(PDF) FEA of Double Wishbone Suspension System Under Extreme Driving Conditions

(PDF) FEA of Double Wishbone Suspension System Under Extreme Dri... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339508966_FEA_of_Double_...
Download file PDF Read file Download citation Copy link Recruit researchers Join for free Login
Research PDF Available
FEA of Double Wishbone Suspension System Under Extreme Driving Conditions
May 2019
DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.17445.65761
Project: Analysis of a Double-Wishbone Suspension
Authors:
Shashi Hagroo
University of the Witwatersrand
References (10) Figures (22)
Abstract and Figures
Finite Element Analysis of a double-wishbone suspension modeled on the 2005 Honda

S2000. The analysis was done to determine the loading and stress conditions under Discover the world's
research
extreme cornering conditions. The FEA analysis was compared to analytical calculations to
determine the validity of the results.
• 20+ million
members
• 135+ million
publications
+17
• 700k+ research
Join for free
projects
2005 Honda Diagram Showing Double Wishbone

S2000 [2] Two Variations … Suspension…
Figures - uploaded by Shashi Hagroo Author content

Content may be subject to copyright.
Public Full-text 1
Content uploaded by Shashi Hagroo Author content

Content may be subject to copyright.
1 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Download file PDF Read file Download citation Copy link
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg

School of Mechanical, Industrial, and Aeronautical Engineering
TITLE: Assignment 1 – FEA of Double Wishbone Suspension System
COURSE: MECN 4023A Mechanics of Solids II
NAME: Shashi Hagroo
STUDENT NUMBER: 680844
DATE: 17 May 2019
A design report submitted to the School of Mechanical, Industrial and Aeronautical Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, and contributing towards the course MECN 4023A
– Mechanics of Solids II.
2 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
DECLARATION
I Shashi Hagroo (680844), am registered for MECN 4023A Mechanics of Solids II in the year 2019.
I herewith submit the following task, “Assignment 1 – FEA of Double Wishbone Suspension System”
in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the above course.
I hereby declare the following:
o I am aware that plagiarism (the use of someone else’s work without their permission and / or
without acknowledging the original source) is wrong;
o I confirm that the work submitted herewith for assessment in the above course is my own unaided
work except where I have explicitly indicated otherwise;
o This task has not been submitted before, either individually or jointly, for any course requirement,
examination or degree at this or any other tertiary educational institution;
o I have followed the required conventions in referencing the thoughts and ideas of others;
o I understand that the University of the Witwatersrand may take disciplinary action against us if
it can be shown that this task is not our own unaided work or that we have failed to acknowledge
the sources of the ideas or words in our writing in this task.
Signature
Date 17 May 2019
3 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................... 2
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ 4
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. 5
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 6
1.1. Problem Description and Idealization - Double Wishbone Suspension System ..................... 6
1.1.1. Honda S2000 Specifications and Parameters.................................................................. 6
1.1.2. Double Wishbone Suspension Characteristics................................................................ 7
1.1.3. Camber and Cornering .................................................................................................... 9
2. ANALYTICAL MODEL .............................................................................................................. 10
2.1. Assumptions for Analysis ..................................................................................................... 10
2.2. Physical Model ...................................................................................................................... 11
2.3. Boundary Conditions ............................................................................................................ 15
2.4. Stress Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 16
3. GEOMETRY (CAD AND FEA ADAPTATION) ....................................................................... 17
4. MATERIAL PROPERTIES ......................................................................................................... 21
5. CONTACTS AND SUPPORTS ................................................................................................... 21
5.1. Bonded and Frictionless Contacts ......................................................................................... 21
5.2. Cylindrical and Compression Supports................................................................................. 23
6. ELEMENT SELECTION AND MESH STRATEGY.............................................................. 25
7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 26
7.1. Evaluation and Discussion of the Upper and Lower Wishbones .......................................... 26
7.2. Evaluation and Discussion of the Hub/Tie-Rod Results....................................................... 28
8. OPTIMIZATION STRATEGIES ................................................................................................. 31
9. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 32
10. APPENDIX A – VEHICLE DIMENSIONS ............................................................................ 34
11. APPENDIX B – ANSYS REPORT.......................................................................................... 34
4 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: 2005 Honda S2000 [2] ............................................................................................................ 6
Figure 2: Diagram Showing Two Variations of the Double Wishbone Suspension [4] ......................... 8
Figure 3: Double Wishbone Suspension Components [6] ...................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Exceeding the SST while Cornering [6] [4] .......................................................................... 10
Figure 5: Comparative Change in Camber for Various Suspension Types [6]..................................... 10
Figure 6: Double Wishbone Assembly ................................................................................................. 12
Figure 7: Vehicle Jacking while Cornering [8] [6] ............................................................................... 13
Figure 8: Free Body Diagram - Vehicle................................................................................................ 14
Figure 9: Free Body Diagram - Upper Wishbone ................................................................................. 15
Figure 10: Free Body Diagram - Tie Rod ............................................................................................. 15
Figure 11: Free Body Diagram - Lower Wishbone .............................................................................. 16
Figure 12: Upper Wishbone Drawing [9] ............................................................................................. 18
Figure 13: Lower Wishbone Drawing [9]............................................................................................. 19
Figure 14: Suspension Hub Drawing [9] .............................................................................................. 20
Figure 15: Lower Wishbone - Hub Bonded Contact Point ................................................................... 22
Figure 16: Lower Wishbone - Hub Frictionless Contact Point ............................................................. 23
Figure 17: Upper Wishbone Internal Bonded Connection.................................................................... 23
Figure 18: Central Hub Cylindrical Support......................................................................................... 24
Figure 19: Central Hub and Bolt Lug Compression Support................................................................ 24
Figure 20: Initial Mesh Configuration .................................................................................................. 25
Figure 21: Mesh Refinement................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 22: Maximum Principal Stresses on the Wishbones.................................................................. 27
Figure 23: Minimum Principal Stresses on the Wishbones .................................................................. 27
Figure 24: Normal Stress Distribution in the z Direction on the Wishbones........................................ 28
Figure 25: Total Deformation of the Wishbones .................................................................................. 28
Figure 26: Normal Stress Distribution in the z Direction ..................................................................... 29
Figure 27: Transverse Shear Stress on the Hub .................................................................................... 29
5 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Figure 28: Maximum Principal Stress on the Hub................................................................................ 30
Figure 29: Minimum Principal Stress on the Hub ................................................................................ 30
Figure 30: Total Deformation of the Hub ............................................................................................. 31
Figure 31: 2005 Honda S2000 Dimensions [m] [2].............................................................................. 34
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Honda S2000 Specifications and Geometry ............................................................................. 7
Table 2: Vehicle and Suspension Force Calculations........................................................................... 14
Table 3: Wishbone Stress Calculations................................................................................................. 17
Table 4: Material Properties of AISI 1040 Carbon Steel [9] ................................................................ 21
6 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Problem Description and Idealization - Double Wishbone Suspension System
To describe the problem fully, both the system and its operating environment are considered. This is
used to determine the geometry and material properties of the components, and the loads that the system
is subjected to. Section 1 contains each of the factors that contribute to the loading and operating
conditions. This includes the vehicle specifications, suspension specifications, loading conditions, and
the assumptions made during the analysis.
1.1.1. Honda S2000 Specifications and Parameters
The 2005 Honda S2000 is one of a few vehicles that use a double wishbone suspension at both the front
and rear wheels. As shown in Figure 1, the Honda S2000 is considered a sports vehicle, with a relatively
small road clearance. This emphasises the need for a suspension that has high performance handling,
and is capable of withstanding extreme cases of cornering and hitting road bumps at high speeds [1].
The case of extreme cornering is shown in Figure 4, where only two of the wheels remain in contact
with the road surface.
Figure 1: 2005 Honda S2000 [2]
When considering the handling capabilities and wheel travel of a vehicle, the suspension system is
fundamental. Basic suspension geometry can be used to determine the travel of the wheels, and grip
conditions, but for more extreme cases an FEA analysis would be required. The objective of this Finite
Element Analysis is to determine the stresses resulting from the displacements of the extreme cases of
cornering. A vehicle undergoes various stresses under different road and driving conditions, but
cornering and hitting bumps induce the largest stresses on the suspension system of the vehicle and
pose the largest danger to maintaining road handling. In this analysis, the case of cornering at a high
speed will be considered. As such Table 1, summarises the vehicle characteristics that are used to
determine the loads on the suspension system. A diagrammatic view of these specifications is shown in
Section 10.
7 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Table 1: Honda S2000 Specifications and Geometry
GENERAL VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS

