Materials Today: Proceedings 56 (2022) 2672–2679

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Kinematic and Structural Analysis of Independent type suspension

system with Anti-Roll bar for Formula Student Vehicle
Yogesh Kumar a,b,⇑, Rehan Abad Siddiqui a,b, Yogesh Upadhyay a, Shivam Prajapati c
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Zakir Husain College of Engineering and Technology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh 202002, India
b
ZHCET Formula Racing, SAE-ZHCET, Zakir Husain College of Engineering and Technology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh 202002, India
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Agartala 799046, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study involves the development of a Suspension system for FSAE vehicles participating in the
Available online 14 October 2021 Combustion Category. The front setup is also introduced with a bar-type Anti-Roll Bar (ARB) to manipu-
late the Understeer and Oversteer response of the vehicle. The initial parametric study was performed
Keywords: with an iterative approach in the spreadsheet. Race-cars also have stiffer suspension i.e.; the ride fre-
Formula Student Vehicle quency is above 2 Hz; the reason being that the driver does strict maneuvering on the race track. FSAE
Suspension Kinematics vehicles have ARB’s for better cornering performance and to manipulate the response of the vehicle
Anti-Roll Bar
mainly understeer and oversteer suiting to the driver. Another advantage is the limitation of camber gain
Finite Element Analysis
caused by the body roll as it improves the traction. Further, the Kinematic study of all the components in
the system was analyzed through IPG Kinematic Software. The focus was made on the variation of
Camber Angle, Steer Angle, Track Change, and Roll Angle with and without the ARB incorporation. The
calculation for the selection of different bearings is also performed. Considering the previous vehicles
and the new design goals, parametrizing of the vehicle is also performed. The overhang of the vehicle
plays an important factor in the longitudinal load transfer during the braking and acceleration. Forces
experienced by all the components were also extracted from the software. This data is then used as
the input parameter for Structural Simulation on CAE platform ANSYS. Material properties of
Aluminum 6061 T-6 are used for the Bell Cranks and carbon Steel is used for ARB setup. Static structural
simulation is performed on the Front Rocker, Upright and Hub. Specific torsional simulation is done on
the ARB considering the axial offset position of the support bearing and the loading point on the blade.
Copyright Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 3rd International Con-
ference on Contemporary Advances in Mechanical Engineering

1. Introduction ground clearance to tackle any possible damage to the machine.

Suspension System is very critical for any automobile, as it
defines the behavior of the vehicle towards all the forces and road
irregularities. For a commercial vehicle, the suspension is designed
in accordance with the application and level of comfort desired by
the driver. This setup is primarily responsible for maintaining the
proper contact of the tire with the road surface and adequate
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Zakir Husain
College of Engineering and Technology, Aliagarh Muslim University, Aligarh
202002, India.
E-mail addresses: kryogesh831@gmail.com (Y. Kumar), siddiquirehanabad@g-
mail.com (R.A. Siddiqui), yogeshupadhyay35@gmail.com (Y. Upadhyay), prajapa-
tishivam64@gmail.com (S. Prajapati).
Fig. 1.
Formula-Student Competitions are annually held around global
to boost the young engineering student from every domain for
implementing their theoretical knowledge into practice [1]. FSAE
is a global community of students who design, build and race their
own creation while fulfilling the technical requirement set by the
organizing committee. Usually, it is considered that Suspension
designing is one of the crucial and early steps towards the
formula-styled race car formulation. Most teams are equipped
with an ‘‘independent type suspension system” which is positioned
outboard for the ease of adjustability, maintenance, and accessibil-
ity [2]. Unequal length Double Wishbone Suspension geometry has
different parts; A-arms, Actuator Rod (Push/Pull), Spring & Damper
system, Additional Ant-Roll Bars (or Sway Bars), etc. [3] Anti-roll

