Trailing Arm Design Sprint

Design Sprint Goals

This design sprint is intended to be a good starting point for new team members to learn about engineering concepts and how to develop a design from (nearly) the ground up. Other goals include:

  • Making Self-Driven Decisions

Finding flaws in your design on your own and determining ways to fix them.

  • Documenting Design Decisions

Keeping track of what changes you made and why you made them to your design.

  • Working Independently in a Team

Being apart of a bigger project while taking on the responsibility of an aspect of it.

And the potentially more nuanced goal of this sprint is to design a functional trailing arm! Note that we’re going to be designing a trailing arm that will go on THE LEFT SIDE of the car. It isn’t important in the actual design, but makes the loading conditions easier to describe later on.

Topics Covered

  • Design Concepting

  • Computer-Aided Design

  • Design for Manufacturing (DFM)

  • *Design for Assembly (DFA)

  • Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

*Not guaranteed, but the opportunity is there!

Background Information

Let’s start at the basics, what is a trailing arm suspension? It’s commonly seen in the rear suspension of bikes as seen below.

Trailing Arm Suspension on a Bike

The above example uses a bellcrank to change the direction of the force, which we won’t be using due to added complexity and weight. There’s an explanation for what a bellcrank is and how it works below, but it’s not necessary for the design sprint.

As mentioned above, a bellcrank is used when force needs to be redirected. A bellcrank can be described by 3 points/nodes. An “input”, “output”, and rotation point.

The rotation point is fixed, and will not move, but the input and output points can rotate around the rotation point.

For example, let’s say a force is applied on the vertical linkage going downwards. to solve for a reaction on the horizontal linkage you’d use the sum of moments about the rotation point. This means that the force on the output linkage may not be the same as the input linkage because mechanical advantage can be designed into a bellcrank by adjusting the distance of the other two points from the rotation points.

The key thing to note about a trailing suspension are:

  • There is a point where the trailing arm pivots around

  • There is a point where the wheel is attached

  • There is a point where the shock is attached

The point where the wheel is attached is where the all the forces “enter” the system, and the shock and pivot points will counteract those forces.

The blue circle represents the wheel which isn’t to scale, but gets the idea across (hopefully).

However, the sketch above is only a side view of the wheel.

In the top view show above the system becomes a bit more complex. We can see an additional branch/arm the connects to the pivot axis. This is to help distribute forces which you’ll see soon enough.

I’ll quickly note here that only one of the rear wheels will be powered (ie. have the motor in it). I want to create two trailing arms which are mirrors of one another, and for the side that will not have the motor we will create a spacer to make up the distance between the mounting face to the rim.

At this point, start thinking about what can be changed in the concept. For instance:

  • How far does the wheel need to be from the pivot point?

  • How far does the shock mount need to be from the pivot point?

  • Do all the points need to lie in the same line? (Can the shock be moved vertically?)

  • Does trailing arm need to be horizontal? (At what angle is it optimized?)

If you’re getting a bit overwhelmed, that’s normal! This is likely the first time you’re approaching a design problem in this way, so it takes some time to get used to, and also feel free to ask questions! Don’t think you’re bothering us, when you ask questions, you show you’re interested and we want to help build that interest!

Now, back to the technical stuff. To answer a lot of these questions we need to set some design constraints.

Design Constraints

You’ll probably learn some different terminology on this, but I’m using it as the values we know that we should design around. A big part of designing parts is finding number that you need to work around, but it’s very time consuming, so I’ve done the tedious stuff so you don’t! So, I’ll list them out here, and I’ll add in sections that show how I determined these values. You don’t need to know it, but I want to feed people’s curiosity where I can, and it stands to show a good example of documenting your design decisions.

Maximum Vertical Displacement for the Wheel: +/- 9 cm

As per ASC Regulations, the aero body of the car needs to sit at least 10 cm above the ground (Reg 9.3 https://www.americansolarchallenge.org/ASC/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/ASC2024-Regs-EXTERNAL-RELEASE-A.pdf). This means that if any of the wheels were to move or (travel) more than 10 cm up, the aero body would be grinding against the ground! This isn’t ideal.

The converse to this is the dynamics handling and feel of the car. With more travel, the car becomes more comfortable to drive.

To compromise between the two limits, the maximum upward travel will be 9 cm as to leave 1 cm as an “oh shit” budget.

The maximum for the lower travel is judged by the aero body. The more the wheel can move downward, the more room the aero team needs to make for the wheel to travel. This extra room is a gap in the aero body for the tire to move through. This will reduce aerodynamics performance on the car. So the less downward travel, the better. An extension of this would be that we don’t want the center of the wheel to go below the bottom of the aero body. However, the radius of the rim without the tire is 8 inches (~20 cm) which is excessive.

