design: The design event is the pinnacle event to many of the teams as you are allotted forty
minutes to explain the theory and analysis behind the design and development of the car to a
panel of world class engineering judges. Winning this event directly highlights the team’s
superiority of engineering knowledge. A first place in vehicle design is almost as prestigious as
an overall competition victory.

Dynamic Events
Acceleration: A seventy-five meter drag race event designed to prove the car's longitudinal
acceleration capability.

Autocross: This event is a one lap time trial and is the most technically challenging of all the
dynamic events. The driver must use proper driving technique and show superior skill over the
other teams. This is the most prestigious of the dynamic events as it provides a method to show
which vehicle and driver combination best utilized their understanding of vehicle dynamics and
testing.

Endurance: The endurance event is by far the most demanding event on the vehicle as it
consists of 20 laps with a pit stop and driver change totaling a twenty-two kilometer race. This
event tests the reliability, fuel economy and race strategy of the teams. This event has by far the
highest failure rate of any event in the competition. Nearly fifty percent of the vehicles will not
complete this event at the World Championship held in Brooklyn, Michigan.

8
Skid pad: This event consists of a right and left hand circle and tests the steady state cornering
ability of the vehicle.

Efficiency: This event scores the team on the amount of consumed fuel or energy during the
endurance event. The winning team shows a deep understanding of the losses incurred in the
operation of a vehicle and a superior ability to efficiently utilize their fuel or energy.

9
Project Overview
Since the automotive industry is desperately searching for alternative propulsion solutions to
non-renewable fossil fuels, electric vehicles have grown in popularity. As an automotive design
training program, the University Of Wisconsin chapter of the Society of Automotive Engineers
has become increasingly dedicated to finding solutions to the growing environmental issues
related to the pollution of our atmosphere. Currently the UW-Madison SAE Chapter runs ethanol
(E85, supplied by the Diamond Sponsor UWGP) in the Formula Combustion vehicle and in the
Clean Snowmobile and Hybrid vehicle.

In light of the growing market for electric vehicles, the chapter made the bold decision to build
two FSAE vehicles starting in 2017. One high efficiency turbocharged combustion vehicle and
one all-wheel drive fully electric vehicle. The addition of electric vehicle allows for a massive
expansion of engineering challenges for the UW-Madison Automotive students.

The students on the team are now exposed to the design of custom batteries and electrical
circuitry, both high and low voltage systems, as well as electric motor controls and calibration,
electric motor design, transmission design and many other electrical and mechatronic design
projects. This exposure will not only prepare the students for the ever-growing automotive
market, but will also place them at the forefront of that design.

Wisconsin Racing’s early move into the Formula Electric competition will also allow the
organization to get a jump on the competition in an effort to stay ahead and drive innovation.
Wisconsin Racing has always prided itself on a devotion to pushing the boundaries and will
continue to do so through a modular platform chassis allowing both the electric and combustion
vehicle to utilize the same aerodynamics package and monocoque chassis along with many low
level components. Wisconsin Racing, “One Team | Two Cars”, 2017.

10
1 The in-hub motor design must comply with 2017 - 2018 FSAE Electric Rules

2 The in-hub motor system must incorporate Plettenberg Nova 15 Motors this year

3 The system must decrease the output speed of the motor by a minimum of 6 to 1 while
staying within the geometric design space allotted by the suspension kinematics.

4 The system must minimize the unsprung mass of the corner assembly while achieving a
minimum safety factor of 1.5 and a design life minimum of 69 hours.

5 The system must be designed within the manufacturing and funding limitations of the
Wisconsin Racing team and Wisconsin Racing Sponsors.

6 The system must last the entirety of the 2017 season, while the motors must last for a
minimum of 4 seasons.

7 Dedicated year - to - year sponsors must be obtained to ensure the sustainability of the
addition of a second vehicle to the Wisconsin Racing Team.

8 Full documentation and adequate knowledge transfer of all design, manufacturing, assembly
and testing must be provided to the rising team members to ensure future success.

9 Documentation must be made public for reference to Formula Electric teams looking to enter
the competition.

10 The system must be designed to allow torque vectoring and regenerative braking.

11
Target Market
The primary target market is the Wisconsin Racing team including the driver and engineering
students. The secondary target market is the fictional weekend auto-cross enthusiast as specified
by the competition.

Driver
The in-hub motor system must be designed for a symbiotic relationship with the driver. Due to
the added mass of the front corner a detailed analysis of the steering force must be conducted.
The driver must also be able to operate the vehicle seamlessly with the torque vectoring and
regenerative braking algorithms. Extensive on-track testing must be conducted to properly tune
the vehicle for each individual driver to ensure minimum lap times and energy consumption.

Team Members
The in-hub motor design must be designed to work within the kinematic constraints of the
vehicle to ensure the optimal dynamic behavior of the vehicle. The upright incorporates an
adjustable pillow block on the upper A-arm to allow chamber variation adjustments. This
addition allows the race engineer to test multiple set ups for the vehicle. The system must also be
designed with an ease of inspection and adjustment as to not delay testing time.

Weekend Auto-Cross Enthusiast

Based on a survey of 500 potential customers who attended various events at Road America in
Elkhart Lake, Wisconsin, it was determined that the three most important factors in our target
consumer’s purchasing decision are performance, reliability, and cost. It has also been
determined that there is a clear place for the WR-217e in the existing market of autocross/track-
day vehicles in the price and performance gap between shifter karts and single seat open-
wheelers. Electronic surveys were also sent LMP1, WEC racing and Formula E enthusiasts in the
Midwest.

12
Vehicle Dynamics
The brief introduction to vehicle dynamics is necessary due to the sensitivity of the drivetrain to
the kinematic design of the vehicle. At the most basic level vehicle dynamics studies the motion
of the vehicle based on the forces and torques acting on the chassis. The torque created by the
motor must travel through the transmission system and into the tire through the wheel. The tire
then reacts the torque through the contact patch and accelerates the vehicle.

In order to select the motors for the vehicle, a study to determine vehicle sensitivity to available
torque and grip at the tire was conducted. The vehicle is operating in one of three states. At the
traction limit, torque limited or perfectly riding the traction limit. Oversizing the motors to be
traction limited at all times results in excessive weight, whereas under sizing the motors results
in increased lap times due to underutilization of the available grip of the tire. Therefore the
motors and transmission system must be designed based on the available grip of the tires.

The available grip of the tires can be estimated based on test data provided by Calspan for the
Hoosier tires used in Formula SAE, specifically the LCO and R25B tires. The testing data
provides the available grip of the tire based on the load case and geometric relation of the tire to
the ground and velocity of the vehicle. With a student developed lap time simulation tool in
Matlab, a quasi-steady state two track model is utilized to calculate the available grip and
therefore aid the selection of the motor and necessary gearbox.

The lap simulator takes in various vehicle parameters such as the vehicle mass, motor torque
speed diagram, accumulator (battery) parameters, vehicle center of gravity, estimated coefficient
of friction for the tires and runs a time based simulation of the vehicle moving through a
competition-representative track. For each time step, the model calculates the available grip of
each tire and the available torque. The default is to ride the traction limit whenever possible to
minimize lap time.

This model was run with a multiple motor combinations to determine the optimal power split
between the four wheels. Due to the competition regulations the vehicle is never allowed to use
more than 80 kW. Therefore a series of simulations were conducted to select the most efficient
and lowest lap time.

This resulted in a power split of twenty-five percent to the front wheels and seventy-five percent
to the rear wheels. This split makes sense with even the most basic understanding of load
transfer. In short, during acceleration seventy-five percent of the normal load will be on the rear
tires and therefore seventy-five percent of the available power will be usable at the rear wheels.

The reverse load transfer occurs during braking, and to maximize the amount of possible
regenerative braking it would be intuitive to desire seventy-five percent of the available power at
the front. However, based on the design of the accumulator, the split of seventy-five percent rear

13
and twenty-five percent front is capable of charging the battery at its peak charge rate and
therefore the larger motor is not necessary for the front wheels under braking.

Torque Vectoring
Perhaps the most beneficial performance gains of the electric vehicle are the ability to control all
four wheels independently through a novel torque vectoring algorithm. Torque vectoring is a
method of distributing power to the four tires of the vehicle based on current vehicle state
determined from the use of multiple sensors. The use of electric motors is particularly suited for
torque vectoring due to the more instantaneous torque response of the motor versus a combustion
engine.

The major vehicle dynamics parameter that benefits is the ability to “yaw” or rotate the vehicle.
The ability to quickly change the vehicle’s direction of travel allows the driver to brake later
when entering a corner and rotate the car out of the corner quicker. The vehicle will have a
steady state maximum grip capability which cannot be increased by the algorithm but the vehicle
can reach this steady state quicker, therefore allowing the car to keep a higher average speed.

A second major benefit of torque vectoring is that it allows the electric powertrain to compensate
for imperfections in the setup of the chassis. Due to errors in manufacturing or vehicle setup, the
car may exhibit understeer or oversteer tendencies at different speeds. This can now be corrected
as the onboard computer can artificially balance the car during steering maneuvers. These
corrections are achieved through the application of positive or negative (acceleration or braking)
torque.

These benefits are the key driving forces behind the development of the all-wheel drive
architecture for the WR-217e. The report defines the driving decisions and constraints imposed
on the design of the vehicle and the analysis behind each component in the front in-hub
assembly.

14
Collaboration

Max Liben
Powertrain Architecture, Vehicle Dynamics Simulation & Controls
Team President Formula SAE Electric

Nils Justin
Brake System Support

Will Sixel
Controls, Thermal Modeling

15
Motor Analysis
This report highlights the investigation of three motors which are viable for the
application to an FSAE Electric vehicle. The first of the three motors is produced by a small
company in Southern California that specializes in custom motor design. They offered to
investigate designing a custom motor for the Wisconsin Racing team. The second two companies
are both located in Germany. Plettenberg designs motors within the 300V max voltage limit for
the competition, whereas AMK designs a 600V system but sells a package specifically for
Formula Student.
A quality function deployment chart was created to compare the three motors and aid in
the selection of the best suited solution. The categories were created based on the motor
parameters, financial limitations of the team, reliability of the system and the availability of the
motor and replacement components.
From this study, the AMK package proved to be the best suited motors for the
application. However due to the voltage regulation of the U.S competition, the team was unable
to utilize those motors for the WR-217e. The second place motor was the Plettenberg Nova
series.
The Plettenberg Nova series are brushless DC surface permanent magnet motors that
come in either liquid cooled or air cooled versions and have paired inverters. While the
Plettenberg motors do not provide the desired flux field weakening, they operate within the
voltage limit, are extremely power dense and provide both the desired power distribution and
maximum torque.
The major contributor to the downgrade of the NeuMotors was due to the availability,
reliability and inverter availability. While the company was willing to work with the team to
design custom motors, their engineering support did not provide the confidence necessary to go
through with the relationship. Secondly, the company did not specialize in inverter design and
the inverter companies willing to sponsor the team were not willing to do the work necessary to
pair the controller.