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.09.247
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 3rd International Conference on Contemporary Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Y. Kumar, Rehan Abad Siddiqui, Y. Upadhyay et al.
Fig. 1. Formula Student Vehicle (A) ZFR (B) Suspension Geometry (C) Anti-Roll Bar.
Bar (or Stabilizer/Sway Bar) can be used in the front or rear set up
to reduce the overall rolling of the vehicle during excessively sharp
turns in high-speed conditions [4,5]. Pushrods and Anti-Roll Bars
(ARB) are also considered as tuning components in the racing com-
munity, as they can easily alter the behavior of the vehicle by vary-
ing the actuation length. A significant amount of work has been
done on the determination of initial parameters for the suspension
setup and the Finite Element Investigation of the different compo-
nents [6]. Getting the desired output from the suspension system is
a complex process and needs a comparative and iterative study of
different parameters to analyze the optimum parameters [2,6,7].
The initial kinematic analysis for double wishbone suspension is
usually carried out by considering the system as a two-
dimensional four-bar mechanism. Authors have further used tools
like ADAMS, Lotus Shark, Solidworks Motion Study, and Mathe-
matical models for optimizing the parameter for the three-
dimensional setup [8,9,10]. Table 1.
Anti-roll bars are incorporated in the commercial vehicle to
reduce body roll especially in the heavyweight category such as
passenger buses, trucks, and LMV’s. However, the implementation
of ARB in the sports category is more related to better cornering
performance, controlling the vehicle response; understeer or over-
steer, and roll stiffness [11,12]. Sway bars also account for limiting
the camber gain caused by body roll. For the FSAE vehicles, the
implementation of the Anti-roll bar is somewhat different as with
the requirement of the overall vehicle and operating driver.
Adjustability and accessibility are two main factors that are consid-
ered during the designing of such a system. In the literature [10],
the authors have successfully validated the effect on the Anti-roll
bar set up for the cornering situations. The setup has not only
reduced the magnitude of body roll but also stabilized the vehicle
to tackle the banking and irregularities on the track. This research
study aims at the kinematic investigation of the suspension system
developed for the 390 cc KTM engine with first-generation adjusta-
ble ARB. The force analysis on the different components is per-
formed to evaluate the input parameters for the FEM. Only front
suspension setup is considered in this study and the effect of front
ARB on the vehicle is also analyzed. Table 2.
2. Methodology and initial parametrization of vehicle
In this section, the procedure required to develop a suspension
system is presented. Before proceeding into the modelling of the
system, the rules and restrictions were taken into the account
[2,6]. In addition, the expectations from the system were dis-
cussed. The initial parametrization of the vehicle is performed con-
sulting with the requirements of the space needed by the other
sub-systems of the vehicle. A study is conducted on the variation
of longitudinal and lateral load transfer caused due to variation
in the magnitude of the Wheelbase and Track-width. Other calcu-
lations containing parameters like Ride Rate, Roll Rate, Spring Rate,
etc. are also performed [13,14]. To move forward with the CAD
modelling and the kinematic study, an initial preliminary design
is generated symbolizing the 2D Free Body Diagram of the overall
2673
Materials Today: Proceedings 56 (2022) 2672–2679
system. After finalizing the suspension geometry, the data points
were extracted to be used in Kinematic Simulation using IPG. Once
the data points are finalized, the final 3D model of the suspension
system is developed and processed for structural integrity through
FEM modelling using ANSYS. Before every session of FSAE compe-
titions, respective organizing committees like IMechE, Formula
Student Germany, SUPRA-India, Curiosum Tech, etc. release their
rulebooks. Consideration of the OEM components like Dampers,
Bearing, and Fasteners are made during the designing process. Fac-
tors like accessibility, easy maintenance, in-house manufacturing,
and cost are also considered. The first key parameters that set
the overall size of the vehicle are the wheelbase and the front
and rear track-width. These parameters play a great role in the load
transfer and the cornering ability of the vehicle. Table 3.
Wheelbase: The rules state the smallest wheelbase should be
1525 mm, getting as close to this is as possible is the ideal target
however many factors play into this. A key factor is the overall
length of the chassis to accommodate the drivetrain, engine, driver,
brakes, and other components, rear wheels are ideally set in line
with the drive train to make transferring power as efficiently as
possible. Another thing to consider is the overhang of the front
bodyworks, too much overhang means the nose has a large sweep-
ing radius in a turn whereas too little means the driver does not
have enough room or the wheelbase is too long. We tried to get