 Vehicle Mass 1 285  [1]
 :  Mass Distribution 49():51() [1]
 = 1.47 
 Front and Rear Track [1]
 = 1.50 
 = 0.475 
 Centre of Gravity (CG) Section 2.2
 = 2.019 
 = 0.8188 
 Distance between CG and Axles Section 2.2
 = 0.9012 
 Vehicle Width 1.75  [1]
 Vehicle Height 1.27  [1]
 Total Vehicle Length 4.12  [1]
 Wheelbase 2.40  [1]
 Power (Rear Wheel Drive) 178.97   7 800  [1]
 Torque 219.64  6 500  [1]
 = 0.2134 
 Tyre Width [3]
 = 0.2438 
 Tyre Diameter 0.4318  [3]
 Upper Control Arm Angle 0° [1]
1.1.2. Double Wishbone Suspension Characteristics
The double wishbone suspension consists of two ‘A’ arms that can be of equal or unequal lengths, as
shown in Figure 2. The upper arm can be designed to be parallel or at an angle to the lower arm. The
coil over spring that acts as the shock absorber in the suspension system is connected to the lower
wishbone [4]. This is shown in Figure 3. The forces from the spring and the wheels are transmitted to
the vehicle chassis through the suspension arms. The forces, moments and torques due to the contact
between the wheels and the road surface are transmitted to the suspension system through the tie rod.
The forces that act on the suspension due to the vehicle dynamics are calculated with respect to the
centre of gravity of the vehicle. The Honda S2000 utilises the unequal arm double wishbone suspension
system where the upper control arm is perpendicular to the hub.
8 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Figure 2: Diagram Showing Two Variations of the Double Wishbone Suspension [4]
The Honda S2000 is unique in that it has a double wishbone suspension system on the front and rear
wheels. This system allows the chassis of the vehicle to rotate slightly (about its longitudinal axis) as
the vehicle turns and traverses’ uneven surfaces. This is achieved using the ball joints that connect the
suspension to the chassis. The system allows for the suspension arms to follow the motion of the
road/vehicle, while keeping the chassis in a stable position, thus enhancing road handling. The problems
arise, as this system inevitably has limits on the displacements on the suspension components [6]. These
displacements can cause irreparable damage to the suspension system by means of extremely high
stresses and strains. Furthermore, it would be desirable to minimize the strain induced by vertical
displacements experienced due to an extreme cornering. Figure 3 shows the basic double wishbone
suspension, where the front hub will be taken as a tie rod which can be analysed as an independent
suspension system.
9 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Figure 3: Double Wishbone Suspension Components [6]
1.1.3. Camber and Cornering

Wheel camber is the angle between the central vertical axis of the wheel and the horizontal plane of the
road. Positive camber is when the wheel is inclined away from the vehicle body, and negative camber
is when the wheel inclines towards the vehicle body. The design camber angle, according to DIN
70 000, is defined as −1° <  < 0°. The designed camber angle ensures even wear on the tyres and
minimises rolling resistance. A change in camber can be a result of misalignment or a change in the
displacement of the suspension arms. This can have an adverse effect on the tyre grip. The change in
camber can be determined by the displacement result from the FEA. As shown in Figure 5, the range
of expected change in camber is −4° <  < 3°. This estimate has been made using the data for the
Honda Accord, that also has a double wishbone suspension system. The camber can be used as a
reference point to determine the practical implications of the displacements from the FEA. The stresses
under these conditions can be compared to material properties, but the displacements will have to be
used to calculate to a change in camber that can be assessed for acceptability. Figure 4 and Figure 7
show how the camber of the wheel changes during cornering, which is a clearly visible effect.
10 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Figure 4: Exceeding the SST while Cornering [6] [4]
Figure 5: Comparative Change in Camber for Various Suspension Types [6]
2. ANALYTICAL MODEL
2.1. Assumptions for Analysis
For the analysis of the double wishbone suspension system, different assumptions have been made
based on the motion of the vehicle, road conditions, suspension geometry, suspension behaviour and
10
11 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
vehicle dynamics. These assumptions are based on the experimental and analytical behaviour of the
Honda S2000 and other vehicles that use the double wishbone suspension:
1. Steady state conditions have been assumed at the point where equilibrium conditions are
applied to determine the forces acting on the suspension components (Sections 2.2 and 2.3).
2. It has been assumed that the suspension is in a desirable (neutral) position when the vehicle is
travelling on a smooth surface (Section 2.2).
3. While the vehicle is cornering at its maximum speed, and the weight is balanced on two wheels
it is assumed that:
 The front-rear weight distribution remains constant (Section 2.2).
 On the verge of rolling, the tyres make contact with the road on a surface small enough
to be taken as a finite point (i.e. Point loading at contact surface) (Section 2.2).
 The transverse section of the road is flat and does not alter the camber of the vehicle
(Section 2.3).
4. It is assumed that all materials used in the analysis will remain within the linearly elastic region
under the given conditions.
5. The largest stress on the suspension components occurs during cornering when the SSF has
been exceeded and the vehicles weight is supported by two wheels only. This stress is assumed
to result in the largest deformation in the structure (Section 2.2).
6. A static case has been assumed where the largest instantaneous forces have been taken. As
such, all analytical calculations have been derived from the dynamic case and have been
averaged into a single static case (Section 2.3).
7. The material chosen is assumed to be uniform in its properties throughout the suspension
geometry (Section 4).
8. Given that the exact suspension geometry of the Honda S2000 is not open source information,
some estimations have been made based on available information (Section 2).
9. The ball joints and bolted connections used in the assembly can be accounted for using
appropriate boundary and support conditions in the FEA (Section 5).
10. The geometry of the wishbone arms and tie rod have been assumed constant in certain sections
and the thickness of hollow sections is taken as constant throughout (Section 2.4).
11. It has been assumed that the tie rod is the same material as the suspension arms, AISI 1040
Carbon Steel (Section 2.2 and Table 4).
12. Further assumptions made regarding the FEA application of supports, connection types and the
reaction forces are detailed in the relevant sections.
2.2. Physical Model

Figure 6 is a sketch of the three components that have been modelled in the FEA. Due to the increased
complexity of the connection joints, appropriate boundary and support conditions are applied. This
11
12 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
simplification has been made to focus on the behaviour of the suspension system under the given
conditions. Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the CAD geometry that was used for the physical
model and the analytical calculations. In addition, Table 4 details the material properties of AISI 1040
Carbon Steel, which is the material that is commonly used for the wishbone arms.
Figure 6: Double Wishbone Assembly
The analytical calculations were based on the cornering conditions as shown in Figure 4. The Static
Stability Factor (SSF) was considered when determining the factors that would cause the vehicle to ride
on two wheels while cornering. The SSF is defined as the measure of the vehicles’ resistance to rollover,
given by Equation 1. This case is called Jacking, where the outer section of the two wheels carrying the
vehicle have the tendency to ‘dig’ into the road [8]. This force exerted by the vehicle onto the road is
largely absorbed by the suspension arms and is shown in Figure 7. Equation 2 was derived using the
geometry of the vehicle, where the roll angle,  is the angle between the road and the lower plane of
the vehicle during cornering. In this regard,  uses the vehicle ground clearance as the height in
Equation 1. Therefore, each of the loads acting on the suspension system must be transformed by the
angle  .
  (  )

Equation 1:  = =
 ()

Equation 2: ( ) = 
12
13 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Figure 7: Vehicle Jacking while Cornering [8] [6]
The conditions described in Table 1 and Table 2 summarise the parameters used for the analysis. The
following equations were used to calculate all the forces on the vehicle during cornering. These forces
were then transferred to the suspension components appropriately.
To determine the loads acting on the suspension system, the vehicle must be considered as a whole. The
largest loads that could be transferred to the suspension are those acting through the centre of gravity
and those that are at the point of contact between the wheels and the road. For this analysis, the
gravitational load (Equation 3) and the centripetal force (Equation 4) due to cornering were taken at the
centre of gravity. The normal force (Equation 5) and the two components of frictional force (Equation
6 and Equation 7) were evaluated at the wheels. Using the weight distribution, the analysis could be
done at one of the rear wheels since it represents the point of highest stress and is symmetrical. The
variables used in these calculations are shown in Table 1.
Equation 3:  =  = (1 285)(9.81 ⁄ ) = 12 605.85 

 ( )(. ⁄)
Equation 4:  = 
= = 16 745.23 
. 
 