However the ground contact thought still applies. If the wheel can’t go down far enough is the car drives over a pot hole, then the aero body is scratched up, which is also bad.

Therefore, we’ll arbitrarily say that 9 cm downwards will work. In the case we find a reason to reduce it, then the aero team can easily adjust the size of the cutout in the error body to be smaller.

Maximum Angular Displacement for the Trailing Arm: 10 degrees from the rest position

From McMaster Carr (a good supplier, but expensive) we can see that swivel bearings usually are rated for around 20 degrees of swivel. We don’t have a specific bearing specified, we’ll need to judge our movement and loading requirements before we can do that.

So for now, we’ll limit ourselves to +/- 10 degrees with the thought that reducing it is better

However, this assumes the bearing will be mounted in such a way where the main axis of rotation is along the Z axis. If you find a different configuration more advantageous, go for it!

Angle between the Pivot and the Wheel Mount: Greater than Zero at Max Extension

When the car brakes, it applies more force to the front wheels, thus less force to the back wheels. As the coilovers and shocks are under compression in the resting position, they will extend to meet the ground.

In braking there is a backwards force applied to the wheel mounting point. This will create a clockwise moment around the pivot point, pushing the wheel down. This will contribute to an increase in downward force on the wheel. This will ideally distribute the load transfer under braking better than if it was below the horizontal.

Realistically, the moment generated will be negligible (assuming small angles) to the rest of the load transfer seen by the loading condition, and therefore we will not adjust the mass proportion present on the back.

At max compression the shock should be tangent to a circle concentric to the pivot point.

Based on M = F*r*sin(theta) where theta is the angle between the moment arm, we see that if the angle is anything other than 90 degrees the moment generated is not maximized. At max compression, when the spring will need to apply the greatest force, losing any of it to a bad angle seems suboptimal.

Motor Mounting Pattern

 

If this doesn’t make any sense, it means the motor has 6 equally-spaced threaded holes (M8 thread, so the bolts are 8 mm in diameter) along a circle of diameter 64 +/- 0.1 mm

 

 

Loading Cases From the Wheel (must pass all cases, 1-4 are important to sim, 0 is for reference)

*All cases have 2x safety factor, and have 2G bump applied as well!

#

RSU Load Case

Force X (N)

Force Y (N)

Force Z (N)

Moment X (Nm)

Moment Y (Nm)

Moment Z (Nm)

#

RSU Load Case

Force X (N)

Force Y (N)

Force Z (N)

Moment X (Nm)

Moment Y (Nm)

Moment Z (Nm)

0

Rest

0.00

0.00

3789.43

242.94

-11.44

0.00

1

Accel + Right Turn

1149.94

-2299.88

4599.76

-345.63

-334.15

-80.67

2

Accel + Left Turn

808.84

1617.67

3235.34

657.94

-235.03

-46.97

3

Braking + Right Turn

-2074.22

-2074.22

4148.45

-311.71

565.14

126.71

4

Braking + Left Turn

-1458.95

1458.95

2917.91

593.39

397.51

97.94

RSU Coordinate system:

Positive x is rear to front
Positive y is right to left
Positive z is up

Lastly, we’ll design with the following shock in mind:https://www.royaldistributing.com/bronco-rear-gas-shock-for-yamaha-au-04409.html

We will not be using this shock (or at least it’s very unlikely), so be sure to keep track of your decisions to justify where the shock mounting point goes.

In case website link doesn’t work, the important dimensions are:

Feature

Dimension

Feature

Dimension

Travel (distance between full compression and extension)

2 15/16 inches

74.6125 mm

Length at Max Compression

12 3/4 inches

323.85 mm

Eye Diameter (hole to bolt the shock)

12 mm

Design Criteria

Earlier we looked at constraints, specific numbers that limit what solutions are possible. Criteria are a bit more continuous rather than restricted. The best way to explain it is to apply them to this sprint.

Mass - Since it takes more energy to move an object with more mass, we want to minimize the mass of our car to minimize energy consumption. Therefore concepts that use less material will be better than those with more material.

Cost - We don’t run on an infinite budget, money is a limited resource. Since we can only spend money once, design that cost less will be better. Since you may not know much about materials and manufacturing methods, start off with “blocking” out the part you made. Bigger blocks are more expensive and smaller blocks are cheaper. The explanation is in the expansion below.

Timeline

Week 1 - Concepting

Sept 11 - Sept 17

The idea’s pretty simple, come up with ideas! In concepting we want to come up with as many possible solutions as possible that can solve the problem we have. In our case, the problem is how do we support the wheel given all the information in Design Constraints.