the optimum wheelbase considering the space required by the dif-
ferent components and the overhang percentage of the vehicle in
front. Below mentioned Fig. 2(B) shows, the estimated lengths
required by different departments within the vehicle, this will give
us the location of the front wheel center results into the required
wheelbase of the vehicle. The estimated total length of the vehicle
is 2450 mm or 2.45 m. From this value, we can now calculate our
wheelbase on the percentage of overhang. The wheelbase and cen-
ter of gravity position have a great impact on the wheel loads and
axle load distribution. A short wheelbase will give a greater load
transfer between the front and rear axles than a longer wheelbase
during acceleration and braking [15]. Fig. 3 Fig. 4.
From the Wheelbase computation, that the longer the wheel-
base produces less longitudinal load transfer during braking. This
indicates that a longer wheelbase is better but a longer wheelbase
naturally has a larger turning radius. After observing the static load
distribution with the wheelbase and the steering performance con-
sideration, we selected the wheelbase as 1.55 m or 1550 mm
because of its nearly ideal 50:50 wt distribution, with approxi-
mately 45% in the front and 55% in the rear. The longitudinal load
transfer is also acceptable in this range. Table 4.
Track-width: For the cornering performance of the vehicle,
front and rear track-width plays a vital role. Too narrow track-
width will result in high lateral load transfer and too large track-
width will result in more lateral movement to avoid obstacles.
The amount of lateral load transfer can also be manipulated with
the installment of Anti-Roll bars. It is believed that the track-
width of more than 1.2 m will not leave enough space on either
side to maneuver on the track, considering the 3 m maximum
width of the track according to the rules. After careful considera-
Y. Kumar, Rehan Abad Siddiqui, Y. Upadhyay et al.
Fig. 2. (A) Design Methodology (B) Estimated Space by Sub-System (C) Longitudinal Load Transfer (D) Lateral Load Transfer.
Graph 1. Wheelbase Computation for Different Conditions.
tion, a smaller rear track-width could be chosen but it is believed
that closer to a square profile is the slightly better option for the
overall performance and the maintenance of the vehicle.
3. Calculations
3.1. Suspension Parameters
Since the suspension parameters have to be calculated and to
get the best results out of them using an iterative approach. For
Ride and Roll rates, an Excel spreadsheet was created with an iter-
ation rate of 0.05. A graph between Ride Frequency and Roll Gradi-
ent is plotted to get the desired values.
Being aware of the situation of FSAE tracks, a stiff roll gradient
should be selected. Therefore, a roll gradient between 1.2 and
2674
Materials Today: Proceedings 56 (2022) 2672–2679
1.8 deg/g will be a better decision. Race-cars also have stiffer rides
i.e.; the ride frequency is above 2 Hz; the reasons being that the
driver does strict maneuvering on the race track [3,14]. Thus if
the ride is kept soft then the response of the vehicle is slow to
the input causing a lag, thus affecting the ride and handling of
the car. The ride frequency of the rear is kept a little higher than
the front to avoid the pitching effect generated while braking
and bumping, the reason being that the lag in the motion at the
front and rear while bumping is compensated by a quicker
response of the rear suspension thus minimizing the pitching
effect. So a 5% increase in the rear ride frequency is chosen for
the iterative process [16]. In the literature [6,7,17], the formulation
required to calculate the various parameters has been discussed in
detail. Ride rate, Lateral Weight Transfer, Wheel Rate, Wheel Tra-
vel, Roll rate, and Roll Gradient have been calculated in the litera-
ture [16]. The authors have defined all the parameters and the
algorithm used to compute the variables by a flow chart. An
approximation assumption towards the selection of the initial Ride
frequency is considered by the authors [18]. However, the author
in the literature [6] proceeded with calculating the ride frequency
and then moving forward with the other parameters. These are the
final parameters obtained by the authors:
3.2. Spring-Damper System
Thus considering that the maximum jounce available to the
wheels is 33 mm therefore motion ratio cannot be below 0.6. Keep-
ing motion ratio higher means the spring travel is more thus softer
springs are used. If strain energy to be stored by the spring (wheel
load time’s wheel travel) is the same then the springs of equal
strain energy/mass will have the same mass regardless of M.R.
Motion ratio of 0.825 to the front and 0.925 to the rear is chosen.
The corresponding spring rate to the motion ratio is 25.85 N/mm
and 29.21 N/mm respectively. Available spring in the market is
26 N/mm and 29 N/mm, close to what is required.
For easy ride handling, dampers play a big role. A low damping
ratio is undesirable due to the slow response to an input. Similarly,
critical damping is also undesirable due to no oscillations, which
causes a lack of comfort to the driver. Thus considering the condi-
Y. Kumar, Rehan Abad Siddiqui, Y. Upadhyay et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 56 (2022) 2672–2679