Equation 5:  =  ∙  =  (1 285 )(9.81  ⁄ ) = 6 302. 93
 
Equation 6:  =  ∙  = (0.8)(6 302.93) = 5 024.34 
Equation 7:  =  ∙  = (0.7)(6 302.93) = 4 412.05 
13
14 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Figure 8: Free Body Diagram - Vehicle
Table 2: Vehicle and Suspension Force Calculations
From the forces acting on the vehicle, the individual forces on the suspension components can be
determined using equilibrium conditions. The forces in each direction were transmitted through the
geometry of the suspension arms and the tie rod to produce free body diagrams under the specified
loading conditions. Due to the simplification of the tie rod under the problem specification, the length
was estimated using the wheel hub geometry. A larger tie rod length ensures smaller forces in the
suspension arms, which results in smaller deformations and more precise wheel control [6]. Therefore,
14
15 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
the longest possible tie rod length was chosen based on the wheel geometry. This length was chosen to
be 0.25 .
2.3. Boundary Conditions

Figure 8 and Equation 3 - Equation 7 were used to determine the loads that would be transferred to the
suspension components. Figure 9 shows the forces transmitted to the shorter upper wishbone, where
the appropriate dimensions are given in Section 3. The dimensions and the forces were used with
equilibrium conditions applied to the system as a whole.
  = 4 115 
 = 791.64 
 5
 = 1 789.83 

 3
 = 4 115 
 = 692.59 
  4
Figure 9: Free Body 

Diagram - Upper Wishbone
 = 8 230 
 3
 = 1 583.28 
 = 1 388.02 
 2

 = 219.64 

 1
 = 1 385.18   = 8 230 
Figure 10: Free Body Diagram - Tie Rod
15
16 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
  = 791.64   = 4 115 

  (. )(. )
Equation
14: ( ) =
= 986.21  
=  =  7 
146.03
[(. ) (. ) ]

  (. )(. )
Equation 15: ( ) = ( ) = =   8 = 73.02 
 [(. ) (. ) ]
 
 1
  ( . )(. )
Equation 16: ( ) =  =  = 292.66 
[(. ) (. ) ]
  = 4 115 
( (. )(. )
 =
) 692.59
= ( )
 
Equation 17:   =  =  =6 146.33 
[(. ) (. ) ]

The procedure followed for theFigure

tie rod
11:was
Freerepeated for the
Body Diagram upper
- Lower and lower wishbones using Equation
Wishbone
8 and Equation 12 where the results are detailed in Table 3.
2.4. Stress Analysis
Table
Following from Figure 10, a detailed 3: Wishbone
stress analysisStress
was Calculations
done for each of the components. The forces
determined in Figure 10 and the angle of the vehicle during cornering (θ = 15°) were used in these
 4  5  6  7  8
stress calculations. Equation 8 was used to determine the moment of inertia of the tie rod based on an
(τequivalent
average ) 20.22 that was
diameter 20.22  using44.16
estimated  dimensions
the actual 1.18 44.16 14.
shown in Figure  This
(σ ) to determine
was used 10.47the

transverse10.47
shear 22.86
stress acting the points 1,2
on  and
1.34 3, as shown
 22.86 
in Equation
9, Equation 10 and Equation 11. These equations have been derived for transverse shear on a circular
shaft.
3. GEOMETRY (CAD AND FEA ADAPTATION)
 
Equation 8:  =    −    = ((0.036 ) − (0.03 ) ) = 8.537 × 10 
The geometry of the suspension 
arms shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13. For both of the wishbone arms,
the geometry  (.)( .accurate
)((°))
Equation 9: shown is more
( ) detailed
=  =and is a more representation
= 52.01 of the actual suspension
[(. ) (. ) ]
system in the Honda S2000. The analytical assessment done was significantly simplified, but was based
 (.)( . )
Equation
on 10:
the dimensions as shown. = been noted that the more
( )It=hasalso 
= 53.84 
complex changes in geometry would
[(. ) (. ) ]
induce stress concentrations whichhave not been accounted

( . ) for in the analytical solution. These factors
Equation 11: ( ) = = = 105.85 
 [(. ) (. ) ]
are to be considered under the discussion and analysis of the FEA results. Figure 14 is a dimensioned
The axialof
drawing component of stress
the suspension wasThis
hub. expected to be small
component at point
has been 3 due to the
extensively single load
simplified as in thatrod
a tie direction.
in the
By the same
analytical reasoning,
evaluation, thewill
and longitudinal shearcarefully
be considered stress at in
each
thepoint was estimated
discussion to be
of the FEA relatively small.
results.
Hence, Equation 12 and Equation 13 were used to validate this.
 ( . )
Equation 12: ( ) = = = 13.93 
 [(. ) (. ) ]
 (. )((. )(. ))

Equation 13: ( ) = =  = 27.82 
 [(. ) (. ) ]

The bending stresses in the  and  directions were expected to be considerably higher than the other
stress components. This was due to the number and magnitude of the loads contributing to the bending
stresses. Equation 14 - Equation 17 show how these stresses were determined.
16
17
17 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Figure 12: Upper Wishbone Drawing [9]
18
18 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Figure 13: Lower Wishbone Drawing [9]
19
19 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Figure 14: Suspension Hub Drawing [9]
20
20 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
4. MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The material chosen for analysis is the AISI 1040 Carbon Steel, as it is commonly used for the
manufacture of suspension arms [10] [11]. The material properties are summarised in Table 4. The
material chosen for the FEA was the annealed Low-Carbon Steel as it has very similar elastic material
properties to the AISI 1040 Carbon Steel. This selection was made for all three suspension components.
The most important material properties for consideration in the FEA are highlighted in Table 4.
Table 4: Material Properties of AISI 1040 Carbon Steel [9]
5. CONTACTS AND SUPPORTS

5.1. Bonded and Frictionless Contacts
Due to the placement of the suspension system in the vehicle, it has no fixed contact or support from
the wheel or the vehicle chassis. As a result, care was taken to ensure that the necessary degrees of
freedom were allowed without under-constraining the system.
On the lower wishbone, a bonded contact point was defined between the inside diameter of the wishbone
apex and the shoulder of the hub (Figure 15). This was done to constrain the wishbone to the hub to
ensure that the joint was treated as a fixed point. In reality, this joint would allow for rotation about the
longitudinal axis ( −  as shown in Figure 9), however, due to the behaviour of the wheel during
turning, the suspension would not be allowed to rotate about this axis. As shown in Figure 4, the
21
21 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
suspension would be subjected to a tension-compression load and would not be subjected to any rotation
in the static case under consideration.
Figure 15: Lower Wishbone - Hub Bonded Contact Point
A secondary frictionless contact point was defined on the surface where the lateral surface of the lower
wishbone is held on the hub at the pin (Figure 16). This was done to ensure that the wishbone was held
in place by the pin of the hub, but also to prevent the pin from exerting an additional pressure on the
wishbone at the contact point. Although this pressure would have been considered in a more complex
realistic analysis, this assumption was made to maintain consistency between the FEA and analytical
models.
22
22 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Figure 16: Lower Wishbone - Hub Frictionless Contact Point
The same bonded and frictionless contact points were applied similarly between the hub and the upper
wishbone sections respectively. Due to the nature of the CAD assembly, the upper wishbone connection
points to the chassis were added as separate bodies. Hence, a bonded connection was made between
these components to allow the upper wishbone to behave as a single component under the applied loads.
This is shown in Figure 17.
Figure 17: Upper Wishbone Internal Bonded Connection
5.2. Cylindrical and Compression Supports