16
 Table1: Quality Function Deployment for Motor Selection

Plettenberg Nova
NeuMotors 4430 AMK
Series
Category Multiplier
Score w/Multiplier Score w/Multiplier Score w/Multiplier
Cost 2 10 20 3 6 3 6
Cooling Jacket 4 1 4 9 36 9 36
Operating Voltage 5 10 50 6 30 1 5
Product Quality 3 6 18 8 24 9 27
Weight 3 8 24 7 21 7 21
Outside Diameter 4 7 28 6 24 9 36
Length 3 6 18 7 21 4 12
Lead Time 3 5 15 3 9 4 12
Available Testing Data 5 1 5 8 40 9 45
Peak Torque (post-transmission) 5 5 25 7 35 8 40
Max Motor Speed / Required
Gear Reduction 4 8 32 8 32 3 12
Mounting Design 2 3 6 5 10 5 10
Reliability / System Complexity 5 3 15 8 40 6 30
Availability of Compatible
Inverter 5 1 5 10 50 10 50
Inverter Flux Weakening
Capability / FOC 2 3 6 1 2 9 18
Inverter Current Control 3 3 9 2 6 9 27
Inverter Communication 3 3 9 1 3 9 27
Peak Power 5 5 25 8 40 9 45
Final
Score 88 314 107 429 123 459

17
Transmission Ratio
The transmission ratio for the in-hub motors was driven from three main sources, the geometric
packaging limitations, the achievable acceleration time and the top speed of the vehicle.

1 The WR-217e in-hub motor design requires the system to be packaged within the suspension
geometry and the exterior plane of the tire, as well as within an outside diameter equal to the
bore in the Keizer 10” aluminum wheel shells.

2 Lap simulation for the vehicle showed that between a gear ratio of 6.5 and 7 there was a
negligible loss in lap time. The final 6 to 1 was selected as it allowed for adequate material to be
on the sun gear while the staying as close to possible to the desired transmission ratio range
previously specified.

The vehicle acceleration is particularly important in the architecture trade analysis as it has a
very high return on investment for points at competition. Implementing motors for the front
wheels of the vehicle increases the capable acceleration by nearly thirty percent.

3 Setting a vehicle top speed also plays a significant role in the vehicle design pending the
output speed of the motor. The vehicle top speed is designed at 70 mph due to the maximum
speeds seen during the acceleration event as well as the vehicle averaging 35 mph during the
autocross and endurance events.

18
Drivetrain Architecture
There are three main techniques used in the drivetrains of common transportation devices. These
are the chain drive, belt drive and gear drive. Each device transfers the torque from the output
shaft of the propulsion mechanism and transfers it to a second shaft either increasing or
decreasing the torque and speed.

1Formula SAE combustion heavily utilizes the chain drive architecture due to the common
implementation of motorcycle engines, predesigned for chain sprockets. The chain drive system
is very simple and much more inexpensive as compared to gears. However, if a large gear
reduction is necessary, as with electric motors, the secondary sprocket size increases
dramatically. The chain drive system also suffers from chain extension requiring constant
maintenance for slack in the chain. Finally a chain drive system also has a backlash an order of
magnitude larger than that of a gear drive. This backlash leads to a decrease in vehicle
performance by slight delays in vehicle response to driver input. Of even more importance the
backlash in the system will create “impact” loads on the sprocket teeth and chain. These impact
forces occur each time the drive steps on and off the throttle which leads to fatigue of drivetrain
components- this is a particular issue of interest due to most team utilizing an aluminum
sprocket.

2 A belt drive system experiences nearly all of the same negative effects of the chain drive with
slight decreases in the amount of backlash and impact loading. The operating noise of the belt
drive is also lower than that of the chain driven system.

3 The final architecture is that of the gear. Either spur or helical gears can be utilized for a
gearbox. While the helical gear can transmit higher torques than the straight cut spur gear, they
have higher losses due to increased friction. Gears have the ability to be paired in multiple
combinations to increase the gear ratio. The downfall to the gear architecture is the system
becomes much more complex and cost increases substantially.

Even with the increased complexity and cost, gears are the optimal choice for many automotive
applications due to their precision. The gearbox also allows for nearly seamless torque
transmission decreasing the lag time in torque to the wheel from the driver input.

Gears have been selected for the use in the front in-hub motors since a chain or belt drive is
particularly unfeasible and the reduction of backlash and a large deduction in a small area are
necessary. Gears were also selected for the rear drivetrain for similar reasons.

19
Gear Drives
Due to the geometric constraints on the in-hub design, a planetary design is necessary; however,
before this decision is made, a full investigation of the possible drivetrain configurations must be
performed.

Configuration one
The first configuration
investigated for the all-wheel
drive system places two
Plettenberg Nova 30 motors
inboard in the rear with a two
stage single speed reduction
utilizing tripods and half
shafts. The front utilizes two
Plettenberg Nova 15 motors
inboard with a ninety degree
transmission box mounted to
the side of the monocoque
along with half shafts and
tripods to get the torque to
the wheels. Figure 1: Four Inboard Motors Top View

This configuration optimizes the power

split between the front and rear wheels
during acceleration to maximize the
traction limit. The architecture also
keeps the mass inboard which improves
vehicle dynamics in comparison to
adding outboard mass.

The downfall of the system is the

limited geometric constraints under the
monocoque causing an alteration in
chassis design to fit the motor under the
driver’s feet.

20
Configuration Two Figure 2: Four Inboard Motors Front View

The second configuration

investigates the opposite
approach and packages all four
Plettenberg Nova 15 motors
outboard. This approach would
minimize mass of the vehicle
while also decreasing the
necessary design and analysis
work by approximately ½ due to
using the same In-hub motor
design for each corner.

This system dramatically

decreases cost due to the
elimination of the gearbox
housing, CV joints, ½ shafts and
material necessary. The
reduction of components will
also increase the efficiency of Figure 3: Four Outboard Motors Front View
the system. However due to the size of the motors,
the Nova 30s would not package within the wheel and therefore the system peak power
decreases from 90 kW to 60 kW.

The mounting position of the front motors is now higher, which increases the CG. This
configuration also results in decreased power and added unsprung mass which all degrade the
vehicle dynamics of the car.

Overall this configuration

allows for a more unified
manufacturing approach but
degrades multiple
performance metrics.

Figure 4: Four Outboard Motors Top View

21
Configuration Three
Configuration three takes advantage of
the benefits of both systems while
minimizing the drawbacks of each.

The front in-hub motor design allows

for the implementation of the
Plettenberg Nova 15 motors into the
front wheels eliminating the CV joints,
gearbox, tripods and half shafts, which
increases the efficiency.

While the CG of the front corners and

the yaw inertia both increase, the
slightly higher CG is a design tradeoff
that is worth the increase in
acceleration capability. The controls
strategy for torque vectoring can
Figure 5: Inboard Front, Outboard Rear Front view
adequately overcome the increased yaw
inertia.

The rear of the vehicle

incorporates the Plettenberg
Nova 30 motors with a
symmetric two stage single
speed reduction parallel axis
gearbox. The gearbox outputs
the torque through two CV
joints. Torque then travels
through half-shafts to the
wheels. This configuration
accommodates the larger
motors, which achieve the
desired 75% power to the rear
wheels while keeping the
mass sprung and decreasing
the number of complex Figure 6: Inboard Front, Outboard Rear Top view
components to be manufactured.
The inertia of the system is also kept to a minimum with the mass located low in the vehicle and
along the centerline.

22
Drivetrain Selection
The three drivetrain concepts are evaluated based on their compliance to the FSAE rules,
performance and feasibility of implementation and likelihood of gaining design points at
competition. The QFD matrix allows for the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the systems
to determine the optimal solution to the design challenge.

The matrix gives a one for red, two for yellow and three for green. Each of the three designs is
shown to be fairly equivalent with configuration three rated at a slightly higher score. This is not
surprising as each of these three design configuration is utilized in the Formula Student
competition and each configuration has shown to develop a vehicle capable of placing in the top
three in both design and overall.

The WR-217e will move forward with configuration three for its score in the study as well as its
overall feasibility and likelihood to succeed. The independent front and rear transmission designs
allow an added safety factor to the vehicle as failure to one system does not render the car un-
drivable. This configuration also allows for a larger design challenge.

Table2: Quality Function Deployment for Drivetrain Selection

Drivetrain QFD

Configuration One Configuration Two Configuration Three

Rules Compliance

Weight

Cost

Performance

Efficiency

Reliability

Overall Concept Feasibility

Desireable Power Split Front to Rear

Manufacturability

Innovation

Total 20 20 23

23
Planetary Design
The planetary design is constrained by both the operating speed of the Plettenberg Nova 15,
desired torque, and the geometric design space allotted for the transmission. This allocated area
is located between the front face of the motor and the back face of the caliper housing. All of the
components of the sub-system must lie within this space. The components are the planetary
gears, upright mounting surface, transmission enclosure plate, fasteners, and seals, mounting
features and retaining features.

Design Space
The design space for the planetary is indicated below in figure 7. The bold red lines highlight the
areas the system must stay within, while the shaded red region highlights the packaged system.

Figure 7: Front In-Hub Motor Transmission Packaging Design Space

24
Gear parameters

Table 3: Planetary Gear Parameters

Parameter Value Unit

Diametral Pitch 24 [teeth/inch]

Pressure Angle 20 [degrees]

Number of Teeth (sun/planet/ring) 24 / 60 / 144 [teeth]

Pitch Diameter (sun/planet/ring) 1 / 2.5 / 6 [inch]

Face Width (sun/planet/ring) 0.9 / 0.5 / 0.5625 [inch]

Addendum 0.04167 [inch]

Dedendum 0.05208 [inch]

Clearance 0.01042 [inch]

Whole Depth 0.09375 [inch]

Train Ratio 6 [-]

We began with a vehicle top speed goal of 70 mph. With the Nova motor’s peak speed of
10,000rpm, this required a planetary train ratio of approximately 7.5 to accomplish. To fit within
the space constraints of the wheel shell, we aimed for a maximum ring gear pitch diameter of 6”.
Since our sun gear needed to be mounted to the motor shaft, it needed to have a pitch diameter of
at least 0.9” to fit the interior spline while still maintaining strength. To avoid the complications
of uneven planet spacing, a particular equation needed to be met regarding the number of teeth in
each planetary member: N_r = 2*N_p + N_s.

Many different geometries were considered, but in the end a diametral pitch of 24 provided the
best balance of train ratio and sun/ring gear size. Once this was set, the other requirements fixed
the basic parameters shown in the table above. Unfortunately our train ratio was lower than what
we specified, but in the end the geometric constraints were far more important because we
simply could not make the motor spline smaller or the wheel shell larger without extensive
development and testing.

25
Material Selection
The material selection of the planetary gears was conducted with an industry partner, Edgerton
Gear. Edgerton gear is a well-established gear manufacturing company that has provided the
UW-Madison SAE Chapter with gear manufacturing support for multiple years. Edgerton Gear
has provided their support through manufacturing tours, design support and rapid manufacturing
when needed.

Due to the high loading and tight geometric packaging the gears needed to be optimized to
minimize their spatial footprint within the assembly. The manufacturing quality, tolerances,
material and polishing were important parameters that all affect the strength of the gear.

With Edgerton’s professional experience 4140 was the material selected for the high strength and
hardness. The material is supplied pre-hardened to 35 Rockwell C and nitrided post-machining to
achieve a surface hardness of Rockwell C 52-55 and depth of 0.015 inches.

The gear is polished to a mirror finish using an isotropic acid drip and tumbling process to
achieve a mirror finish quality 12 gear.