Table 1
Initial Calculated Parameters.

Parameters Mass of the Vehicle Weight at Front Weight at Rear Front Track-Width Rear Track-Width Wheelbase
Values 300 Kg 135 Kg (45%) 165 Kg (55%) 1220 mm 1194 mm 1550 mm

Table 2
Parameters of the Suspension System.

Parameters Ride Frequency Ride Rate Lateral Weight Transfer Wheel Travel Wheel Rate Roll Rate Roll Gradient Motion Ratio Spring Rate ARB Stiffness
Units Hz N/m N mm N/m N-m/deg deg/g N/mm N-mm/deg
Front 2.4 15333.65 501.86 32.73 17599.8 228.18 1.526 0.825 25.85 2765
Rear 2.52 20662.09 613.38 29.68 25000.2 310.76 1.526 0.925 29.21

Table 3
Specifications of the Helical Springs.

Parameters Spring Constant Material Young’s Modulus Density Poisson’s Ratio Outer Diameter Wire Diameter No. of Active Coils Free Length
Units N/mm N/m GPa g/cc mm mm Mm
Front 26 Spring Steel Grade 2 190 7.8 0.3 52 6 4 140
Rear 29 52 6 5 140

tions of FSAE tracks damping coefficient between 0.3 and 0.6 is
preferred. DNM Burner RCP 2S was selected due to its low cost
and easy availability.
3.3. Anti-Roll Bar
FSAE vehicles have ARB’s for better cornering performance and
to manipulate the response of the vehicle mainly understeer and
oversteer suiting to the driver [10,15]. The bar’s torsional stiffness
(resistance to twist) determines its ability to reduce body roll i.e.
Roll Stiffness. The increased spring rate in the front due to ARB will
produce an understeer effect while in the rear, it will produce an
oversteer effect. Another advantage is the limitation of camber
gain caused by the body roll as it improves the traction. These
equations are used to calculate the roll gradient of the ride springs
and thus the deficit that the anti-roll bar needs to deal with
[3,10,15].
4. Kinematic Simulation
After calculating the initial parameters and drafting the prelim-
inary three-dimensional free body diagram. The effect of crucial
parameters influencing the vehicle behavior is analyzed using the
kinematic software IPG Carmaker and Kinematics. The authors
are unable to find any work based on the utilization of IPG Kine-
matics for FSAE vehicles. Using IPG Kinematics, at first, all the
parameters need to be defined in the simulation control [20]. Sec-
ondly, all the values should be entered which are needed to para-
metrize the axle and defining the vehicle in Input Data. Lastly, the
calibration of the parameters is performed as required. IPG Graphs
have been used to perform the comparative and iterative study of
the various crucial parameters. These results are analyzed and then
exported. The objective of this study is limited to the variation in
Camber Angle, Steer Angle, Track Change, and Roll Angle with
and without the ARB incorporation. Reciprocal Kinematics are ana-

Roll Gradient: Front Roll Rate: Total ARB Roll Rate Needed:
 
/r
¼ K /F
WH pðt2f ÞK LR K RR 2
K /Des K T ðt2 Þ pK w ðt22 Þ
Ay þK /R K /F ¼ p 
K /A ¼ 180 
180ðK LR þK RR Þ 2 p K
K T ðt2 Þ180 180
/Des

Desired Total Roll Rate: Rear Roll Rate: Front ARB Stiffness:

K /Des ¼ WH K /R ¼ p180ðK

ðt r ÞK LR K RR
2
MR2FA
/
Ay LR þK RR Þ
K /FA ¼ K /A  N mag  100 K /FA ¼ 2:765Nmm=deg

Now, we have the stiffness of the Anti-roll bar and this can be used
to calculate the dimension of the bar using the concept of Design-
ing of Torsion bars mentioned in ‘‘SAE Spring Design Manual” [19].
The nature of ARB also majorly depends on the placement of the
bushing, as it is the supporting point and the twisting of the bar
is guided at this particular point. For the setup, OEM Plummer
Block (UP004) of suitable load rating was selected with the bore
diameter of 20 mm as of the bar and suitable load rating.
lyzed assumed that maximum variation can be obtained during the
high-speed cornering situation.
So, reciprocal kinematics is preferred over parallel kinematics
which employs the symmetrical inputs on both sides of the wheels.
The vehicle is modelled with a wheel size of 18 in. having a lateral
position of 609.6 mm from the rolling axis. The point on the con-
tact patch is also defined with the same offset consideration. Previ-
ously developed preliminary FBD’s are incorporated with baseline

2675
Y. Kumar, Rehan Abad Siddiqui, Y. Upadhyay et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 56 (2022) 2672–2679

Fig. 3. (A) Roll Gradient Vs Ride Frequency (B) Typical U-Type ARB Geometry [19] Copyright SAE International 1996.

Table 4
Specifications of ARB Setup.

Parameters Length of the Bar Lever Outer Inner Bearing Max. Size of Length of Drop- Material of
Length Diameter Diameter Offset Deflection Bearing Link Bar
Values 718 mm 110 mm 20 mm 18 mm 80 mm 3.6 mm 20 (Bore Dia.) 58 mm Mild Steel

Fig. 4. Geometric Control of Front Suspension System.

Graph 2. (A) Variation of Roll Center Height in Lateral Direction (B) Reciprocating Kinematics: Camber Angle (C) Reciprocating Kinematics: Steering Angle (D) Reciprocating
Kinematics: Roll Center (E) Reciprocating Kinematics: Track Change (F) Reciprocating Kinematics: Roll Angle.