Figure 18 shows the cylindrical support that was used to fix the central portion of the hub radially and
axially, but allows motion tangentially. This was done because the hub does not make any direct contact
23
23 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
with the ground or the vehicle. As such, the connection between the wheel and the central hub provides
a cylindrical support at the representative contact point. Due to the cornering, the motion of the hub
would be largely in the tangential direction, therefore it was fixed in the radial and axial directions to
ensure sufficient constraining [12].
Figure 18: Central Hub Cylindrical Support
Figure 19 shows how the hub was constrained in the longitudinal direction. The compression support
on the lugs were used to represent the bolted connection that would be used on the wheel. The outer
surface of the central hub component is also compressed by the wheel during cornering as the car bolts
to one side, therefore the compression type support was chosen for this surface.
Figure 19: Central Hub and Bolt Lug Compression Support
24
24 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
6. ELEMENT SELECTION AND MESH STRATEGY
Figure 20: Initial Mesh Configuration
Due to the loading conditions, there are force and moment components in all three directions for each
of the components. Therefore, three degrees of freedom were required for the surfaces that were not
otherwise constrained or supported. `
Therefore, three degrees of freedom are required at each of the nodes that represent the structure. The
initial mesh tested contained 19 928 nodes, using a linear solver and including both tetrahedral and
cubic elements. This initial mesh configuration was found to produce reasonable results. The refinement
and inflation procedures were difficult to apply within the face and node restrictions (Figure 21).
The linear tetrahedral solid finite element was chosen for the suspension arms and the tie rod since it
could accommodate the moments and forces in all three directions. The solid 3D element is required
since the thickness of the components cannot be reduced to 2D in either of the directions. Through the
preliminary analysis, the forces acting on the ends of each arm and the connection points to the tie rod
carry large loads. These areas do not have uniform geometry due to the holes and connection points. In
these regions, a more refined mesh is required to account for the larger stress concentrations at the
locations of geometry change. The mesh along the suspension arms and the tie rod could be made
relatively coarse as the geometry remains constant and the behaviour along these parts is expected to
be relatively constant.
25
25 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Figure 21: Mesh Refinement
7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results presented were taken from the FEA where deformation, strain and stress were determined.
During the solution phase of the static structural analysis, the relevant components of stress and strain
were chosen according their relevance to the problem and the extent of impact (high stresses) on the
system. It was also noted that the stress components calculated analytically did not correspond with the
directions used in the FEA due to the difference in the defined coordinate system.
7.1. Evaluation and Discussion of the Upper and Lower Wishbones

One of the joints on the end of the upper wishbone were supressed to fully consider the stress
distribution at the end of the arm. Both the maximum and minimum principal stresses were considered
as the maximum (Figure 22) and minimum (Figure 23) principal directions determined by the FEA both
contained important information about the compressive and tensile stress distributions. The higher
stresses were concentrated near the ends of the upper wishbone arms, which was an indication of a high
stress concentration factor at the geometry change.
26
26 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Figure 22: Maximum Principal Stresses on the Wishbones
The stresses determined analytically in Table 3 were an extreme underestimation of the stresses shown
in the FEA. This was attributed to the fact that none of the bending moments were included in the
calculations of these stresses as they were not directly located at these points. Upon closer examination,
the bending moments acting in other areas of the suspension system would induce considerable stresses
on the wishbone arms. The FEA results are indicative of this. This is also a demonstration of how the
loads are transferred between the hub, suspension arms and the vehicle.
Figure 23: Minimum Principal Stresses on the Wishbones
The normal stress distribution shown in Figure 24 represents the highest components of normal stress
acting on the wishbones. The extremities between tension and compression are much larger than that
found through analytical calculations in Table 3. The asymmetrical distribution of stress about an angle
to the longitudinal plane represents the push-pull effect that turning has on the suspension components.
27
27 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Figure 24: Normal Stress Distribution in the z Direction on the Wishbones
The total deformation of the wishbones shown in Figure 25 was used to assess the acceptability of the
camber induced by the cornering conditions. The maximum deformation induced was 0.61566 which
was considered in terms of its  −  coordinates to determine the angle of displacement of 4.8 ° which
is slightly out of the expected camber range of −4° <  < 3 (Section 1.1.3). This would require a
more detailed analysis to determine the acceptable margin of error of the analysis. Furthermore, all
other stresses determined in the FEA were lower than the yield strength of the material, therefore the
result may be considered acceptable.
Figure 25: Total Deformation of the Wishbones
7.2. Evaluation and Discussion of the Hub/Tie-Rod Results

Following from the analytical calculations, the normal stress component in the  direction (Figure 26)
was considered to be of critical importance. The components carried the centrifugal force in the 
direction due to the turning motion. The expected normal stress at the hub centre was (σ ) =
28
28 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
292.66 MPa from Equation 16. As shown in Figure 26 the maximum stress at the hub was 215.57 MPa,
at a point of geometry change, which was approximately 26% lower than the calculated value.
Figure 26: Normal Stress Distribution in the z Direction
The calculated transverse shear stress on the central tie-rod section was 105.85  whereas the
determined by the FEA was a maximum of 140.85  and the average of ±30 . These results
are shown in Figure 27 and using the Probe function in Ansys.
Figure 27: Transverse Shear Stress on the Hub
Both the maximum and minimum principal stresses were considered when analysing the hub in the
FEA. It was necessary as the maximum and principal directions recognised by the FEA were not
necessarily representative of realistic geometry. These are shown in Figure 28 and Figure 29.
29
29 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Figure 28: Maximum Principal Stress on the Hub
Figure 29: Minimum Principal Stress on the Hub
When considering the wholistic results from the FEA for the hub component, there are various
observations that can be made regarding the mechanics of turning and how this behaviour
mathematically analysed. When comparing the normal and transverse shear stress results, there was a
considerable difference in stress magnitude. This was attributed to the fact that each component of stress
from all three parts were better transferred. The assumption made in the simplification of the hub as a
tie rod also lead to a drastic simplification in the geometry. This meant that the stress concentration
effects were neglected in the analytical calculations, but included in the FEA. This could explain the
changes in magnitude and location of the stresses on the central portion of the hub.
In Figure 28 and Figure 29, the effects of turning are most evident. Along the cylindrical surface of the
hub, there are localised areas of compressive and tensile stresses that occur in a plane parallel to the
longitudinal axis of the hub. If the maximum and minimum stresses were amalgamated onto the
component simultaneously, the effects of the redistribution of the mass onto two wheels can be seen.
30
30 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
This is because the change in mass distribution coupled with the centrifugal force due to turning tends
to compress the lower central hub in a pattern that mirrors the physical cornering motion. Similarly, the
tensile stresses oppose this as the mass of the vehicle reacts so as to pull the suspension back towards
its neutral position.
Figure 30: Total Deformation of the Hub
Using the definition for strain and the maximum deformation determined by the FEA, the extension of
the hub component was calculated to be 0.068  compared to the original length of 0.18 . This strain
would be considered to be too high for a component to sustain for an extended time period or for a case
of dynamic/periodic loading. This is another confirmation of the Static Stability Factor being slightly
exceeded, thus testing the limits of the geometrical and material limitations. The corresponding stresses
remain within the linearly elastic region, which implies that it is indeed possible to corner while only
on two wheels without permanently damaging the suspension, however, a more realistic dynamic
loading analysis would be required to understand how long this can be sustained for.
8. OPTIMIZATION STRATEGIES
A more detailed and careful consideration of the mesh, especially pertaining to sudden geometry
changes should be undertaken to fully develop a clear understanding of the stress distribution within
these regions. The same action could also be used to validate that the stresses transmitted between
components were done so accurately. It was also noted that the simplification of the hub as a tie rod for
the analytical procedure was not sufficiently accurate in determining the stress distribution. The hub
would need to be evaluated with a representation that more accurately reflects the sudden changes in
geometry. The loads acting on the wishbones could also be analysed more carefully to determine how
they are affected by the moments that are induced indirectly. After these procedures are completed, it
could be concluded that the geometry of the wishbones only could be optimised to save material, and
possibly the geometry could be adapted to decrease drastic geometry changes. The geometry and
31
31 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
amount of material used is fundamental in suspension design and performance as light weight
components that can be used to save space could be a consideration for high performance vehicles.
9. REFERENCES
[13]The Engineering Toolbox, “Rolling Resistance,” The Engineering Toolbox, 2008. [Online].
Available: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/rolling-friction-resistance-d_1303.html.
[1] [Accessed 26 March
American Honda Motor2019].
Co., Inc., “Honda Owners - 2005 Honda S2000,” American Honda Motor
Co., Inc., 2019. [Online]. Available:
[14]https://owners.honda.com/vehicles/information/2005/S2000/specs#mid^AP2145ENW.
U.S. Department of Transportation , “Trends in the Static Stability Factor of Passenger Cars, Light
[Accessed
Trucks and18 MarchNational
Vans,” 2019]. Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Virginia , 2005.
[2]
[15]Unknown,
R. Flowers, “Best
“S2K1 CarJDM Magazine,”
Tuning,” S2K1,25 19 March
October2019.
2014. [Online].
[Online]. Available:
http://bestcarmag.com/makes/Honda/S2000/2005-Honda-S2000.
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/jdm-tuning-148/powerhouse-amuse-legalo-face-kit-s2000-dry-
carbon-frp-978503/page4/. [Accessed 25 March 2019].
[3] Pirelli, “Pirelli Cinturato P7,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.pirelli.com/tyres/en-
[16]ww/car/find-your-tyres/products-sheet/cinturato_p7. [Accessed
OneLapHeroes, Director, Honda S2000 Nurburgring Record 11 March
- 7:59.8 2019]. BTG). [Film].
(Nordschleife
Germany: OneLapHeroes, 2017.
[4] J. C. Dixon, Suspension Geometry and Computation, Wiltshire: John Wiley & Sons , 2009.
[17] Unknown, “The Nurburgring,” Nurburgring, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.nuerburgring.de/en/fans-info/race-tracks/nordschleife/sections-of-the-
[5] A. Staniforth, Competition Car Suspension, California: Haynes Publishing , 2006.
track.html#prettyPhoto. [Accessed 25 March 2019].
[6] H. S. &. J. B. J. Reimpell, The Automotive Chassis, Oxford: Reed Education and Professional
Publishing , 2001.
[7] R. Champion, How to Build Your Own Sports Car, California: Haynes Publishing, 2000.
[8] P. Christensen, “Linkopings Universitet - Road Vehicle Dynamics (TMME11),” 21 October