What also might be useful to consider is how to make the part. If you take the best design possible that can’t be manufactured to a machinist, they still can’t make it. We won’t have the training/info session on manufacturing methods until later in the sprint, so only consider it at this stage if you have the time.

Deliverables

2 - 3 Concepts with Sketches (Digital or on Paper)

Week 2 - Computer-Aided Design (CAD)

Sept 18 - Sept 24

Now that we have some ideas on how to solve our problem, we need to pick one to develop further. Developing multiple ideas in parallel is very time consuming and not advised, but we won’t judge if you want the extra practice.

With a concept selected, we need to digitize it! This is where CAD comes into play, by this point we’ve done the training session on how to CAD a part and I want you to do that with your part, but the part needs to be fully defined. In case it isn’t mentioned in the training session, having a fully defined part means that all dimensions needed to define a part are present. In SolidWorks at the bottom right corner you can see if you part is fully defined.

An extension to this part of the design sprint would be to make your design parametric. A parametric design means that the dimensions of the part are defined “externally” from the file so it can automatically update if something needs to be changed. In essence, it makes it easier to tweak your design by not needing to dig through your feature tree to change a dimension.

Deliverables

1 Concept in SolidWorks Fully Defined

Week 3 - Manufacturing Design (DFM)

Sept 26 - Oct 1

With a design digitized, it time to start thinking about how it’s going to be made. Like I mentioned before, a great design is actually pretty bad if it can’t be made. Now that you’ve learned about different manufacturing techniques, it’s time to start specifying material and manufacturing techniques.

I hope at this stage you are looking at your design to make changes to make it easier to manufacture. We can’t purely rely on “if there’s a will, there’s a way” when we want to make something, and this means something need to give, either our bank account, or our design. We rather our design whenever possible.

A hint/idea I’ll throw out there is to see if your design can be made using multiple parts. I’ll try to bring example trailing arms during the presentation, but hopefully you can consider your design not as a single, solid piece of metal, but smaller more manageable chunks. Notices how this reduces costs as well, smaller blocks of metal are cheaper per unit volume than larger pieces of metal.

Deliverables

Bill of Materials with a manufacturing plan along with any changes to your design in CAD.

Week 4 - Static Structural Simulations (FEA)

Oct 2 - Oct 8

We have a design we can make, but will it hold up to the forces we need it to? Again, the idea is simple, but the execution is a lot harder. Hopefully you’ll understand the basics of SolidWorks FEA to run the simulation, but if you’re having any trouble with it, feel free to reach out!

Maybe after running your simulation, your part fails, but does the stress distribution make sense? Maybe it passes, but does the stress distribution make sense? I really want to reinforce the fact that we can’t accept whatever we get from the computer blindly. If they make sense, and your part is failing, then your design needs to be tweaked.

Some common changes that might help:

If there’s a very high stress concentration in a sharp corner, add a filet to get rid of the stress singularity.

If through a thickness the part is failing, make the section thicker to increase the cross-sectional area.

Deliverables

A passing simulation with a stress distribution that makes sense along with any changes to CAD.

Final Review - Oct 22nd

This is where we get to put all your work together and see what others came up with! Everyone’s solution to the problem will be different, and their approach is something you can learn from. What we’ll do for the final review is combine the small groups on each time slot to see more solutions!

The date is not a typo, but it’s considering reading week and midterms for most of you. Which also means that you don’t need to finish the FEA for the 8th. But, I imagine during reading week and midterm week you have better things to do than figure out why a simulation isn’t working, but I let that be up to you to figure out.

Info Session Schedule

Date

Training Session Topic

Location

Date

Training Session Topic

Location

Sept 17th

*SolidWorks CAD

Rm 4417

Sept 24th

Manufacturing Methods

Rm 3052

Oct 1st

SolidWorks FEA

Rm 2004

*Won’t be recorded, but training materials will be uploaded to Confluence.

All will be happening from after Mech General (~1:15pm) to 2:30pm (hopefully). After the training session we’ll start doing reviews!

Review Schedule

We’ll be making small groups of around 3 people in which you will be paired up with either myself or Shangheethan. We’ll try to spend about 15 minutes on each of your designs, but we’re hoping it becomes a bit of a discussion on what the strengths were of designs and where there’s room for improvement.

Fill out this form to say what preference you have for review time on each day. I broke the form up into each review session. I’ll close the forms the Thursday before the review sessions. Also, you can let us know if you want to be paired with anyone in the review session!

Sources

Credits

This design sprint was heavily inspired by the one created by Aidan Lehal, Min Qian Lu, Kevin Bui, and Emily Guo! Big shoutout to them for the hard work they put in!

W22 Design Sprint