2676
Y. Kumar, Rehan Abad Siddiqui, Y. Upadhyay et al.
Caster Angle for the position of the wishbones on the wheel carrier.
For defining the bushing position in the present, the official manual
of IPG Carmaker has been followed [20]. The vehicle is also loaded
with an axle load of 68 kg to represent the driver mass. Also, the
proper distribution of front weight for the various section is calcu-
lated for the preset. Similarly, for the Anti-Roll Bar, the kinematic
simulation was performed on IPG Kinematics in Reciprocal mode.
The behavior of the front suspension system with and without
ARB is simulated. Above are the Graphs showing the change in
Camber Angle, Steering Angle (suggesting the Understeer/Over-
steer effect), Roll-Centre Height, and the Roll Angle corresponding
to the 50 mm jounce and 50 mm rebound movement of the Wheel.
The red trend lines represent the motion of the wheel for 50 mm of
jounce and rebound with respect to the other critical parameters of
vehicle dynamics. Setup includes the front anti-roll bar system as
discussed before. The green trend lines showcase the behavior of
conventional setup with the same conditions. ARB is designed to
minimize the roll of the body, which we can clearly see in the
graph of Wheel Travel Vs Roll Angle. Roll angle is now lying
between ± 3.8°. In addition, there is a significant change in the Roll
center height and the track change as the ARB is now resisting the
lateral movement/shift of the vehicle. As expected, the nature of
the front suspension system has changed with the installation of
the Anti-Roll Bar. The red trend line indicates the setup with ARB
and green for the conventional double-wishbone setups. The Cam-
ber Angle is reduced from 3.5° to 2.5° and the reduction in
Steering angle is displaying the increase of understeer effect. This
kinematic simulation also provides us the force experienced by
each of the component in the system in the respective direction.
This data can be further used as an input for investigating the
structural integrity of the components through FEM.
5. Finite Element Analysis
From post-processing, the final hard points are obtained for the
front suspension geometry. These values are used to generate the
3D CAD models of the different components. The calculation for
the bearing load requirements was also performed to select the
appropriate OEM parts. The loads for bearing calculation as well
Fig. 5. Front Rocker (A) Boundary Conditions (B) FEA Simulation: Factor of Safety.
Table 5
Material Selection for Suspension Components.
Mechanical Properties
Materials Tensile Brinell Young’s Fatigue
Strength Hardness Modulus Strength
Al-6061-T6 310 MPa 95 68.9 GPa 96.5 MPa
Al-7075-T6 572 MPa 150 71.7 GPa 159 MPa
Mild Steel 440 MPa 126 205 GPa 270 MPa
2677
Materials Today: Proceedings 56 (2022) 2672–2679
as FEM were obtained from IPG graphs. Since, we know the forces
on the various points of the rockers one can easily calculate the
loads on the pivot point, using the eccentric loading formulation
[21]. The loads on the pivot point will later be used for determining
the dynamic load rating of the required bearing [22]. We have
selected a deep groove ball bearing of 8x16x5, which has a
dynamic load rating of 1600 N. For the Rocker (or Bell-Crank), Point
A is being fixed, as it is the point about which the rocker is pivoted.
Points B and C are loaded with the force 1456.9 N and 300 N
respectively as shown in Fig. 5. These forces magnitudes are
extracted from the IPG Kinematics in the three-axis separately.
Point C accounts for the forces applied by Anti-roll Bar/Stabilizer
Bar, which will majorly be the force in –Z-axis whereas Point B
shows the forces applied by the pull rod when the wheel is moved;
the major component is the –Y-axis. Fig. 6. Graph 1. Graph 2.
For better results and considering the loading points of the
geometry, the whole body was meshed ranging from 1 mm to 0.2
during the convergence process. While the separate face meshing
is introduced for the loading points approximately half of the body
sizing is shown in the above figure. Iterations were performed for
removing the extra material from the geometry and reducing the
thickness of the wall for minimum weight-optimized geometry
keeping the ease of manufacturing in mind. Similarly, the other
parts of the suspension setup were analyzed using the FEM. For
the accomplishment of our design goals, one of the major factors
was the selection of material. A comparative study of the available
materials is conducted to select the best-suited one out of them.
The initial shortlisting of the composition to consider is solely
based on the strength and other mechanical properties shown in
Table 5.
Since the system is being designed for students to participate in
the competition, several other factors like Affordability, Availabil-
ity, and Ease of Machining comes into consideration. Table 5 also
discusses the point base system used to select the material for dif-
ferent components. Aluminum 7075 T6 was selected for Rocker,
Upright, and Hub. The anti-roll bar is made out of Mild Steel for
in-house manufacturing and similar case with the Pushrods. The
above accumulator data was used in setting up the FEM model
for different components. Table 6.
Decision Matrix
Strength to Mechanical Affordability Availability Machining
Weight Ratio Properties
115 kNm2/Kg 3.2/5 4.0/5 3.5/5 3.8/5
196 kNm2/Kg 4.8/5 3.8/5 3.4/5 3.7/5
32 kNm2/Kg 2.0/5 4.8/5 4.0/5 4.0/5
Y. Kumar, Rehan Abad Siddiqui, Y. Upadhyay et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 56 (2022) 2672–2679

Fig. 6. FEA Simulation (A) Upright (B) Hub (C) Anti-Roll Bar.

Table 6
Conclusion from FEA Investigation.