2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.mechanics.iei.liu.se/edu_ug/tmme11/utdelat18.pdf.
[Accessed 20 March 2019].
[9] A. Verma, “Double Wishbone Suspension Arms,” GrabC ad, 7 October 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://grabcad.com/library/double-wishbone-suspension-arms-1. [Accessed 20 March 2019].
[10]Dorman, “Dorman Front Upper Left Control Arm 522- 521,” 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.dormanproducts.com/c-240-control-arm.aspx. [Accessed 24 March 2019].
[11] AZO Materials , “AZO Materials AISI 1040 Carbon Steel (UNS G10400),” AZO Materials, 13
September 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6525.
[Accessed 28 March 2019].
[12]A. Nagib, “Ansys Tutorial 5 - Cylindrical Support,” 2016. [Online]. Available:

https://drahmednagib.com/onewebmedia/.../Tutorial_5_Cylindrical_Support.pdf. [Accessed 12
May 2019].
32
33
32 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
10. APPENDIX A – VEHICLE DIMENSIONS
Figure 31: 2005 Honda S2000 Dimensions [m] [2]
11. APPENDIX B – ANSYS REPORT
34
33 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Project Page 1 of 17
Project
First Saved Friday, May 17, 2019
Last Saved Wednesday, May 22, 2019
Product Version 19.2 Release
Save Project Before Solution No
Save Project After Solution No
file:///C:/Users/DellE6430/AppData/Roaming/Ansys/v192/Mechanical_Report/Mecha... 2019/05/23
34 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Contents
l Units
l Model (A4)
¡ Geometry
n Parts
¡ Materials
n Structural Steel
n Low carbon steel, annealed
¡ Coordinate Systems
¡ Connections
n Contacts
n Contact Regions
¡ Mesh
¡ Static Structural (A5)
n Analysis Settings
n Loads
n Solution (A6)
n Solution Information
n Results
l Material Data
¡ Low carbon steel, annealed
Units
TABLE 1
Unit System Metric (mm, kg, N, s, mV, mA) Degrees rad/s Celsius
Angle Degrees
Rotational Velocity rad/s
Temperature Celsius
Model (A4)
Geometry
TABLE 2
Model (A4) > Geometry
Object Name Geometry
State Fully Defined
Definition
Source C:\Users\DellE6430\Downloads\The good shit!\680844-Solids-II_files\dp0\SYS\DM\SYS.scdoc
Type SpaceClaim
Length Unit Meters
Element Control Program Controlled
Display Style Body Color
Bounding Box
Length X 236.8 mm
Length Y 170. mm
Length Z 167.22 mm
Properties
Volume 2.2613e+005 mm³
Mass 1.7751 kg
Scale Factor Value 1.
Statistics
Bodies 5
Active Bodies 5
Nodes 19622
Elements 9673
Mesh Metric None
Update Options
Assign Default Material No
Basic Geometry Options
Solid Bodies Yes
Surface Bodies Yes
Line Bodies Yes
Parameters Independent
Parameter Key
Attributes Yes
Attribute Key
Named Selections Yes
Named Selection Key
Material Properties Yes
Advanced Geometry Options
Use Associativity Yes
Coordinate Systems Yes
Coordinate System Key
Reader Mode Saves Updated File No
Use Instances Yes
Smart CAD Update Yes
Compare Parts On Update No
Analysis Type 3-D
Mixed Import Resolution None
Clean Bodies On Import No
Stitch Surfaces On Import No
Decompose Disjoint Geometry Yes
Enclosure and Symmetry Processing Yes
TABLE 3
Model (A4) > Geometry > Parts
35 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Object Name 1 wishbone\Solid1 2 wishbone\Solid1 3 wishbone\Solid1 3 wishbone\Solid2 3 wishbone\Solid3

State Meshed
Graphics Properties
Visible Yes
Definition
Suppressed No
Stiffness Behavior Flexible
Coordinate System Default Coordinate System
Reference Temperature By Environment
Behavior None
Material
Assignment Low carbon steel, annealed
Nonlinear Effects Yes
Thermal Strain Effects Yes
Bounding Box
Length X 197.5 mm 69.347 mm 203.1 mm 19.429 mm
Length Y 21.389 mm 170. mm 19.218 mm 15. mm
Length Z 140. mm 78.488 mm 152.73 mm 31.926 mm
Properties
Volume 68869 mm³ 88998 mm³ 60319 mm³ 3972.9 mm³
Mass 0.54062 kg 0.69863 kg 0.47351 kg 3.1188e-002 kg
Centroid X 63.776 mm 174.71 mm 90.623 mm -15.428 mm 1.4813 mm
Centroid Y 87.131 mm 163.45 mm 234.1 mm
Centroid Z 156.6 mm 155.88 mm 168.33 mm 129.15 mm 237.86 mm
Moment of Inertia Ip1 745.31 kg·mm² 273.13 kg·mm² 837.94 kg·mm² 2.8796 kg·mm² 2.87 91 kg·mm²
Moment of Inertia Ip2 2352. kg·mm² 1412.7 kg·mm² 2149.7 kg·mm² 2.8796 kg·mm² 2.8791 kg·mm²
Moment of Inertia Ip3 1617.1 kg·mm² 1428.3 kg·mm² 1324.3 kg·mm² 1.0932 kg·mm² 1.09 31 kg·mm²
Statistics
Nodes 8325 5893 4540 432
Elements 4172 3137 2252 56
Mesh Metric None
CAD Attributes
PartTolerance: 0.00000001
Color:143.149.175
Coordinate Systems
TABLE 4
Model (A4) > Coordinate Systems > Coordinate System
Object Name Global Coordinate System
State Fully Defined
Definition
Type Cartesian
Coordinate System ID 0.
Origin
Origin X 0. mm
Origin Y 0. mm
Origin Z 0. mm
Directional Vectors
X Axis Data [ 1. 0. 0. ]
Y Axis Data [ 0. 1. 0. ]
Z Axis Data [ 0. 0. 1. ]
Connections
TABLE 5
Model (A4) > Connections
Object Name Connections
State Fully Defined
Auto Detection
Generate Automatic Connection On Refresh Yes
Transparency
Enabled Yes
TABLE 6
Model (A4) > Connections > Contacts
Object Name Contacts
State Fully Defined
Definition
Connection Type Contact
Scope
Scoping Method Geometry Selection
Geometry All Bodies
Auto Detection
Tolerance Type Slider
Tolerance Slider 0.
Tolerance Value 0.84014 mm
Use Range No
Face/Face Yes
Face Overlap Tolerance Off
Cylindrical Faces Include
Face/Edge No
Edge/Edge No
Priority Include All
Group By Bodies
Search Across Bodies
Statistics
Connections 6
Active Connections 6
TABLE 7
Model (A4) > Connections > Contacts > Contact Regions
Object Name Bonded - 2 No Separation - 2 Bonded - 3 Bonded - 3 Frictionless - 2 Bonded - 1

wishbone\Solid1 To 3 wishbone\Solid1 To 1 wishbone\Solid1 To 3 wishbone\Solid1 To 3 wishbone\Solid1 To 3 wishbone\Solid1 To 2
36 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
wishbone\Solid1 wishbone\Solid1 wishbone\Solid2 wishbone\Solid3 wishbone\Solid1 wishbone\Solid1