Lubrication
The lubrication for the planetary transmission is to be accomplished through a grease as opposed
to an oil. Due to the packaging of the planetary assembly sealing is a major design challenge.
The transmission will be shielded to exterior through the use of an X-type O-ring operating in a
rotary seal fashion while the second side of the transmission is separated from the environment
with two angular contact bearings. Testing of multiple lubrications will be conducted both off
and on the vehicle.

Manufacturing considerations
Gears have a wide variety of parameters to specify the profile of the gear teeth. A standard gear
drawing and gear drawing table were created through the use of the 24th Edition of the
Machinery’s Handbook. The drawings for the sun, planet and ring gears are provided in the
drawings section of this report.

The driving factor in the gear manufacturing was to obtain the highest quality, minimal backlash
for proper assembly and hardest surface with as smooth of a surface profile as possible.

26
 Spreadsheet Analysis of Gear Tooth
Bending and Wear
During their operation, gear teeth are constantly under bending and contact stresses, too
much of which can cause the tooth to wear excessively, deform, or even break off entirely. To
ensure that the gear teeth wouldn’t fail over their intended lifetime, we calculated the contact and
bending stresses they would be under and the strength they’d have against these stresses.
To do these calculations, we used equations from Chapter 14 of Shigley’s Mechanical
Engineering Design, 10th Edition. These equations were formatted for use between two external
spur gears, so the calculations were restricted to the sun and planet gears. Because the sun gear is
the smallest and weakest gear, we’re confident that despite the fact the ring gear was not
analyzed here, we are still covering the worst-case scenario in terms of gear-tooth stresses.

The process of equations that we used is shown below:

Table 8a: Spur Gear Wear b: Spur Gear Bending

27
 Due to the iterative nature of the calculation, we created a spreadsheet to calculate all of
the factors and variables necessary to determine our safety factors. As shown in the diagram, all
of these calculations are in English units.

We began by specifying the following:

Table 4: Spreadsheet Inputs

Diametral Pitch

Number of Teeth (Pinion /

Gear)

Pitch Diameter (Pinion / Gear)

Angular Velocity (Pinion /

Gear)

Note: we used the values of our maximum angular velocity here. Because we won’t be running
at top speed for the entire specified lifetime of the system, this will net us an extra safety factor.

Table 5: Spreadsheet Inputs

Face Width (Pinion / Gear)

Tangential Velocity

Input Power

Tangential Load

Next we calculated all of the following factors:

The Overload Factor (Ko) is intended to make allowance for all externally applied loads
in excess of the nominal tangential load. Examples include variations in torque from the mean
value due to the firing of pistons, or in our case the torque under numerous sudden acceleration
and braking events. This factor is usually established after considerable field experience, but we
estimated a value for our system using the table given below:
One habit we practiced throughout all of our analyses (and already seen in our
specification of the angular velocities) was when we were unsure of what value to specify, we
would always choose based on what we’d consider the worst case scenario. This entire analysis
already assumes our gears will be running at maximum power (and maximum torque) throughout

28
their lifetime, a scenario far worse than what our actual system will see. In keeping with this
habit, we specified an unlikely overload factor of 2 on top of the worst case assumption already
in place to ensure we have as big a buffer as possible from failure.

Figure 9: Overload Factors (Ko)

The Dynamic Factor (Kv) is used to account for inaccuracies in the manufacturing and
meshing of gear teeth in action, including transmission error. Transmission error is defined as the
departure from uniform angular velocity of the gear pair, and can be caused by vibration of the
tooth during meshing, wear of the contacting portions of the teeth, tooth friction, and other
factors. AGMA defines a set of quality numbers Q which define the tolerances for gears of
various sizes manufactured to a specified accuracy in an attempt to account for these effects.
Quality numbers from 8 to 12 are of precision quality. Because our gears were being custom-
made, we defined our gears to be of quality 12 (the highest quality the equation allows). With the
quality number set, the dynamic factor is calculated with the following equation.

Figure 10: Dynamic Factor Equations

The Size Factors (Ks_p / Ks_g) reflect the nonuniformity of material properties due to
size. They can be calculated using Lewis Form Factor values (Y_p, Y_g) that vary based on the
number of teeth. We obtained these values from the table 4 shown below, which is defined for a
normal pressure angle of 20° and full-depth teeth:

29
 Table 4: Lewis factor values

Once these values were obtained, the Size Factors were calculated from the following equation:

Figure 11: Size Factor Equation

The Load Distribution factor (Km) modifies the calculated stress equations to reflect the
non-uniform distribution of the load across the line of contact. Ideally, the gears in a system will
be centered between two bearings, located at the zero slope place when the load is applied.
Although the factor is difficult to apply to our planetary and we certainly could have just set it to
1, we felt that calculating a value larger than unity couldn’t hurt if we felt we had the capability
to do so. This factor is a combination of the following smaller factors:

• Lead Correction Factor (C_mc) - this factor varies based on whether there is any
crowning in the tooth profile, with a value of 1 for uncrowned teeth and 0.8 for crowned
teeth. Because we did not specify crowning in our gears, we set this value to 1.
• Pinion Proportion Factor (C_pf) - this factor varies based on the face width and pitch
diameter of the pinion, with different equations based on different ranges of face width
shown below:

30
 Figure 12: Overload Factors (Ko)

• Pinion Proportion Modifier (C_pm) - this factor compensates for any uncentered
placement of the pinion between its bearings.

• Mesh Alignment Factor (C_ma) - this factor accounts for the how well the gears align
and mesh based on the condition and types of gears used. Because a larger face width
brings on a larger area for misalignment, the value of this factor is based on a quadratic
function based on the face width as follows:

Table 5: Mesh alignment Factor equation values based on system conditions

Because our gears will be enclosed and are being custom-made, we specified the condition of
extra precision enclosed gear units when calculating our mesh alignment factor.

• Mesh Alignment Correction Factor (C_e) - this factor is used to account for any
adjustments made to the gearing at assembly to reduce the problems the load distribution
factor accounts for. Therefore, if the gearing is not adjusted at assembly, the value of this
factor should be specified as unity. Otherwise, a value of 0.8 is recommended. Because
we would have full access to the system at its assembly to spot errors and adjust, we set
this value to 0.9.

31
With all of these smaller factors specified, the Load Distribution Factor was calculated using the
following equation:

Figure 13: Equation for Load distribution factor

Figure 14: Rim Thickness compared to whole depth

The Rim Thickness Factor (Kb) is used when the rim thickness is not sufficient to
provide full support for the tooth root, which raises concerns that bending fatigue failure may
occur in the rim rather than at the tooth fillet. The factor is a function of the backup ratio mb,
intuitively shown in the diagram on the right
If the backup ratio is greater than or equal to 1.2, the rim-thickness factor can be set to 1 because
the rim thickness is deemed sufficient enough to support the tooth root. Because our backup ratio
meets this criteria, we set our rim thickness factor to unity.
The Bending Stress Cycle Factor (Yn_p / Yn_g) is used to modify the gear strength for
lifes other than 10^7 cycles (where Yn is given a value of unity). Because our gears are spinning
at different speeds, they will have a different number lifetime cycles, so this factor must be
calculated for both the pinion and gear. Because different materials and treatments can vary
lifetime reliability, different equations for the bending stress cycle factor are required for each
type. We used the following graph to determine the right equation for our system:

32
 Figure 15: Bending Stress Cycle Factor equations

At first we were confused that both surface finish and Brinell hardness were used in this
graph, and we were unsure which parameter to use. We spoke to one of the professors at the
university, who explained that while our nitrided surface was beneficial because it increased our
surface hardness, this extra hardness could have a detrimental effect on the amount of wear on
the surface and increase stress seen in the material. Therefore, we chose the equation line based
on a nitrided treatment.

Figure 16: Stress-cycle Factor Equations

33
 The pitting stress cycle factor (Zn_p/Zn_g) works using the same premise as the bending
stress cycle factor, but for contact stress instead. In a similar process as followed above, the
graph on the right is used to determine the right equation. Just as before, we chose to use the
nitrided line for our calculation

Table: 6 Reliability Factor values for different reliability percentages

The Reliability Factor (Kr) is used to account for any specified reliability other than 99%.
It’s used as an additional safety factor to ensure that you are completely safe using your system
for its intended purpose. We specified a reliability factor of 1.25 with the main goal of
improving our on-paper reliability from 99% to 99.9%, and as an added cushion to our
calculations to ensure we don’t fall to any errors.

The Temperature Factor (Kt) is given a value greater than 1 when the system is operated
in temperatures greater than 250°F. Because our planetary is not expected to see any
temperatures that high, we set this factor to 1.

The Surface Condition Factor (Cf) depends on the surface finish, residual stress, and
other related properties of the material used. Standard surface conditions for gear teeth haven’t
yet been established, but if the surface condition is known to be poor, AGMA recommends a
value greater than 1. Because our gears are being custom-made, our manufacturers will provide a
proper surface finish, so we set this value to unity. If we were to be mistaken in this, we’re
confident that our overestimation of other factors will be more than enough to compensate.

The Load Sharing Ratio (mn) is equal to the face width divided by the total length of the
lines in contact. Lucky for us, for spur gears the load sharing ratio is equal to unity, so we don’t
need to go into specifics on how this is found.

The Pitting Resistance Geometry Factor (I) is a rather self-explanatory factor that
specifies both gears resistance to pitting based on the pressure angle, load sharing ratio, and
speed ratio of the gears using the following equation.

34
Mg is the speed ratio of the gears, simply defined as mg = (Ng / Np). It should be noted that this
equation is intended for use in external gears only

Figure 17: Geometry Factor values based on number of teeth in analyzed gear and mating gear

35
 The Bending Resistance Geometry Factors (J_p, J_g) function similarly to the pitting
resistance factor, but for use in the analysis of bending stress rather than contact stress. These
factors depend on the ratio of the numbers of teeth between the meshing gears, shown in the
graph below:
To use the graph, first find the number of teeth on the gear you want to find the factor for
on the x-axis. Then trace your way vertically to the black line that represents the number of teeth
of the mating gear. Simply trace horizontally left from the point of intersection to determine the
geometry factor for that gear. Then do the same for the other gear in the pair.
The Elastic Coefficient (Cp) is used in the equation for contact stress, and is based on the
ductility of the materials used in the pinion and gear. More specifically, it depends on their
elastic moduli and poisson's ratios as follows:

Figure 18: Equation for Elastic Coefficient

The Allowable Bending Stresses (St_p/St_g) dictates how much bending stress our gear
teeth can handle, and is to what we will compare our calculated stresses in order to determine
whether the teeth will fail in bending. To put it another way, this is our tooth bending “strength”,
and it depends on the metallurgical quality and Brinell hardness of the material used in our gears
as shown in the graph below:

Figure 19: Allowable bending stress equations based on metallurgical quality and Brinell
hardness

36
 The Allowable Contact Stress (Sc_p/Sc_g) dictates how much contact stress our gear
teeth can handle, and is what we’ll compare our calculated stresses to to determine whether the
teeth will fail in wear. To put it another way, this is our tooth contact “strength’ and it depends
on the same properties as the allowable bending stress, as shown below:

Figure 20: Allowable contact stress equations based on metallurgical quality and Brinell
hardness

The Hardness Ratio Factor (Ch) is used only for the gear in the pair, or in our case for the
planet. Because the pinion has a smaller number of teeth than the gear, it’s subjected to more
cycles of contact stress over time. By making the pinion harder than the gear, a uniform surface
strength can be achieved. This factor is meant to account for this difference in hardness when
calculating the contact stresses on the gear. In our case we did not specify different hardnesses
for the sun or planet gears (i.e. our hardness ratio = 1), so Ch = 1 for both our pinion and our
gear.
With all of these properties and factors determined, we were able to calculate
bending/contact stresses, bending/contact strength, and bending/wear safety factors for our sun
and planet gears. Despite specifying all of our factors for the worst case and adding extra safety
factors whenever possible, our lowest safety factor was 1.43 for pinion tooth wear.