Component Total Deformation (mm) Equivalent Strain (mm/mm) Equivalent Stress (MPa) Factor of Safety
Rocker 0.1637 3.9E-4 79.976 3.126
Upright 0.1964 6.9E-4 138.76 1.80
Hub 0.0256 1.1E-3 138.77 1.62
Anti-Roll Bar 0.43 1.0E-3 155 1.5

Mesh sensitivity study is performed on each component for bet- 7. Conclusion

ter and reliable results. ANSYS software is used to perform all types
of structural simulations, and here are the results of FEM per- The purpose of this research is to quantify the results pub-
formed on different components: lished previously, involving the determination of the suspen-
sion system parameters and the FEM modelling of the
components involved in the typical FSAE vehicle. Further, the
6. Results and Discussion
incorporation of an Anti-roll Bar in the Front Suspension Sys-
tem was analyzed for different parameters. A comparative
Reciprocation Kinematics is performed to check the variation of
study towards the effect on the handling response with and
the different critical angles contributing towards vehicle behavior.
without the ARB is made.
The study indicates that incorporating an anti-roll bar will reduce
The following conclusions have been summarized below:
the Roll Canter Height and Track Change variation. The curving
back of the Roll Center Height indicates the additional stiffness
 Camber Angle is reduced from 3.5° to 2.5° and the reduction
provided by the ARB setup. Bringing down the roll center at one
in Steering angle is displaying the increase of understeer effect.
end will reduce the roll moment of the vehicle, which is accounted
 ARB is designed to minimize the roll of the body which we can
for by the other end. This will develop a better spread-out loading
clearly see in the graph of Wheel Travel Vs Roll Angle, as it is
during the cornering condition. The camber angle variation trend
now lying between ± 3.8°.
lines show the reduction of 0.5° which highly influences the grip-
 A properly analyzed ARB setup will reduce body roll in corners
ping nature of the vehicle. It is always preferred to have minimal
for improved cornering traction, but will not increase the harsh-
variation in the Steering Angle and Camber Angle of the vehicle.
ness of the ride, or reduce the effectiveness of the tire to main-
The slightest variation will cause a drastic change at high speed,
tain good road surface contact.
and also problematic for proper maneuvering of the vehicle. An ini-
 There is a significant change in the Roll center height and the
tial negative camber of 1° is provided in the model, to suit the high-
track-change as the ARB is now resisting the lateral move-
speed cornering conditions on the track. The actuation of the Anti-
ment/shift of the vehicle.
roll bar is mostly in the reciprocal wheel travel situation, so this
 FEM study shows that the Hub and Upright component have
helps us give the advantage to improve the cornering behavior
considerable Factor of Safety of more than 1.5.
with effect the straight path behavior. Two different sets of stiff-
 Safety factor of more than 3.5 indicates that there is a possibility
ness values can be obtained from the same setup according to
of some weight reduction in the Rocker.
the input condition.
2678
Y. Kumar, Rehan Abad Siddiqui, Y. Upadhyay et al.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yogesh Kumar: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, For-
mal analysis. Rehan Abad Siddiqui: Formal analysis, Writing –
review & editing. Yogesh Upadhyay: Methodology, Supervision.
Shivam Prajapati: Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge team ZHCET Formula Rac-
ing, SAE-ZHCET Collegiate Club, Department of Mechanical Engi-
neering, A.M.U., India, for providing access to the software
resources and laboratory support.
References
[1] S. F. S. C. Competition, ‘‘SAE Student Event - Formula Student Combustion.”
https://www.sae.org/attend/student-events (accessed Apr. 18, 2021).
[2] Y.S. Saurabh, S. Kumar, K.K. Jain, S.K. Behera, D. Gandhi, S. Raghavendra, K.
Kalita, Design of Suspension System for Formula Student Race Car, Procedia