State Fully Defined
Scope
Contact 1 Face 1 Body 1 Edge
Target 2 Faces 1 Face 1 Body 1 Face 1 Edge
Contact Bodies 2 wishbone\Solid1 3 wishbone\Solid1 2 wishbone\Solid1 1 wishbone\Solid1
Target Bodies 3 wishbone\Solid1 1 wishbone\Solid1 3 wishbone\Solid2 3 wishbone\Solid3 3 wishbone\Solid1 2 wishbone\Solid1
Protected No
Definition
Type Bonded No Separation Bonded Frictionless Bonded
Scope Mode Automatic Manual
Behavior Program Controlled
Trim Contact Program Controlled
Trim Tolerance 0.84014 mm
Suppressed No
Advanced
Formulation Program Controlled
Small Sliding Program Controlled
Detection Program Controlled
Method
Penetration
Program Controlled
Tolerance
Elastic Slip
Program Controlled Program Controlled Program Controlled
Tolerance
Normal Stiffness Program Controlled
Update Stiffness Program Controlled
Pinball Region Program Controlled
Stabilization
0.
Damping Factor
Time Step
None
Controls
Geometric Modification
Contact
Geometry None
Correction
Target
Geometry None None
Correction
Interface
Add Offset, No Ramping
Treatment
Offset 0. mm
Mesh
TABLE 8
Model (A4) > Mesh
Object Name Mesh
State Solved
Display
Display Style Use Geometry Setting
Defaults
Physics Preference Mechanical
Element Order Program Controlled
Element Size 15.0 mm
Sizing
Use Adaptive Sizing Yes
Resolution Default (2)
Mesh Defeaturing Yes
Defeature Size Default
Transition Fast
Span Angle Center Coarse
Initial Size Seed Assembly
Bounding Box Diagonal 336.06 mm
Average Surface Area 435.82 mm²
Minimum Edge Length 0.15332 mm
Quality
Check Mesh Quality Yes, Errors
Error Limits Standard Mechanical
Target Quality Default (0.050000)
Smoothing Low
Mesh Metric None
Inflation
Use Automatic Inflation None
Inflation Option Smooth Transition
Transition Ratio 0.272
Maximum Layers 5
Growth Rate 1.2
Inflation Algorithm Pre
View Advanced Options No
Advanced
Number of CPUs for Parallel Part Meshing Program Controlled
Straight Sided Elements No
Number of Retries Default (4)
Rigid Body Behavior Dimensionally Reduced
Triangle Surface Mesher Program Controlled
Topology Checking Yes
Pinch Tolerance Please Define
Generate Pinch on Refresh No
Statistics
Nodes 19622
Elements 9673
Static Structural (A5)
37 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
TABLE 9
Model (A4) > Analysis
Object Name Static Structural (A5)
State Solved
Definition
Physics Type Structural
Analysis Type Static Structural
Solver Target Mechanical APDL
Options
Environment Temperature 22. °C
Generate Input Only No
TABLE 10
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Analysis Settings
Object Name Analysis Settings
State Fully Defined
Step Controls
Number Of Steps 1.
Current Step Number 1.
Step End Time 1. s
Auto Time Stepping Program Controlled
Solver Controls
Solver Type Program Controlled
Weak Springs Off
Solver Pivot Checking Program Controlled
Large Deflection Off
Inertia Relief Off
Rotordynamics Controls
Coriolis Effect Off
Restart Controls
Generate Restart Points Program Controlled
Retain Files After Full Solve No
Combine Restart Files Program Controlled
Nonlinear Controls
Newton-Raphson Option Program Controlled
Force Convergence Program Controlled
Moment Convergence Program Controlled
Displacement Convergence Program Controlled
Rotation Convergence Program Controlled
Line Search Program Controlled
Stabilization Off
Output Controls
Stress Yes
Strain Yes
Nodal Forces No
Contact Miscellaneous No
General Miscellaneous No
Store Results At All Time Points
Analysis Data Management
Solver Files Directory C:\Users\DellE6430\Downloads\The good shit!\680844-Solids-II_files\dp0\SYS\MECH\
Future Analysis None
Scratch Solver Files Directory
Save MAPDL db No
Contact Summary Program Controlled
Delete Unneeded Files Yes
Nonlinear Solution Yes
Solver Units Active System
Solver Unit System nmm
TABLE 11
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Loads
Object
Fz_Total F_Shock_L F_Shock_R Fw_UWL Fw_UWR Fw_LWL Fw_LWR UW_Moment_Total Hub_Bolt_Compression Hub_Wheel_Compression Hub_Centre_Compression
Name
State Fully Defined
Scope
Scoping
Geometry Selection
Method
Geometry 1 Face 2 Faces 1 Face
Coordinate
Global Coordinate System
System
X 205.47 -15.428
124.74 mm 1.4813 mm -10.982 mm
Coordinate mm mm
Y 163.42
98.021 mm 234.1 mm 88.423 mm
Coordinate mm
Z 150.46 129.15 101.74 211.48
150.56 mm 162.48 mm 237.86 mm
Coordinate mm mm mm mm
Location Defined
Definition
Type Remote Force Moment Compression Only Support Cylindrical
Define By Components
X -16460 N 692.59 N·mm
241.47 N (ramped) 0. N (ramped)
Component (ramped) (ramped)
Y 0. N -791.64 N·mm
-106. N (ramped) -803.62 N (ramped)
Z 1789.8 N·mm
0. N (ramped)
Component (ramped)
Suppressed No
Behavior Deformable Rigid Deformable Rigid
Coordinate Global Coordinate
System System
Radial
Axial
Tangential
Advanced
Pinball
All
Region
38 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Normal
Program Controlled
Stiffness
Update
Never
Stiffness
FIGURE 1
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Fz_Total
FIGURE 2
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > F_Shock_L
FIGURE 3
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > F_Shock_R
FIGURE 4
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Fw_UWL
39 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
FIGURE 5
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Fw_UWR
FIGURE 6
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Fw_LWL
FIGURE 7
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Fw_LWR
40 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
FIGURE 8
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > UW_Moment_Total
TABLE 12
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Loads
Object Name Fz_UWL Fz_UWR Fz_LWL Fz_LWR LW_Moment_Total Hub_Moment_Total UW_Connect_Frictionless LW_Connect_Frictionless LW_Fixed Pressure
State Fully Defined
Scope
Scoping
Geometry Selection
Method
Geometry 1 Face 2 Faces 1 Face
Coordinate
System
-15.428 1.4813
X Coordinate -10.982 mm
mm mm
Y Coordinate 234.1 mm 88.423 mm
129.15 237.86 101.74 211.48
Z Coordinate
mm mm mm mm
Location Defined
Definition
Fixed
Type Remote Force Moment Frictionless Support Pressure
Support
Define By Components Normal To
X 986.21 N·mm 1607.7 N·mm
4115. N (ramped)
Y
0. N (ramped) -791.64 N·mm (ramped)
Component
Z
0. N (ramped) -692.59 N·mm (ramped)
Component
Suppressed No
Behavior Rigid
Coordinate
System
Applied By Direct
19.38 MPa
Magnitude
(ramped)
Advanced
Pinball
All
Region
FIGURE 9
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Fz_UWL
41 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
FIGURE 10
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Fz_UWR
FIGURE 11
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Fz_LWL
FIGURE 12
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Fz_LWR
42 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
FIGURE 13
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > LW_Moment_Total
FIGURE 14
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Hub_Moment_Total
FIGURE 15
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Pressure
43 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Solution (A6)
TABLE 13
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution
Object Name Solution (A6)
State Solved
Adaptive Mesh Refinement
Max Refinement Loops 1.
Refinement Depth 2.
Information
Status Done
MAPDL Elapsed Time 18. s
MAPDL Memory Used 408. MB
MAPDL Result File Size 10.5 MB
Post Processing
Beam Section Results No
On Demand Stress/Strain No
TABLE 14
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Solution Information
Object Name Solution Information
State Solved
Solution Information
Solution Output Solver Output
Newton-Raphson Residuals 0
Identify Element Violations 0
Update Interval 2.5 s
Display Points All
FE Connection Visibility
Activate Visibility Yes
Display All FE Connectors
Draw Connections Attached To All Nodes
Line Color Connection Type
Visible on Results No
Line Thickness Single
Display Type Lines
TABLE 15
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Results
Maximum Maximum Maximum Minimum
Equivalent Equivalent Normal Maximum Shear Normal Shear Total
Object Name Shear Elastic Principal Principal Principal
Stress Total Strain Elastic Strain Stress Stress Stress Deformation
Strain Elastic Strain Stress Stress
State Solved
Scope
Scoping
Geometry Selection
Method
Geometry All Bodies
Definition
Equivalent Maximum Maximum Maximum Minimum
Equivalent Normal Maximum Shear Normal Shear Total
Type (von-Mises) Shear Elastic Principal Principal Principal
Total Strain Elastic Strain Stress Stress Stress Deformation
Stress Strain Elastic Strain Stress Stress
By Time
Display Time Last
Calculate
Yes
Time History
Identifier
Suppressed No
XY
Orientation Z Axis X Axis
Plane
Global
Coordinate Global Coordinate
Coordinate
System System
System
Integration Point Results
Display
Averaged
Option
Average
No
Across Bodies
Results
1.3459e-003 7.4152e-009 8.282e-009 2.2854e-009 -5.4171e-004 - 151.9 -129.27
Minimum -39.955 MPa -324.37 MPa 6.7412e-004 MPa 0. mm
MPa mm/mm mm/mm mm/mm mm/mm MPa MPa
1.9635e-003 2.4061e-003 1.4422e-003 4.4375e-004 215.57 140.85
Maximum 340.08 MPa 318.05 MPa 41.389 MPa 195.85 MPa 0.61556 mm
mm/mm mm/mm mm/mm mm/mm MPa MPa
44 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
1.7897e-004 2.2142e-004 1.007e-004 2.8915e-006 -5.9811 0.14217