37
Shrink Fit Analysis
To prevent slip between the ring gear and the bearing into which it is shrink-fit, the frictional
force between the two surfaces needs to be able to counteract the largest torque seen at the
interface between them. The calculations below determine if the friction from the press fit is
large enough to prevent slip:

Table 7: Calculations to determine whether the shrink fit will slip under maximum load torque
Definition Variable Equation Result Comments
Force due to Torque F_T T / r_out_ring 504.3367
Force due to Friction F_f mu*N 592.3837
Torque at interface T (known) 1593.1260
Outer radius of Ring
gear r_out_ring D_out_ring / 2 3.1589
Friction coefficient between two metals,
worst case, assumed to be .1 (from Alex
Coefficient of Friction mu (estimated) 0.1000 Gehrke)
Normal Force between
Ring and Bearing N σ*A 5923.8368
Pressure between Ring
and Bearing σ (known) 530.6047 Assuming the loosest shrink fit
Contact Area between The surface area over which the pressure
Ring and Bearing A 2*pi*r_out_ring*FW 11.1643 acts -- the outer surface area of the ring gear
Face Width of Ring
Gear FW (known) 0.5625

Based on the results of the above table, the loosest Class FN3 fit will not fail under the maximum
possible torque the ring gear can experience. Defining the safety factor as the
F_actual/F_allowable, this shrink has a safety factor of 1.175.

The temperature of the outer member in a shrinkage fit (in our case, the wheel center)
depends on total expansion required and coefficient alpha of linear expansion of the metal. The
total expansion required consists of the total allowance for shrinkage with an added amount for
clearance. The below calculations look at the worst case scenario for parts we need to shrink fit
together -- the smallest bore of the wheel center (+0 thou_in) with the largest ring gear to fit into
it (+7 thou_in). The first possibility is to just heat the wheel center, and keep the ring gear at
room temperature, shown in Table 8 below:

Table 8: Calculations to determine heating required to shrink fit by heating only

Heating the Wheel Center
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion - Wheel Center 0.0000131 in/F
Total Interference 0.007 in
Clearance 0.002 in
Total Expansion Required 0.009 in
Temperature Required (above room temp) 687.02 F

38
The second possibility is to just cool the ring gear, and keep the wheel center at room
temperature, shown in Table 9 below:

Table 9: Calculations to determine cooling required shrinking fit by cooling only.

Cooling the Ring Gear
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion - Ring Gear 0.00000678 in/F
Total Interference 0.007 in
Clearance 0.002 in
Total Contraction Required 0.009 in
Temperature Required (below room temp) 1327.433628 F

Because the coefficient of thermal expansion is larger for the wheel center than it is for ring gear,
it will be much easier for us to expand the wheel center than it will be to shrink the ring gear.
Also problematic -- we can't really cool the ring gear to -500K, despite how awesome that would
be. We're more limited by how much we can cool than by how much we can heat. Liquid
Nitrogen can reach roughly -320F, so let's assume that we use it to cool our gear down to -300F
(to compensate for thermal losses). Knowing the contraction of the gear at this temperature, we
can calculate the (reduced) temperature of the wheel center required to expand it the rest of the
required allowance, shown in Table 10 below:

Table 10: Calculations to determine heating required on wheel center to shrink fit with -300F
ring gear
Cooling of Ring Gear Heating of Wheel Center
Temperature below RT -300 F Expansion required 0.0069 in
Contraction 0.0020 in Temperature above RT 531.75 F

39
Shaft Analysis

Figure 21: A really badass drawing of our shaft and sun gear

We evaluated our motor shaft using the stress-life method to determine whether the shaft would
fail in fatigue.

Table 11: Important material properties and geometric dimensions for shaft strength analysis.
Material Properties Value Geometric Dimensions Value
(AISI 4140 Steel)

Ultimate Strength (Sut) 670 MPa Major Diameter (D) .63 in

Yield Strength (Sy) 435 MPa Minor Diameter (d) .505 in

Elastic Modulus (E) 205 GPa Fillet Radius (r) .0625 in

Modulus of Rigidity (G) 79.3 GPa Minimum Area (A) .200 in²

Number of Cycles (N) 2.5e6 Moment Arm (L) .9175 in

40
The analysis began with finding the endurance strength of the shaft, Se, determined by the
equation below:

Figure 22: Equation for Se

An explanation of the chosen values for each factor in this equation is as follows:

Figure 23: Equation for Se’

The Endurance Limit (Se’) is the endurance strength of a similar specimen under
completely-reversed loading, and was defined by equation shown on the right. Because Sut <
1400 MPa, Se’ = .5*Sut.

Figure 24: Equation for ka

Table 12: Values for a and b depending on surface finish

The Surface Factor (Ka) is based on the quality of the surface finish and ultimate tensile
strength of the material. Using the equation and table on the right, we assumed a machined
surface finish in our calculations.

Figure 25: Equation for kb

41
 The Size Factor (Kb) was determined by the minimum diameter of the shaft being
analyzed using the equations in the graphic on the right.
The Loading Factor (Kc) depends on the loading scenario of the specimen being analyzed
(axial, bending, torsion). Because we analyzed the shaft under a combined loading scenario
(torque and bending), this factor was given a value of 1.
The Temperature Factor (Kd) factors in an increased endurance for temperature rises up
to 500F, where the endurance begins to decrease. For our analysis we’re assuming that the shaft
will be operating in room-temperature environments, where this factor is prescribed a value of 1.

Table 13. Reliability factor for different specified reliability percentages.

The Reliability Factor (Ke) accounts for the scatter of experimental data during fatigue
sample testing. A reliability of 99.9% was chosen and a Ke value of .753 was set based on the
table on the right.
With our Se calculated, we then calculated the fatigue strength Sf using the equations
below. f is found using the graph shown on the right:

Figure 28: Fatigue strength factors depending on the

ultimate tensile strength

42
 To calculate the mean and alternating stresses, the fatigue stress concentration factors (kf
and kfs) must be found using the stress concentration factors (kt and kts) and the notch
sensitivity (q):

The Notch Sensitivity (q) defines how

sensitive the specimen is to notches in fatigue
loading. It was determined using the graph on the
right using the notch radius and ultimate tensile
strength.

The Stress Concentration Factors (Kt,

Kts) were found based on tabulated graphical
values for a grooved round bar under bending
(Kt) and torsional loading (Kts).

Figure: 29: Notch sensitivity q based on

notch radius and ultimate tensile strength

Figure 30: Stress concentration

Figure: 31: Stress Concentration factors for
factors for a grooved round bar a grooved round bar under bending.
under torsion

43
 Once the strength of the shaft was known, we calculated the Von Mises mean and
alternating stresses based on the equations below:

The mean stress is

only from the shear stress
on the shaft due to the
motor torque T

The alternating
stress is only from the
bending stress on the shaft
due to the distributed
radial load, approximated
as a point force F.

A factor of safety (n) of 1.57 was determined

using the Modified-Goodman equation shown below.

44
In-Hub Architecture
The architecture for this system was selected to minimize mass, maximize the
transmission ratio, achieve a safety factor of 1.5, achieve a minimum operating life of 69 hours
and be as reliable as high as possible. The assembly is shown below highlighting each
component in an exploded view.

Figure 32: Exploded and labeled view of assembly

The motor is face mounted via 12 M5 bolts to the back side of the upright, and the front
side of the upright mates to the transmission system, wheel center, transmission plate and brake
system. Each component is the system is fully analyzed using hand calculation, solidworks
simulations and where necessary the use of more in-depth software such as thermal desktop and
KISSsoft.
The load cases for each component are driven from vehicle dynamics simulations. The
simulations calculate the traction limit of the tires based on the mass, weight distribution and
kinematics of the vehicle. The simulation forces are always verified by simplified calculation for
conservative load cases. These estimated forces are always conservative to ensure an added
safety factor for forces that are unaccounted for or misunderstood.

45
Upright Design
System Requirements
The upright of the WR-217e
upright combines the conventional
requirements of multiple
components into one novel
architecture. Firstly the upright
satisfies reacting the loads of the A-
arms, steering tie rod as well as the
pull rod for the front suspension
system. Secondly the upright
satisfies offsetting the rotation of
the wheel from the vehicle through
the use of two large thin section
bearings. Finally the upright acts as
the inner half of the transmission Figure 33: Upright Suspension Mount points
enclosure and locates the motor and
planet gears through three 120 degree
separated bearing mounts. The
combination of the upright, hub and
transmission housing are an efficient
and lightweight way of packaging the
In-hub drivetrain entirely within the
tire of the vehicle.
This system must pass all
FSAE 2017-2018 rules, reduce the
speed of the electric motor and increase
the torque to provide the desired
acceleration and regen targets and
support all operating loads.

Figure 34: Upright Bearing Mount points

46
Transmission Interface
The transmission system for the
front corners of the vehicle is tightly
constrained within the width axis of the
vehicle. To accommodate a reduction of
6.0 -7.5 a planetary transmission either
single or dual stage was necessary.
The planetary transmission system
rides on three NSK deep groove ball
bearings in a sun drive, fixed planet and
ring driven configuration. While a fixed
ring and planet drive would increase the
gear ratio by 1.0, the width of such a
system pushed the package out of the axial
constraint region and into the front pull
rod.
With the ring drive planetary
transmission the implementation of large
ID bearings was necessary. In order to
minimize mass and cross sectional area
occupied by the large bearings, research
brought thin section bearings to light.
Figure 35: Planetary, hub bearing and motor mounting

The thin section bearings, while extremely costly, allow the designer to react the required
forces and moments through extremely small cross sections. Multiple companies such as NSK,
Kaydon, Timken, SKF and SilverThin supply this style of bearings in multiple configurations.
Due to budget considerations each company was contacted and SilverThin agreed to
support the project through a ~50% reduction in cost. The life and load ratings of each
company’s bearings were determined to be of a negligible delta.

47
Bearing Selection
Due to the unique architecture of the in-hub motor design, the utilization of SilverThin
thin section angular contact bearings was necessary to achieve the packaging of the assembly.
The angular contact bearings are precision ground as a pair and mounted back to back with a
predefined preload imparted through the tightening of the inner and outer bearing race retainers.

Load Case
Silverthin’s engineering staff supported the project through a bearing selection study.
Both four point contact and angular contact bearings of various sizes were investigated. It was
determined that due to the loading of the bearing, shown below, a ½ inch by ½ inch cross section
would provide the desired life to the system.