Eng. 144 (2016) 1138–1149, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.05.081.
[3] M. D. Milliken WF, Race Car Vehicle Dynamics, R-146. SAE International, 1995.
[4] L. Zhang, H. Liu, Y. Xu, S. Wu, L. Gu, Study on modeling method of anti-roll bar
using one dimensional beam element, SAE Tech. Pap. (2009), https://doi.org/
10.4271/2009-01-1454.
[5] L. Wang, G. Xu, N. Zhang, H. Roser, Experimental comparison of anti-roll bar
with hydraulically interconnected suspension in articulation mode, SAE Tech.
Pap. 2 (2013), https://doi.org/10.4271/2013-01-0710.
[6] L. Sun, Z. Deng, Q. Zhang, Design and strength analysis of FSAE suspension,
Open Mech. Eng. J. 8 (1) (2014) 414–418, https://doi.org/10.2174/
1874155X01408010414.
[7] S. Chepkasov, G. Markin, A. Akulova, Suspension Kinematics Study of the ‘‘
Formula SAE ” Sports Car, Procedia Eng. 150 (2016) 1280–1286, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.07.288.
2679
Materials Today: Proceedings 56 (2022) 2672–2679
[8] M. L. Junior, J. Greaves, C. Smout, and M. Gimeno-fabra, ‘‘Kinematic Design and
Finite Element Analysis of a Suspension System for a Four Wheel Drive Electric
Formula Student Vehicle Kinematic Design and Finite Element Analysis of a
Suspension System for a Four Wheel Drive Electric Formula Student Vehicle,”
no. April, pp. 0–16, 2020, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16653.49129.
[9] B. Zhu and N. Sun, ‘‘Design and Optimization of FSAE Race Car suspension
system,” Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Mech. Eng. Intell. Syst. (ICMEIS 2015), vol. 26, no.
Icmeis, pp. 1019–1022, 2015, doi: 10.2991/icmeis-15.2015.193.
[10] S. S. Kelkar, P. Gautam, S. Sahai, P. S. Agrawal, and R. Manoharan, ‘‘A detailed
study on design, fabrication, analysis, and testing of the anti-roll bar system
for formula student cars,” SN Appl. Sci., vol. 3, no. 3, 2021, doi: 10.1007/
s42452-021-04279-z.
[11] P. Bharane, K. Tanpure, A. Patil, and G. Kerkal, ‘‘Design, Analysis and
Optimization of Anti-Roll Bar,” J. Eng. Res. Appl. www.ijera.com, vol. 4, no. 9,
pp. 137–140, 2014, [Online]. Available: www.ijera.com.
[12] B. Harshal, K.Rushikesh, P.Baskar, ‘‘Finite Element Analysis of Anti-Roll Bar to
Optimize the Stiffness of the Anti-Roll Bar and the Body Roll,” Ijmer, vol. 4, no.
5, pp. 11–23, 2014, [Online]. Available: http://www.ijmer.com/papers/
Vol4_Issue5/Version-3/IJMER-45031123.pdf.
[13] A.A. Vadhe, Design and Optimization of Formula SAE Suspension system, Int. J.
Curr. Eng. Technol. 8 (3) (2018), https://doi.org/10.14741/ijcet/v.8.3.17.
[14] A. Mittal M. Faraz Kashif, Study of Vehicle Dynamics of a Formula Student Car
2016 Aligarh Muslim University
[15] O. De Garston, ‘‘Formula Student Car Suspension Design Motorsport
Engineering Formula Student Car Suspension Design.”
[16] M. T. Yogesh Kumar, ‘‘Selection of Spring For Spring Coil Dampers Using An
Iterative Approach,” Int. J. Sci. Adv. Res. Technol., vol. 6, no. 5, p. 4, 2020,
[Online]. Available: http://ijsart.com/Home/IssueDetail/37706.
[17] V. Sakthi Murugan et al., A numerical approach to suspension kinetics analysis
of fsae CAR, Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 8 (10) (2017) 910–917.
[18] C. Arévalo, A. Medina, and J. Valladolid, ‘‘Estudio cinemático y dinámico del
sistema de suspensión de un monoplaza de competencia eléctrico Formula
Student Kinematic and dinamic study of the suspension system of an electric
single seater competition Formula Student,” pp. 96–107, 2018.
[19] S. C. Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE Spring Design Manual, 2nd ed.
Society of Automotive Engineers, 1996, 1996.
[20] IPG Automotive GmbH, ‘‘Formula CarMaker Tutorial 1.0,” pp. 1–104, 2016,
[Online]. Available: https://ipg-automotive.com/fileadmin/
user_upload/content/Specials/FormulaCarMaker_Tutorial_2017.pdf.
[21] V. B. Bhandari, Design of Machine Elements. Tata Mcgraw-Hill Publishing
Company Limited, 1994, 2017.
[22] SKF Group 2018, ‘‘SKFs Bearing and Mounting Products,” 04/2018., S. M.
Group, Ed. SKF Group, 2018, p. 587.