Average 33.406 MPa 14.502 MPa -21.544 MPa 18.023 MPa 0.10134 mm
mm/mm mm/mm mm/mm mm/mm MPa MPa
Minimum 1 1
1 wishbone\Solid1 2 wishbone\Solid1 2 wishbone\Solid1
Occurs On wishbone\Solid1 wishbone\Solid1
Maximum 3
2 wishbone\Solid1
Occurs On wishbone\Solid1
Information
Time 1. s
Load Step 1
Substep 1
Iteration
3
Number
FIGURE 16
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Equivalent Stress
TABLE 16
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Equivalent Stress
Time [s] Minimum [MPa] Maximum [MPa] Average [MPa]
1. 1.3459e-003 340.08 33.406
FIGURE 17
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Equivalent Total Strain
TABLE 17
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Equivalent Total Strain
Time [s] Minimum [mm/mm] Maximum [mm/mm] Average [mm/mm]
1. 7.4152e-009 1.9635e-003 1.7897e-004
FIGURE 18
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Maximum Shear Elastic Strain
45 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
TABLE 18
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Maximum Shear Elastic Strain
1. 8.282e-009 2.4061e-003 2.2142e-004
FIGURE 19
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Maximum Principal Elastic Strain
TABLE 19
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Maximum Principal Elastic Strain
1. 2.2854e-009 1.4422e-003 1.007e-004
FIGURE 20
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Normal Elastic Strain
TABLE 20
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Normal Elastic Strain
1. -5.4171e-004 4.4375e-004 2.8915e-006
FIGURE 21
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Maximum Principal Stress
46 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
TABLE 21
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Maximum Principal Stress
1. -39.955 318.05 14.502
FIGURE 22
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Minimum Principal Stress
TABLE 22
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Minimum Principal Stress
1. -324.37 41.389 -21.544
FIGURE 23
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Maximum Shear Stress
TABLE 23
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Maximum Shear Stress
1. 6.7412e-004 195.85 18.023
FIGURE 24
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Normal Stress
47 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
State Solved
Scope
Geometry All Bodies
Definition
Type Directional Deformation
Orientation Z Axis
By Time
Display Time Last
Coordinate System Global Coordinate System
Calculate Time History Yes
Identifier
Suppressed No
Results
Minimum -5.9721e-002 mm
Maximum 0.60953 mm
Average 7.0078e-002 mm
Minimum Occurs On 2 wishbone\Solid1
Maximum Occurs On 3 wishbone\Solid1
Information
TABLE 24
Time
Model (A4) > Static Structural 1. s(A6) > Normal Stress
(A5) > Solution
Time [s] Minimum Load StepMaximum [MPa]
[MPa] 1 Average [MPa]
1. Substep
-151.9 215.57 1 -5.9811
Iteration Number 3
FIGURE 25
Model (A4) > Static StructuralFIGURE
(A5) > 27
Solution (A6) > Shear Stress
Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Directional Deformation
TABLE 25
Model (A4) > Static Structural TABLE
(A5) >28
Solution (A6) > Shear Stress
Model (A4) Time
> Static
[s] Structural (A5) >Maximum
Minimum [MPa] Solution [MPa]
(A6) > Directional Deformation
Average [MPa]
Time
1. [s] Minimum [mm]
-129.27 Maximum [mm] Average
140.85 [mm]
0.14217
1. -5.9721e-002 0.60953 7.0078e-002
FIGURE 26
Material Data Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Solution (A6) > Total Deformation
Low carbon steel, annealed

TABLE 29
Low carbon steel, annealed > Constants
Isotropic Resistivity 1.44e-004 ohm mm
TABLE 30
Low carbon steel, annealed > Density
Density kg mm^-3
7.85e-006
TABLE 31
Low carbon steel, annealed > Isotropic Elasticity
Young's Modulus MPa Poisson's Ratio Bulk Modulus MPa Shear Modulus MPa
2.1e+005 0.29 1.6667e+005 81395
TABLE 32
Low carbon steel, annealed > Isotropic Thermal Conductivity
Thermal Conductivity W mm^-1 C^-1
5.2e-002
TABLE 33
Low carbon steel, annealed > Isotropic Secant Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
CoefficientTABLE
of Thermal
26 Expansion C^-1
Model (A4) > Static Structural1.22e-005
(A5) > Solution (A6) > Total Deformation
TimeZero-Thermal-Strain
[s] Minimum [mm] Reference Temperature
Maximum [mm] AverageC [mm]
1. 0. 220.61556 0.10134
TABLE 3427
Low carbon
Model (A4)steel, annealed
> Static > Specific
Structural Heat Constant
(A5) > Solution (A6) > Pressure
Results
Specific
Object Heat Directional
Name mJ kg^-1 C^-1
Deformation
4.85e+005
TABLE 35
Low carbon steel, annealed > Color
Red Green Blue
48 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
204 204 204
TABLE 36
Low carbon steel, annealed > Tensile Yield Strength
Tensile Yield Strength MPa
233
TABLE 37
Low carbon steel, annealed > Tensile Ultimate Strength
Tensile Ultimate Strength MPa
365
Citations (0) References (10)
Suspension Geometry and Computation …

Article
Oct 2009
John C. Dixon
View Show abstract
Honda Owners -2005 Honda S2000 …

Jan 2019
American Honda Motor · Co · Inc
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., "Honda Owners -2005 Honda S2000," American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 2019. [Online].
Pirelli Cinturato P7 …
Mar 2019
Pirelli
Pirelli, "Pirelli Cinturato P7," 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.pirelli.com/tyres/enww/car/find-your-tyres/products-
sheet/cinturato_p7. [Accessed 11 March 2019].
49 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Competition
Download file PDF Car SuspensionRead file Download citation Copy link …
Jan 2006
A Staniforth
A. Staniforth, Competition Car Suspension, California: Haynes Publishing, 2006.
Jan 2000
R Champion
R. Champion, How to Build Your Own Sports Car, California: Haynes Publishing, 2000.
Double Wishbone Suspension Arms …