Table 15: Load cases

Bearing Load Case Study

RPM Range: 0-1300 RPM

Max Thrust Load: 780 lbs

Max Radial Load: 390 lbs

Max Moment Load: 7020 lbs-in

Figure 36: Hub bearing loading diagram

Through the collaboration with Silverthin it was determined that the expected minimum
life of the bearing, based on a worst case analysis, would be between 69.2871 and 122.745 hours.
The two studies shown below investigated were the ⅜ x ⅜ and ½ x ½ angular contact bearings.
As shown there is a very large delta between the life of the smaller and larger cross sections.
There are numerous parameters that affect the life of the bearing including, environmental,
loading, thermal, friction, lubrication, preload, axial and radial clearance, and many more.

48
Bearing Life
This study, however, only investigated two of those parameters which were the load case,
axial clearance and bearing size. Since the bearings are of the same type and would operate
under the same conditions it was determined to simplify the analysis by dropping the other
parameter.

Figure 37: Bearing life graph showing pre-load vs. life rating for two bearing cross sections

The axial preload is achieved

through a clamp force a bearing race
features machined into the wheel center
and upright along with two sets of pressure
tabs. The schematic to the right highlights
the various components holding the
bearing in place.

Figure 38: Bearing retainer method schematic

49
Simulation
This life study ran by SilverThin looked into the load distribution within the bearing and
the resulting maximum contact stress within the bearing. The contact stress of a bearing is
similar to a Hertzian contact stress between a ball and a cylinder or a ball in a cup. Multiple
Hertzian contact stress analysis can be easily performed using Roark’s Handbook or an online
Hertzian contact stress calculator such as that of amesweb.info. A few of the loading scenarios
are shown below.

Figure 39: Hertzian contact stress force diagrams for multiple loading scenarios

The life rating provided is statistical. The number provided signifies the life that ninety
percent of bearings manufactured with exactly the same construct and subjected to the same
conditions would survive before the first signs of fatigue failure arise. This is a study
investigated for one million revolutions of the bearing.
The fatigue calculations are simulating a rolling element over the same location
repeatedly. This simulation creates a stress before the note prior to the “ball” rolling over and a
stress in the opposite direction as it passes the node. The manifestation of the failure occurs
through a crack in the subsurface that propagates to the race surface and results in a fatigue
failure called ‘spall’.
A mentioned previously this analysis did not factor in things such as excessive heat,
contamination, vibrations, lubrication, etc.

50
Proper Assembly
Due to the failure mode of
the front in-hub motor system, the
lower level details of bearing
selection, mounting, internal
clearances, and lubrication were
also investigated to mitigate the
potential of unforeseen issues. The
specific fillet radius for each
bearing in the upright assembly
was selected according the bearing
manufacturer's data as shown
below from the NSK Roller Ball
Bearing Catalog.
The next parameter
investigated for the bearings was
the calculation of the nominal
internal clearance of the
bearings within the assembly.
Each bearing is manufactured
with a specified internal
clearance between the roller
elements and the raceways. This
clearance is decreased by
multiple parameters of the
system. These include the press
fit between the outer race and
the housing bore, the press fit
between the inner race and the
shaft, the operating temperature
and thin film layer if lubricated.
The lubrication layer film layer
Figure 40: Bearing Clearance diagram and equations
becomes increasingly important with the
choice of a grease over an oil is selected. The grease occupies a larger volume and generates
more friction, which results in decreased efficiency and higher operating temperatures.
These temperatures then create a larger thermal expansion of the various components and
further decreases the internal clearances within the bearing.

51
Planet Bearings
The bearings utilized for the planets
of the transmission were selected based on
the normal load transmitted from the gears.
The force diagram for a planetary
transmission is shown to the right. The force
imparted upon the tooth creates a transverse
force used to drive the gears and a normal
force acting to separate the bears. The planet
bearings were selected with a high safety
factor to minimize the possible deflection in
the system as the gears must be properly
mounted to avoid improper mating of the
gears.

Figure 41: Planetary force diagram

The major operating parameter of interest for the system is the internal clearance of the
bearing created during press fit of the bearing into the gear and onto the shaft. Since axial
translation of the planet gear is unlikely the inner press fit is loose to minimize the reduction in
clearance. Thermal expansion of each element, bearings, gears and housing are all critical as the
expansion of each element creates smaller internal clearances. The aforementioned technique
was utilized to calculate the estimated clearance of the bearings during installation and operation.

The selected bearings are the NSK 6809 VV 30 mm ID and 47 mm OD with a Cr rating of 7250.

Table 16: Bearing size table

52
SolidWorks Finite Element Analysis
SolidWorks simulation was used to identify high and low stress zones of the upright in
different situations, so material can be added or removed accordingly. The goal was to achieve
an even stress distribution throughout the part. An even stress distribution means weight and
strength of the part has been optimized, because there is no material where it’s not needed and
there is enough material in places that experience higher forces.

Simulations
The four load cases used are peak lateral acceleration during a left turn, right turn, and
copies of the first two with braking included. These simulations were ran after each change to a
geometry in the part, to see if a certain change brings significant benefits for strength or weight.
The geometries considered for optimization included thicknesses, radii, cut depth, hole size, and
all fillets of features on the upright.
Since the upright is connected to the
vehicle by A-arms and they are secured to the
upright by toe blocks, these simulations were
done in an assembly with the upright, toe blocks,
and toe block steel bushings mated together. The
bushings are where the A-arm bolts would be
inserted. Therefore, their inner cylindrical
surfaces were set as fixtures. For the turning
cases, a remote load was set at the contact patch
of the tire, acting on the surface which the 6”
bore bearings fit over. This force has a
component in the lateral direction as well as the
travel direction of the tire. To model braking,
torque is applied to the 3 holes and surrounding
surfaces where the brake assembly is mounted
on.

Figure 42: Assembly used for FEA

53
 Figure 43: Load case with braking and turning forces applied

Results
Stress results of FEA studies are shown here. The point of maximum Von Mises stress is
indicated by the red arrow in each result. Notice that the max stress point is in one of the
bushings for all load cases.

Figure 44: Left Turn Max σ = 28.94 ksi Right Turn Max σ = 22.14 ksi

54
Figure 45: Left Turn + Brake Max σ = 83.42 ksi Right Turn + Brake Max σ = 59.79 ksi

Figure 46: The left turn with simultaneous braking case shows the highest stress for the left
upright. Although, safety factor across the assembly is consistent

55
Design Study
Optimizing a part’s features with the method outlined above can be a very iterative. To
change a dimension, run the FEA, compare results, then repeat is a tedious process. Even though
it only takes a few seconds to run the FEA for a part such as this, it can add up. SolidWorks has a
function that will somewhat reduce the workload of the designer. In the Design Study feature,
dimensions that are to be optimized can be designated, then it will run a previously built load
case multiple times with set goals in mind (max strength, lowest weight, etc.), and it will provide
the best combination of dimensions. Design Study was used to find the optimum shape of the
side cutout and inner radius of the main bore. Below is the Design Study report generated by
SolidWorks.

Design Study Setup

Design Variables
Name Type Value Units
Main bore end radius Range with Step Min:0.16667 Max:0.38 Step:0.01 in
depth of inner pockets Range with Step Min:0.035 Max:0.105 Step:0.01 in
Constraints
Sensor name Condition Bounds Units Study name
Stress1 is less than Max:70000 psi left brake
Stress2 is less than Max:70000 psi right brake
Goals
Name Goal Properties Weight Study name
Mass1 Minimize Mass 10 -

Study Results
10 of 10 scenarios ran successfully.
Component name Units Current Initial Optimal Scenario1 Scenario 2

depth of inner pockets in 0.105 .035 0.105 0.035 0.045

Stress1 psi 62325 62681 62325 62681 62611

Stress2 psi 50324 51520 50324 51520 53558

Mass1 lb 2.10577 2.24309 2.10577 2.24309 2.22351

56
Component name Units Scenario3 Scenario4 Scenario5 Scenario6 Scenario7

depth of inner pockets in 0.055 0.065 0.075 0.085 0.095

Stress1 psi 61981 64929 61559 64176 63742

Stress2 psi 50032 52068 50568 53714 53334

Mass1 lb 2.20391 2.18431 2.16469 2.14506 2.12542

Component name Units Scenario8

depth of inner pockets in 0.105

Stress1 psi 62329

Stress2 psi 49899

Mass1 lb 2.10577

57
Wheel Center Design
System Requirements
The wheel center connects the transmission output to the wheel. The planetary gear
reduction ring gear drives the wheel center, and it in turn drives the wheel shells. The wheel
center also holds the brake rotor. Since the ring gear is press fitted into the wheel center, the
press fit needs to be able to withstand the max torque output from the motor as well as max
torque from braking. We would also like to absolutely minimize the amount of deflection in the
planetary gears; therefore the wheel center is also supported by two 6” bore bearings. This is
done to prevent gears from seizing at high speeds, which would be catastrophic. Massive
amounts of thermal energy are created as the vehicle undergoes braking. Even though contact
area between the rotor and the wheel center is very small, it’s possible for a considerable amount
of heat to transfer to the wheel center. Therefore, the wheel center has to be designed to be strong
enough to retain a safety factor under high heat scenarios.

58
Wheel Center Architecture
Originally, the wheel center and brake hat were two individual parts, simply because this
is the convention in vehicle design. We then realized that we did not need to have two separate
parts. Combining them allows for a lighter overall weight and less complexity, due to not having
to worry about fasteners to secure the parts together.
When the motor engages and the ring gear spins, torque is transmitted through the press
fitted ring gear to the wheel center, then to the wheel shell. The two large bearings are also press
fitted into the inner surface of the wheel center, although in a section with a larger diameter. The
torque goes through a thick cylindrical part of the wheel center and into the wheel shell through
the wheel shell mounting face.

Figure 47: The section view of the wheel center illustrates load-bearing surfaces and paths of
torques traveling through the part

Under braking, braking force is transmitted from the brake rotor tabs to the retainer
recesses on the outer end of the wheel hat. The path in which torque transmits again terminates at
the mounting face for the wheel shells, but now it begins on the outer end where the rotor is
mounted.
When the vehicle turns, a lateral load is applied to the corner assembly from the contact
patch of the tire. To prevent the bearings from being pulled out of the wheel center by this force,
which can be as high as 1500 N, there needs to be some way to retain the bearings. We’ve
decided to bolt semicircular tabs on the inner end of the upright. These tabs will be contacting
the outer race of a bearing and keeping everything on the corner assembly that is external of the
upright (bearings, wheel center, wheel shells, brake system) from sliding off the car under lateral
loads.

59
SolidWorks Finite Element Analysis
The use of SolidWorks
simulation to model forces loading
the wheel center was essential in its
design. Forces and torques to be
expected on the wheel center were
calculated using EES, then entered
into solidworks.

Turning Case
When the vehicle turns,
lateral force at the contact patch of
the tire will cause the wheel shells to
push into the bottom half of their
contact surface with the wheel
center, and pull on the top half of the
contact surface; or vice versa,
depending on the direction of the
turn. Therefore, this case is modeled
as a remote load in SolidWorks. The
force acts at the contact patch of the
tire, and the wheel shell mounting
surface is affected. The part is fixed
at the bearing contact surfaces, as the
bearings will be providing the
support to react to this load.

Figure 48: FEA showing how the tire lateral force affects the wheel center

60
Braking Case
Under braking, the floating brake rotor will rotate to contact a surface in the rotor
retaining recesses on the outer end of the wheel center. Since the rotor is rotating as the car slows
down, this contact force is modeled as a torque with the axis being the centerline of the wheel.
This force is reacted at the holes where the wheel shells are bolted into the wheel center, so the
bolt holes are fixed for this simulation.

Figure 49: FEA showing how braking torque affects the wheel center

Aside from the two individual load cases, a combined case where both braking and
turning happen at the same time is tested. It is interesting to note that the part actually sees 15.2%
less maximum stress in the combined load case than the braking load case.

61
 Figure 50: The result of combined load simulation

Table 17: FEA load cases and results

Force [N] Torque [Nm] Von Mises Stress [kN/m ] 2
Safety Factor

Turning 500 N/A 5.75e3 87.82!!

Braking N/A 700 3.92e5 1.29

Combined Load 500 700 3.70e5 1.36

The safety factor for the braking load case might seem small, but when the part does fail from a
higher braking torque, the simulation shows that the failure mode will be the rotor slightly
digging into its retention surface. This happens without the rest of the part reaching its tensile
yield stress. Theoretically, if a very high braking torque is applied, the next thing to fail would be
the structure which the rotor rests on; and that won’t happen until the braking torque reaches
3000 Nm or so, which is unattainable with our brake system.

62
Figure 51: Initial failure of brake hat on the rotor retention surface. The purple arrows indicate
torque from the rotor. Max stress value in Nm and location are also shown

63
Brake Caliper Design
System Requirements
The brake system for the Wisconsin Racing WR-217e is being designed with safety as
the highest priority. As will be discussed, the front brakes will utilize a custom built, student
designed inverted brake caliper. The caliper must comply with all FSAE rules. This means that
the brake system must be capable of locking up all 4 tires at the end of an acceleration event
without the use of the regenerative braking system. Additionally, all system components must be
capable of withstanding a 2000N input on the brake pedal.
The Wisconsin Racing team has also set additional requirements for the system. First, in
order to accomplish the all-wheel drive system that is being implemented, the rotor and caliper
must package inside of a 10inch FSAE tire. This requirement is discussed further in the Inverted
Orientation section that follows. The brake system must also be capable of providing 1.8g of
deceleration. This value was selected because that is typically the peak that previous vehicles
have been able to achieve. This consistency will help our drivers quickly acclimate to the system.
Additionally, the system should provide this deceleration with 150 lbf input to the brake pedal.

64
Inverted Orientation
The front brake system for this vehicle requires
an unconventional layout. Per the FSAE rules, no part
of the vehicle can extend beyond the outer surface of
the wheel. Because this vehicle utilizes an all-wheel
drive system with an outboard electric motor in each
of the front wheels, the only packaging option for the
front brake system is within the 10 inch wheel shell.
However, during testing and competition, it is not
uncommon for the wheels to be removed several times
throughout the course of the day. Thus, in order to
remove the tire from the vehicle without removing the
entire brake system, the entire system must be Figure 52: Maximum Diameter of Caliper Assembly as
compressed further to package inside a 6.25 inch Determined by 10” FSAE Tire
diameter space in the rim. This can be seen in the
Figure at right.
The graphic at right shows a cross section of the
front drive train inside of the wheel. The section that is
highlighted in red shows the motor and driveline assembly.
The solid red line on the left side of the tire shows the edge
of the allowable design space per the FSAE Rules. The
current brake system aligns with the edge of the allowable
space. An alternative solution was presented to extend the
motor shaft in towards the monocoque of the car and place a
larger rotor in this location. Doing so would remove the
rotor size restriction caused by removing the tire. However,
to implement this brake system, we would have to drill a
hole in the motor assembly and extend the shaft. This was
not a possible shaft option from the motor supplier and
would risk damaging the motor. In addition, the suspension Figure 53: Section View Front Drivetrain and
geometry would need to be redesigned to Design Space for Extended Motor Shaft
accommodate a larger rotor. Thus, this option was not
pursued.
The figure at right shows the available design
space highlighted in red. This space represents the
area between the edge of the tire and the brake hat.
The diameter is constrained to allow the tire to be
removed without removing the brake system. With
such a constrained space requirement, using a
conventional caliper mounted on the outside of the
rotor would result in the rotor diameter being
significantly limited. This means that the rotor would
be smaller than the 6-8” minimum rotor diameter that
Figure 54: Section View of Design Space of
Front Brake Assembly
65
is specified by calipers that are traditionally used by FSAE
teams. Even if the calipers were modified to allow for such
small rotors, overcoming the reduction in torque capability
caused by the downsizing would require unachievable
operating pressures. This leads to the need for a custom
inverted caliper.
The brake system team has decided to pursue a custom
designed inverted caliper that mounts to the planetary gear
assembly. The system is very similar to the one that is used as
a front caliper on Eric Buel Racing’s EBR 1190RX sport bike.
The inverted geometry allows the rotor to be extended to the
maximum possible diameter, and therefore provide the
maximum possible brake torque for a given line pressure and
Figure 55: EBR 1190 front caliper features an
piston diameter.
inverted geometry similar to what Wisconsin
This inverted brake system has also been implemented
Racing is attempting
in FSAE Electric competition. TU Delft, a team based in the
Netherlands, has developed a custom inverted caliper based
on an ISR 2-Piston caliper. The team built a system that is
very similar to what the Wisconsin Racing Team is designing,
however the TU-Delft design is based on a 13 inch wheel.
The reduction in braking torque capacity caused by moving to
a 10 inch wheel makes this caliper insufficient for Wisconsin
Racing’s needs.

Figure 56 : TU Delft custom inverted caliper

66
Brake Calculations
To appropriately size the custom caliper, a student programed Engineering Equation Solver
(EES) Code was used to predict brake system performance. This code, originally designed by
Formula SAE team member and UW-Madison Grad student Dan Janecek, takes inputs of vehicle
parameters and outputs information such as caliper torque output, rotor temperature increase for
a given stop, torque capacity of the tire, and hydraulic line pressures. The EES code includes tire
data, effects of the aerodynamics package, and vehicle dynamics calculations to accurately
predict the longitudinal grip of the vehicle at a given speed. With this, we are able to determine
the required caliper torque output in order to overcome the vehicle grip during the brake test.
This EES code was updated with the parameters of the electric vehicle and modified to include
the rotor expansion calculations. Additionally, the rotating mass from the motor, planetary gear
set, brake rotor and tire were also included into the torque requirement for the caliper.

Table 18: Thermal Expansion Outputs From Student Built EES Code

67
Collaboration with Hayes Performance Systems
To facilitate the design of a custom brake caliper, Wisconsin Racing partnered with
Hayes Performance Systems. Hayes is a supplier of brake systems for nearly every application.
Their vast experience with vehicles of our size and with racing applications proved vital to the
success of our caliper design.
Throughout the course of the semester, members of the Wisconsin Racing team visited
the Hayes facility twice to complete design reviews. From these meetings, we were able to refine
our brake system design to a point in which we are confident in our brake system success.
One of the major improvements that was suggested by
Hayes brakes was utilizing sintered metal pads. These pads are
made by heating and compressing metallic powder on a copper
backing plate (EBC Brakes). These pads are commonly used in
racing applications and provide a high coefficient of friction
regardless of system temperature. While the metal to metal contact
between brake pad and rotor provides consistent braking, the
process is very aggressive and can lead to rotor wear if the wrong Figure 57: Sintered metal pad that was
material is used. Because of this, custom 410 Stainless Steel rotors donated by Hayes performance systems
have been sourced for this race car.
The combustion car currently utilizes custom
organic pads made by Carbotech. Previous testing has
shown that these pads vary greatly with temperature as
can be seen at right. This is a concern because the brake
test, in which the vehicle must lock up all four tires,
will be at a cold system condition.
One important consideration when using
sintered pads is the break in period. In order to
effectively produce the high friction coefficient
associated with sintered pads, the pad and rotor
combination will need to be burnished. This process
essentially involves several iterations of gentle braking.
By doing this, the pads will leave a small amount of
material on the rotor surface. If this is done properly,
the sintered pad compound that will be used will Figure 58: Brake compound testing data
provide a friction coefficient of at least 0.6 throughout compiled from brake dynamometer testing
the entire temperature range. These pads will be
donated at no cost by Hayes Performance Systems.
As was previously mentioned, the use of sintered metal pads requires a rotor material
with a high hardness throughout the entirety of the rotor operating temperature. The
collaborating engineers from Hayes Performance systems recommended 410 stainless steel for
this application. This alloy is commonly used by the company for the rotors of racing
motorcycles and other high performance applications. It offers high strength and hardness up to

68
temperatures of around 1200F, well below the predicted temperature of the rotor (“410 Stainless
Steel”). Rotor material for this vehicle has been generously donated by Apache Stainless
Equipment.
With the material selected, the rotor has been
designed to maximize the effective radius while still
allowing the wheel to be removed. This has resulted in a
rotor outer diameter of 5.7 inches. By matching the rotor
thickness to the pad area, the inner diameter was selected
to be 3.15 inches. The blank disks that are being supplied
by Apache Stainless Equipment will be sent to Midwest
Grinding to be blanchard ground to a final thickness of
0.18 inches thick with a flatness specification of +/- 0.01”.
This flatness measurement should be taken using 6
approximately evenly spaced points throughout the rotor.
This thickness tolerance was advised by Hayes as this is
what is used on motorcycle racing applications. Midwest
Grinding Inc. has donated this service to the team. The
front and rear rotors were designed to have a common
thickness, thus allowing the same rotor blanks to be used
for either system as needed. Once the blanks have been
ground to their final thickness, the final profiles will be Figure 59: Solidworks model of proposed rotor
cut using the waterjet at the university’s student shop. design
Due to the high clamping forces that the front
rotor will see, the rotor was designed without the use of
cross drilling. Cross drilling is a common practice for rotors
to allow for enhanced cooling and to allow gases to escape
during braking. However, on this vehicle, the small size of
the rotor means that small holes will need to be used, and
thus, large stress concentrations would be added to the rotor.
Additionally, by utilizing sintered metal pads, gas formation
from organic pad decay is no longer an issue.

Figure 60: Solidworks model of cross-drilled

rotor from WR216 combustion car

69
 The front rotors will mount to the wheel center using floating rotor mounts. These
mounts utilize slots to allow the rotor to expand and contract as the system heat cycles. The rotor
mounts connect the rotor to the brake hat which transmits the braking torque to the wheel and
stops the vehicle.

Figure 61: Solidworks model of floating rotor mounts. The grove in the brake hat (left) is
positioned transmit braking torque to the chassis even during thermal expansion. The slot in the
brake hat ensures the brake hat takes the torque load rather than shearing the bolt. The slot in
the brake rotor (right) allows for thermal expansion of the part.

The high clamp load that will be output during the FSAE
Rules specified 2000N pedal input provides extreme design
challenges for the caliper body design. During these high loads,
the caliper body will tend to want to separate the two halves,
similar to a clamshell opening. The consulting engineers at
Hayes Performance Systems advised us to utilize 2 smaller
pistons instead of the original large single bored piston.
Additionally, they advised that these be oriented as far apart
radially as possible in order to increase the moment of inertia of
the caliper. To further resist the bending tendency, the two halves
of the caliper will be secured together using 3 grade 10.9 bolts.
These bolts will be mounted with washers to decrease the stress
concentration caused by the bolt head.
Figure 62: Solidworks model of brake caliper
mounting bolts.