Oct 2015
A Verma
A. Verma, "Double Wishbone Suspension Arms," GrabCad, 7 October 2015. [Online]. Available: https://grabcad.com/library
/double-wishbone-suspension-arms-1. [Accessed 20 March 2019].
Dorman Front Upper Left Control Arm 522-521 …

Mar 2019
Dorman
Dorman, "Dorman Front Upper Left Control Arm 522-521," 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.dormanproducts.com/c-240-
control-arm.aspx. [Accessed 24 March 2019].
Ansys Tutorial 5 -Cylindrical Support …

May 2016 · 12
A Nagib
A. Nagib, "Ansys Tutorial 5 -Cylindrical Support," 2016. [Online]. Available: https://drahmednagib.com/onewebmedia
/.../Tutorial_5_Cylindrical_Support.pdf. [Accessed 12 May 2019].
The Engineering Toolbox …

Mar 2008
The Engineering Toolbox
The Engineering Toolbox, "Rolling Resistance," The Engineering Toolbox, 2008. [Online]. Available:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/rolling-friction-resistance-d_1303.html. [Accessed 26 March 2019].
Trends in the Static Stability Factor of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks and Vans …
Jan 2005
U.S. Department of Transportation, "Trends in the Static Stability Factor of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks and Vans," National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Virginia, 2005.
Show more
50 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Recommendations Discover more
Project
Resin Impregnation of Corrugated Cardboard
Shashi Hagroo
View project
Project
Analysis of a Double-Wishbone Suspension
Shashi Hagroo
View project
Project
Recycling of Food Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate
Shashi Hagroo
View project
Project
Mechanical Engineering Laboratories
Shashi Hagroo
View project
Article
Design and Fabrication of a Suspension Rig
January 2016
Abhijith Geo Philip
Owing to its placement under the vehicle body, the suspension system is one of the parts of the vehicle which are difficult to
comprehend completely, albeit being a vital component. For demonstrating the working of a suspension system, a physical model in
which one can actually see the movement of all the components would be a great tool. A Mustang II independent front suspension
system was ... [Show full abstract]
Read more
Article
Methodology for the Design of a Double-Wishbone Suspension System by Means of Target Cascading: Mode...
April 2013 · SAE Technical Papers
Juan Blanco · Luis Munoz
Target cascading methodology is proposed as an efficient approach to the design optimization of the geometry of a double-wishbone
suspension system of an off-road vehicle. The geometric setting of the suspension plays an important role on its performance, as well
as on the interactions with other design domains of the overall system. In order to organize the complexity of this system, two types ...
[Show full abstract]
Read more
Article Full-text available
51 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29
Parametric study of ground vehicle suspension system
March 2019
M.U.H. Ruslan · Fadly Jashi Darsivan
One of the missions of automotive engineering is to reduce mass, vehicles components complexities, subsystems and systems
without sacrificing expectations of the performance. Therefore, the development in suspension system of the vehicles invites many
types of sus-pension system to improve the performance in stability and handling the vehicles. This study attempts to analyze the
performance of ... [Show full abstract]
View full-text
Company Support Business solutions

Conference Paper
About us Help Center Advertising
News Analysis of the Double Wishbone front suspension system
Recruiting
Careers January 2017
Akshay Bhoraskar · Ankur Fartyal · Sakthivel Palanivelu
Suspension system in a car connects the chassis to its wheels and it comprises of a system of springs, dampers and linkages.
Independent suspension systems typically offer better handling and ride quality. This is because of the lower un-sprung weight and the
© 2008-2021 ResearchGate
capability GmbH.
of each wheel in All rights reserved.
addressing the road interaction independently without affected by the road interaction of the other wheels Terms · Privacy · Copyright · Imprint
on ... [Show full abstract]
Read more
52 of 52 19/10/2021, 22:29

(PDF) FEA of Double Wishbone Suspension System Under Extreme Driving Conditions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(PDF) FEA of Double Wishbone Suspension System Under Extreme Driving Conditions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(PDF) FEA of Double Wishbone Suspension System Under Extreme Dri... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339508966_FEA_of_Double_...

Research PDF Available

FEA of Double Wishbone Suspension System Under Extreme Driving Conditions

References (10) Figures (22)

Abstract and Figures

Finite Element Analysis of a double-wishbone suspension modeled on the 2005 Honda

2005 Honda Diagram Showing Double Wishbone

Figures - uploaded by Shashi Hagroo Author content

Content uploaded by Shashi Hagroo Author content

Download file PDF Read file Download citation Copy link

University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg

TITLE: Assignment 1 – FEA of Double Wishbone Suspension System

COURSE: MECN 4023A Mechanics of Solids II

NAME: Shashi Hagroo

STUDENT NUMBER: 680844

DATE: 17 May 2019

Download file PDF Read file Download citation Copy link

I hereby declare the following:

Date 17 May 2019

Download file PDF Read file Download citation Copy link

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ 4

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. 5

1.1.1. Honda S2000 Specifications and Parameters.................................................................. 6

1.1.2. Double Wishbone Suspension Characteristics................................................................ 7

1.1.3. Camber and Cornering .................................................................................................... 9

2. ANALYTICAL MODEL .............................................................................................................. 10

2.1. Assumptions for Analysis ..................................................................................................... 10

2.2. Physical Model ...................................................................................................................... 11

2.3. Boundary Conditions ............................................................................................................ 15

2.4. Stress Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 16

3. GEOMETRY (CAD AND FEA ADAPTATION) ....................................................................... 17

4. MATERIAL PROPERTIES ......................................................................................................... 21

5. CONTACTS AND SUPPORTS ................................................................................................... 21

5.1. Bonded and Frictionless Contacts ......................................................................................... 21

5.2. Cylindrical and Compression Supports................................................................................. 23

6. ELEMENT SELECTION AND MESH STRATEGY.............................................................. 25

7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 26

7.2. Evaluation and Discussion of the Hub/Tie-Rod Results....................................................... 28

8. OPTIMIZATION STRATEGIES ................................................................................................. 31

10. APPENDIX A – VEHICLE DIMENSIONS ............................................................................ 34

11. APPENDIX B – ANSYS REPORT.......................................................................................... 34

Download file PDF Read file Download citation Copy link

Figure 3: Double Wishbone Suspension Components [6] ...................................................................... 9

Figure 4: Exceeding the SST while Cornering [6] [4] .......................................................................... 10

Figure 5: Comparative Change in Camber for Various Suspension Types [6]..................................... 10

Figure 6: Double Wishbone Assembly ................................................................................................. 12

Figure 7: Vehicle Jacking while Cornering [8] [6] ............................................................................... 13

Figure 8: Free Body Diagram - Vehicle................................................................................................ 14

Figure 9: Free Body Diagram - Upper Wishbone ................................................................................. 15

Figure 10: Free Body Diagram - Tie Rod ............................................................................................. 15

Figure 11: Free Body Diagram - Lower Wishbone .............................................................................. 16

Figure 12: Upper Wishbone Drawing [9] ............................................................................................. 18

Figure 13: Lower Wishbone Drawing [9]............................................................................................. 19

Figure 14: Suspension Hub Drawing [9] .............................................................................................. 20

Figure 15: Lower Wishbone - Hub Bonded Contact Point ................................................................... 22

Figure 16: Lower Wishbone - Hub Frictionless Contact Point ............................................................. 23

Figure 17: Upper Wishbone Internal Bonded Connection.................................................................... 23

Figure 18: Central Hub Cylindrical Support......................................................................................... 24

Figure 19: Central Hub and Bolt Lug Compression Support................................................................ 24

Figure 20: Initial Mesh Configuration .................................................................................................. 25

Figure 21: Mesh Refinement................................................................................................................. 26

Figure 22: Maximum Principal Stresses on the Wishbones.................................................................. 27

Figure 23: Minimum Principal Stresses on the Wishbones .................................................................. 27

Figure 24: Normal Stress Distribution in the z Direction on the Wishbones........................................ 28