70
 The fluid routing to the two halves of the caliper
also provided a unique design challenge. The caliper
geometry and tight packaging restrictions provided a
difficult shape to allow for an internal cross caliper fluid
path. The engineers at Hayes asked us to use an external
fluid routing system to minimize the complexity of the
build. Therefore, a small hole was bored in each half of the
caliper. This hole connects the two pistons on each half to a
common fluid path. The top of each hole is counterbored to
allow a brake line fitting to be attached. These fluid paths
can be seen in the figures at right.

To connect the two sides, a hard line fitting Figure 63: Solidworks model of
was added to the bottom of each half of the caliper. internal fluid passages
At the top of each caliper, a bleeder valve is
connected to allow the system to be bled. The side
on the outside of the vehicle also contains a banjo
fitting for the brake fluid inlet. The exterior fluid
routing can be seen at right. Routing the brake
lines this way allow us to connect both halves
while still maintaining clearance around the rotor
and other spinning components.

Figure 65: Solidworks model of external fluid passages

Figure64: Solidworks model of front brake assembly.

This model shows the reason for the external brake line
geometry

71
Thermal Desktop Model
A thermal model of the rotor
temperatures was created by student
contractor Will Sixel in order to predict the
temperature of the front rotors. The model
utilizes Thermal Desktop software. To
create this model, velocity and rotor
temperature data from a test day with the
WR-216, the Wisconsin Racing
combustion car for the 2016 season, was
used. A heat generation model was created
by analyzing 155 seconds of driving. The
kinetic energy of the vehicle was
calculated at every point in time giving
q . Any decrease in kinetic energy was
total

assumed to be due to brake activation. The

temperature input to the rotor was
calculated using 80% of the kinetic energy
difference, an assumption that was
recommended by Hayes consulting Figure 66: Heat generation model of front brake rotor per
engineers. The model utilizes a left to right given timestep during a test day with WR216
split of 50% and a front to rear split of
65%.
Convective cooling of the rotor to the
surrounding air was modeled as flow over a flat
plate. Using the built in convection correlations
from Engineering Equation Solver, a convection
coefficient was calculated based on free stream
velocity. Since the rotor rotates at some fraction
of the vehicle speed due to geometry and has
some flow over it (particularly in cornering
situations) from the vehicle free stream, the
initial velocity of air across the rotor was set as
the vehicle velocity. Radiation was modeled to
the ambient environment with an emissivity of
0.7. Convection and radiation were modeled to
ambient temperatures from all faces of the rotor.
The ambient temperature was set to 30°C
Figure 67: Convective heat transfer coefficient (H) per
given timestep during a test day with WR216

72
 The heating and cooling models
were then correlated to the measured
brake rotor temperatures from the test
data. To improve the accuracy of the
model, the velocity of the airflow over
the plate was modified to be 1.25 times
the vehicle velocity. The resulting
correlation can be seen at right.

To apply this thermal model to

the WR-217e configuration, the material
was updated from cast iron to 410
stainless steel and the geometry was
updated to match the current rotor
configuration. The heat generation model
was updated to include the updated Figure 68: Brake rotor temperature model correlation
vehicle mass and the acceleration was to WR216 test data
assumed to be consistent with the WR-
216. The rotor heat flux was applied over both surfaces of the rotor. The resulting heat input to

the rotor is thus given by:

Note: In this equation, PC stands for “Percentage” and is in decimal form

The steady state temperature of the

rotor was then found by running the
updated thermal desktop model. The
original 155 seconds of data did not supply
a stable steady state temperature so the
data was repeated for four periods. The
resulting 620 of run time provided a steady
state temperature of approximately 480C.
While this temperature is well within the
operating range of the rotor and pad
material, the conduction to other
components needs to be investigated to
ensure system strength at elevated
temperatures.
Figure 69: Brake rotor steady state temperature prediction. Model
utilizes wr217e vehicle parameters and a 620 second velocity trace
from WR216 testing

73
Solidworks Thermal Analysis
In order to determine the structural properties during operation of the vehicle a thermal analysis
of the brake caliper housing was necessary. Due to material property degradation at elevated
temperatures it is critical to have an understanding of the material temperature when the loads
are applied during a braking event.
Due to the complexity of the caliper housing, Solidworks Thermal Analysis was utilized
instead of Thermal Desktop. While thermal desktop
provides a much more accurate model of the heat
transfer building a representative caliper geometry
within the software was out of the scope of our current
skill set and time constraints.
The initial study of the caliper was conducted
with 7075-T6 aluminum due to its superior
mechanical properties to other aluminum alloys.
However after running the initial calculations on the
caliper and determining a steady state operating
temperature of 270 degrees C the material was
changed to 2024-T6.
The 7075-T6 would lose 87% of its yield
strength at the operating temperature while 2024
would decrease by 66%. Therefore in order to achieve
the necessary strength at operating temperature the
2024-T6 was selected.
The heat load is applied to the surface are of
the pads and is modeled at various loads. These loads are
based on 20% of the energy being transferred to the pad and
80% of the energy to the rotor. This correlation was given to
the team by Hayes and validated through the thermal model of
the rotor in thermal desktop.
The back of caliper is modeled as a conductive surface
to the transmission plate, which will be achieved through the
use of thermal paste. The transmission plate also conducts to
the upright through the mounts and is modeled as a
temperature boundary at 40 degrees Celsius.
All surfaces of the caliper housing except for the face
mounting to the transmission plate are modeled as convective
surfaces with a heat rejection of 25W/m^2. This heat transfer
coefficient was determined from the use of a model based on
real world data and is shown to the right.

Figure 70: Brake Caliper Conduction Model

74
 The model was
extended to include the thermal
mass of the upright and more
accurately reflect the modes of
heat transfer. The constant
temperature boundary was
defined as the area in contact
with the motor face as the
motor is held at a steady state
temperature of 60 degrees
Celsius with the vehicles liquid
water cooling system. The
convection boundaries
remained the same.

Figure 70b: Brake Caliper Conduction Model

The low heat

transfer coefficient was
selected as a conservative
approximation due to the
inside half of the caliper
being in a low air flow
region. In real world
operation the rotation of
the wheel center should
generate higher velocity
airflow and increase the
heat transfer coefficient,
therefore rejection more
heat and keeping the
caliper at a lower
temperature

Figure 71: Convective heat transfer coefficient for a given air

speed over a flat plate

75
Solidworks Finite Element Analysis
Solidworks Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was utilized to analyze
the design of the custom caliper. This software was used to analyze the
normal driving load cases the caliper would see, as well as the peak forces
that would be experienced under the panic braking case. The load cases
that were modeled can be seen below. The FEA model utilizes a piston
force along the center axis of each piston bore. Each piston bore is
modeled as having ¼ of the total force shown in the table below. The
torque on the caliper was modeled using the torque capacity of the tire
rather than the torque capacity of the caliper. During a braking event, the
vehicle will eventually become traction limited, as it is in both of the cases
modeled below. Thus, the highest torque the caliper could see is actually
the peak grip of the vehicle. This torque value was applied to the pad
supports, tangential to the radius of the rotor.

Figure 72: Applied piston force

direction used during FEA

Initial FEA results showed a few stress concentrations

throughout the caliper, especially the area where the caliper connected
to the mounts. To remedy this, the fillet radius was increased to
resemble what is shown at right. Once this was fixed, the caliper was
well below the yield strength of the 7075-T6 aluminum that was to be
used. However, the thermal model showed substantial increase in
temperature, which will result in thermal degradation of the material
strength. The caliper housing is now being modified to be made out
Figure 73: Applied braking torque direction
of 2024-T851 Aluminum. This alloy has a lower yield strength, but a
used during FEA. Shows area with largest
higher resistance to temperature increases. This material change stress concentration prior to modification
requires several caliper design modifications to ensure reliable
performance.

76
Prototype
The brake calipers will be prototyped in two architectures, a billet machined 2024 caliper with
external fluid routing and a direct metal laser sintered titanium caliper with internal fluid routing.
The first method is more cost effective and similar to manufacture while the second allows for
more optimized fluid routing, higher temperature operating ranges and smaller deflections of the
caliper at high pressures.

The brake pads are water jet from proprietary Hayes Performance System pads. The rotor is also
a water jet profile out of a Blanchard ground 410 stainless disk. Below a computer generated
image shows the Hayes Performance pads with the water jet profiles while the photograph to the
right shows the pads post water jet. This water jetting technique allows for a cheap and accurate
pad manufacturing process with great flexibility in design for quick changes during testing.

Figure A: CAD Rendering of initial pad geometry B: Custom water jet

The billet machined 2024 calipers were manufactured first as the machining could be completed
in house on the team HAAS VF3 3-axis vertical milling machine. Each caliper half is a two setup
part with post machining to be completed by Hayes machinists. The post machining processes
are to bore the piston holes, machine the piston seal grooves, cross drill the fluid channel and
drill the fitting holes. These processes were either proprietary to Hayes or out of the capability of
the HAAS VF3. The initial prototype is shown below.

Figure A: Assembled Caliper B: Pad placement

77
Testing Plan
Once the custom caliper has been built, the Wisconsin Racing team will work with the
engineers at Hayes Performance Systems to thoroughly test the caliper. Hayes has the
capabilities to pressure cycle the caliper, both at room temperature and at elevated temperatures.
This capability will allow us to validate our FEA analysis of the caliper during normal
conditions, as well as test the caliper to failure if we see fit. Additionally, we are able to test the
caliper and rotor together using a brake dynamometer. Hayes has offered to let us use their brake
dyno as long as there is room in their testing schedule. Otherwise, one can be constructed using
the electric motor of the lathe in the automotive shop. Testing with the brake dyno allows for
high temperature cycling of both the rotor and caliper as well as a way of measuring the brake
pad coefficient.

Figure 74: Student built brake dynamometer which utilizes the

electric motor from a lathe

78
Finalization of In-Hub Motor Design
In order to close out the in-hub motor design each system must undergo a final Critical Design
Review by the team and automotive advisor Dr. Glenn Bower. This design review will go
through the structural, vibration and thermal analysis conducted on each component in the
system. Secondly, manufacturing and component sponsors will each conduct a final
manufacturing meeting to determine the manufacturing process for the upright, wheel center,
transmission enclosure and brake caliper.

Upon completion of the design review and possible design changes to improve
manufacturability, the components will be machined in house or by Formula Electric Team
Sponsors. Once manufacturing is complete, the assembly process will begin and the components
will be tested both on and off the vehicle. The testing of this system will first be component
based and off the vehicle. Upon proving nominal system performance, this preliminary testing
will lead to full system testing on the vehicle at track days. Detailed test plans and procedures
will be created using the Wisconsin Racing template and documented accordingly.

Table 19: Corporate Sponsors for each component are located below.

Component Sponsor Partnership

Brushless Surface Permanent Magnet 15 kW Plettenberg Design Support

Motor

Motor Controller Plettenberg Design Support

Motor Shaft Edgerton Gear Design Support

Upright Revolutionary Machine & Design Machining

LLC

Wheel Center Revolutionary Machine & Design Machining

LLC

Transmission Enclosure Cate Machining and Welding Machining

Custom Caliper Hayes Performance Design Support, Machining, Testing and Component
donation

Thin Section Angular Contact Hub Bearings SilverThing 50% Discount

Deep Groove Ball Bearings NSK 100% Discount

Bearing Retainers EMP Laser Cutting and Material Supplier

Rotor Material Apache Stainless Equipment Full Donation

Rotor Blanchard Grinding Midwest Grinding Inc. Full Donation

79
 Spring Semester Manufacturing, Assembly and
Testing Plan
Table 20: Spring semester plan
Jan Feb March April May June

Upright Manf
Wheel Center Manf.
Gear Manf.
Trans Enc Manf.
Retainer Manf.
Pillow Block Manf.

Bearing Orders

In-Hub Assembly

Motor Delivery

Motor Dyno Testing

Motor Marriage to Upright

Caliper Testing

Planetary Gear Testing to Failure

Shaft Testing to Failure

System Marriage to Vehicle

Vehicle Testing

System Inspection

Competition

80
Manufacturing Design
KISSsoft manufacturing Data

Sun

81
82
Planet

83
Ring

84
Drawings

85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Sources
1. 410 Stainless Steel. (n.d.). Retrieved December 11, 2016, from
http://www.pennstainless.com/stainless-grades/400-series-stainless/410-stainless-steel/
2. What is sintering - EBC Brakes. (n.d.). Retrieved December 11, 2016, from
http://ebcbrakes.com/what-is-sintering/
3. Motion & Control NSK Roller Bearing CatelogNo. E110g 2003E-8 Printed in Japan
NSK Ltd. 1996
4. Oberg, Eric, 1881 - 1951 Machinery’s Handbook. ISBN 0-8311-2492-X
5. A Four Wheel Drive System for a Formula Style Electric Racecar, Peder August Aune,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Pictures:
EBR: http://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/buell/2014-ebr-1190rx-review-first-
ride.html
Delft: http://www.racecar-engineering.com/wp-content/gallery/delft/zuptud2.jpg

101
Appendix
ME 351 - Formula Electric Drivetrain
Product Design Specification
Formula SAE Electric

University of Wisconsin - Madison

Authors: William Kucinski, Rocky Liang, Chad Davis, Matt Masucci
Issue 1 – 4/10/2016
Contents
Function 104
Client Requirements 104
Design Requirements 104
Physical and Operational Characteristics

102
1.0 Performance Requirements 104
2.0 Safety 105
3.0 Accuracy, Quality and Reliability 105
4.0 Life in Service 105
5.0 Shelf Life 105
6.0 Operating Environment 105
7.0 Ergonomics 106
8.0 Size 106
9.0 Weight 106
10.0 Materials 106
11.0 Aesthetics, Appearance and Finish 106
Production Characteristics
12.0 Quantity 106
13.0 Target Product Costs 106
14.0 Testing 107
Miscellaneous
15.0 Standards and Specifications 107
16.0 Customer Requirements 107
17.0 Competition 108

Function

Design, testing and implementation of an all-wheel drive electric drivetrain. The drivetrain is to
include the front corner assembly with integrated Nova 15 motors and a planetary gear reduction
of 6.5:1. The rear drivetrain is to incorporate a single speed gearbox to proper mount the motors
and place the output shafts in proper alignment with the rear corners while achieving a 4.5:1
reduction.

Client Requirements

The system is to minimize mass and occupied volume, while adequately supporting the load
cases and passing the 2017 Formula SAE Electric rules. The design must be adequately
documented and training of new Wisconsin Racing members must be conducted to insure proper
knowledge transfer. The senior design is to be the stepping stone for Wisconsin Racing to build a
solid foundation for the current and future Formula Electric team.

Design Requirements

Physical and Operational Characteristics

1.0 Performance Requirements

Front Drivetrain Rear Drivetrain
Power to be delivered: 15 kW 30 kW
Input speed: 10,000 rpm 6,000 rpm

103
Output Speed: 1336 rpm 1336 rpm
Max Vehicle Speed: 70 mph -same-
Brushless DC Motors -same-
Low maintenance -same-
Face mounted Motor -same-
Liquid cooled -same-
Regenerative Capability

Front Brake System

Lock all four tires without tractive system active

2.0 Safety

Set by the Society of Automotive Engineers Formula SAE Electric Competition

Link: http://students.sae.org/cds/formulaseries/rules/

Rules for Brakes: Rules for Drivetrain:

Article 7: Brake System
EV 2.5
EV 4.10.2
EV 5.1.1/ 5.1.7/ 5.1.11/ 5.4/ 5.6
S2.7.2/ S2.7.3
S4.18.3
T7.2
D1.1.2/ D12.1.3/ D13.1.1

3.0 Accuracy, Quality and Reliability

Proper tolerancing of assembly is crucial to successful operation. Bearing surfaces, motor and
planetary transmission alignment, gear meshing and brake caliper piston to rotor alignment will
all significantly impact performance. Improper tolerancing of the system can lead to catastrophic
failure.

4.0 Life in Service

Front Drivetrain Rear Drivetrain
Motors: 5 Years -same-
Transmission: 2 years -same-
Uprights: 2 years N/A
Brakes: 2 years N/A

104
5.0 Shelf Life
N/a

6.0 Environment

Location: Lincoln Nebraska

Climate: Hot and Humid
Air Temperature: 30 degrees Celsius
Track Surface Temperature:

7.0 Ergonomics

Noise: Gears meshing

Vibration: Minimize transmission vibration. Minimize torque ripple
Responsiveness: To accelerator pedal and brake pedal

8.0 Size

Front Corner Assembly

Width: Fit inside wheel and avoid impact with suspension members

Wheel Center
Inside diameter: Must be be toleranced for material expansion fit with ring gear and bearings
Outside diameter: Must be smaller than bolt pattern of wheel shell to allow insertion of mounting
fasteners

Brakes
Max outside diameter: must fit within wheel shell bore to allow proper removal
Width: Assembly should be kept as close to the vehicle centerline plane as possible.
Caliper housing: Should be as small as possible to house pistons and fluid routing

Planetary
Sun Gear: Inside spline must be large enough to allow adequate motor shaft size with mating
spline sized to prevent failure or slippage;
Motor Spline:
Spline: Must be large enough such that min diameter is greater than the min shaft
diameter.
Min shaft diameter: sized to motor torque times a 1.5 safety factor.
Spline Teeth: sized to react motor torque
Ring Gear: Outside diameter must be small enough to allow wheel center press fit without
mounting fastener interference.

105
9.0 Weight

Design architecture, component selection and material selection should all be targeted to
minimize mass. Outboard corner mass is a critical parameter for the vehicle dynamics.

Motor: 5.5 lbs

Upright: Less than 1.5 lbs
Brake System: Less than
Overall front hub system mass is to be under 12 lbs

10.0 Materials

Aluminium 7075: Upright, Wheel Center, Brake Hat, Bearing retainers, pillow blocks, caliper
housing
Steel: Gears 4140
Brakes:
Magnesium: Brake pistons
Brake Seals:
Bearings: Stainless Steel
Lubrication:

11.0 Aesthetics, Appearance and Finish

The design is to be aesthetically appealing as to inspire confidence in the competition judges.

Proper surface finish must be incorporated for all mating surfaces, material treatment must be
applied to gears, upright, wheel center and brake hat. Color selection of heat treatment is to be
determined by the vehicle livery, information is to be supplied by Wisconsin Racing leaders.

Production Characteristics

12.0 Quantity
Two front hub motor drivetrain assemblies and one rear drive units must be completed. Various
components: gears, brake calipers, etc.. will require extra test components. Test components do
not need to be one hundred percent representative. Only key parameters must be competition
representative.

106
13.0 Target Product Costs
The drivetrain estimated product cost is $27,118. Assembly costs include the following. The high
initial cost is due to the purchase of four motors and controllers. A price that can be considered
as a longer term investment in the formula electric program. The distribution of the motor price
over a 4-5 year design cycle decreases the motor and controller cost to $5,000 per year.

Powertrain
Item Description Total Cost Sponsorship Amount Needed

Nova 15 x2 $ 4,600.00 $- $ 4,600.00

Plettenberg Nova 30 x 2 $ 9,800.00 $- $ 9,800.00
4 Motor Controllers $ 6,800.00 $- $ 6,800.00
Spal $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $-
Water Pump $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $-
Cooling Cooling Lines $ 100.00 $- $ 100.00
Coolant Line adapters $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $-
Planetary Gear Edgerton $ 2,000.00 $- $ 2,000.00
Rear Transmission Gearing $ 2,000.00 $- $ 2,000.00
Driveline Tripod Housings (2) $ 450.00 $- $ 450.00
Tripod boots (2) $ 18.00 $- $ 18.00
Half shafts (2) $ 450.00 $- $ 450.00
Misc. Fasteners $ 100.00 $- $ 100.00

Lubrication Planetary Gear lubrication $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $-

TOTAL $27,118.00 $26,318.00

14.0 Testing

Testing should be completed on a component and assembly basis.

Brake System Bearing Assembly

Max caliper pressure test Deflection Testing at operating load

107
Rotor thermal testing Press fit will be tested upon insertion
Caliper brake dyno testing

Upright Planetary Assembly

Testing on vehicle during operation Testing on vehicle during operation

Miscellaneous

15.0 Standards and Specifications

Set by the Society of Automotive Engineers Formula SAE Electric Competition

Link: http://students.sae.org/cds/formulaseries/rules/

16.0 Customer Requirements

As per the customer the drivetrain should:

1. minimize the weight of the design
2. minimize gear noise
3. Minimize occupied volume
4. Motors are to be liquid cooled
5. Transmission is to be lubricated
6. System is to be compliant to FSAE Electric rules through 2017
7. Senior design team is to provide adequate documentation and training to FSAE Electric
team to insure knowledge transfer. The senior design team is to be a building block to aid
in the sustainability for Wisconsin Racing’s Electric program.

17.0 Competition

Formula SAE/Formula Student

An extensive competition analysis has been conducted domestically and internationally. Two
competitors, one domestic and one internationally have been identified. The University of
Michigan-Ann Arbor Formula hybrid team is utilizing the Nova 15 motors for an in-hub
assembly. Student designer Jason Hoving is in collaboration with our William Kucinski for the
development of the Nova 15 in-hub assembly.

Delft University in the Netherlands was the first Formula Student team to utilize the inverted
caliper design with exterior mounted brake system. The university utilized a custom caliper

108
modeled after the ISR calipers, as the Wisconsin Racing team will model the calipers after a
Hayes Performance caliper.

Industry

Industry has multiple in-hub motor assemblies, however their application design specifications
and requirements do not lie within the same scope as the FSAE electric vehicles. The patents and
designs are useful for comparison but provide less usable designs as compared to the Formula
compressions along sharp edges. Additionally, we were able to remove material from the caliper
between the piston bores, making the assembly lighter, and compensating for some the mass we
added in thickening up the supports. After going through multiple iterations of the caliper
housing, we were able to verify that the housing is below the yield strength in all areas during
both the normal and the panic braking scenarios; as an added factor of safety, the FEA showed
that the caliper housing could withstand a panic braking scenario without taking into account slip
of the tire, which would significantly reduce the actual torque seen by the caliper during a hard
braking situation.

Safety
Safety is the top priority of this custom build, and, as such, once the custom in-hub assembly is
completed extensive testing will be performed on each system.

109