Mini Baja Vehicle Design Optimization

MIE U970-U971

Technical Design Report

Mini Baja Vehicle Design Optimization

Honors Thesis: Final Report
Student: Jonathan Hastie Design Advisor: Prof. Hashemi

Fall 2004 Fall 2005

December 12, 2005

Department of Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering College of Engineering, Northeastern University Boston, MA 02115

Mini Baja Vehicle Design Optimization

Student Jonathan Hastie Design Advisor Prof. Hashemi Abstract The MiniBaja Vehicle is an off-road race vehicle powered by a small gasoline engine. As is such the combination frame and roll cage must be equally strong and light. In an effort to fulfill the rules set down by the governing body and ensure proper integration, strength, and weight minimization; it is imperative to properly analyze the material properties and geometry as well as the overall design geometry. Using a combination of Microsoft Excel, Solidworks, and Algor; the design of the 2004-2005 MiniBaja vehicle was optimized for weight and strength. Microsoft Excel was utilized to optimize the material usage as well as to calculate the proper loading forces seen on the vehicle. The combination of Solidworks and Algor allowed the design and analysis of the frame to be an iterative and intelligent process. While most additions to the design of the frame were made, some were unable to be implemented due to pre- existing design constraints. However the results of the analysis will be used to aid future frame designs in an effort to have the best balance between weight and strength while maintaining adherence to the governing guidelines.

Mini Baja Vehicle Design Optimization

Honors Thesis: Final Report
Fall 2004 Fall 2005

Introduction
MiniBaja is a collegiate competition sponsored by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The objective is for a team of students to design, fabricate, and race an off-road vehicle powered by a ten horsepower Briggs and Stratton gasoline engine. The vehicle is required to have a combination frame and roll cage consisting of steel members. As weight is critical in a vehicle powered by a small engine, a balance must be found between the strength and weight of the design. To best optimize this balance the use of solid modeling and finite element analysis (FEA) software is extremely useful in addition to conventional analysis. The following paper outlines the design and analysis of the 2004-2005 Northeastern MiniBaja Vehicles frame design. It will cover the design constraints required by SAE, material selection, initial design, and structural analysis and design modifications. It will finally cover the results of the actual real world usage of the frame design

Design Constraints
The design of the MiniBaja frame is defined by the design safety rules set out by the SAE. These rules are updated yearly to address new safety concerns. The frame design discussed in this paper is compliant to the 2005 MiniBaja Rules. The applicable pages to the topic of frame design are included in Appendix A. These rules define the frame design in two ways. First, the rules set specific requirements on the building materials material type and geometry. They also define the specific requirements of the frame geometry. The requirements were referenced when making decisions regarding the material selection, design geometry and any additional modifications to the design. A thorough review of the design and rules were made at the end of the design stage before fabrication. This review included not only the letter of the guideline but also a discussion of the intent. In any cases in which the clarity or meaning of a rule was in doubt, the SAE rules committee was contacted to ensure compliance. It is important that the reader understand that these constraints were in place during the design of the vehicle frame, as well as the interaction between the frame design and other factors, such as drivetrain, suspension, and driver safety and restraint.

Material Selection
The materials used in the cage must meet certain requirements of geometry as set by SAE, and other limitations. As the frame is used in a racing vehicle, weight is a crucial factor and must be considered. The proper balance of fulfilling the design requirements and minimizing the weight is crucial to a successful design. Material Requirements The rules define the cage to be made with materials equivalent to the following specification: Steel members with at least equal bending stiffness and bending strength to 1018 steel having a circular cross section having a 25.4 mm (1 inch) OD and a wall thickness of 2.10 mm (0.083 inch). [1] A key factor of this statement is those only steel members are allowed for the frames construction. However the alloy of the steel is definable by the competitor as long as it meets the equivalency requirements. These values are required to be calculated about the axis that gives the lowest value. Calculating the strength and stiffness this way ensures that tubes with a non-circular cross-section will be equivalent even in a worst case loading situation. The rules go on further to define bending strength and stiffness by: Bending stiffness is proportional by the EI product and bending strength is given by the value of SyI/c, (for 1018 steel the values are; Sy= 370 Mpa (53.7 ksi) E=205 GPa (29,700 ksi). E = the modulus of elasticity I = the second moment of area for the cross section about the axis giving the lowest value Sy = the yield strength of material in units of force per unit area c = the distance from the neutral axis to the extreme fiber [1] While the rules set many factors of the materials geometry there are other limitations. These limitations include the method of fabrication and industry standards for the material. The frame will be built using a bent tube construction and TIG welded joints. . TIG welding becomes difficult at wall thicknesses less than 0.035 inches. The tubing bender that will be used for the fabrication can bend a maximum of 1.5 inch diameter tube with a 0.120 inch wall thickness. It also requires that the tube have a minimum wall thickness of 0.055 inches. The geometry is also limited by industry standards. It is important to utilize commonly available tubing sizes and materials. Tubing is available in standard fractional sizes to the 1/8th of an inch: 1, 1.125, 1.25, 1.375, and 1.5. The wall thickness is limited to the common Birmingham Tubing Gauges. In this case these are: 0.035, 0.049, 0.058, 0.065, and 0.083 inches. The most commonly available materials for this type of tubing are 1018 Mild Steel and 4130 Chromoly Steel. The benefit of using 4130 Chromoly steel is that it is 17.5%

stronger than the 1018 Mild Steel. The 4130 Chromoly has the same Modulus of Elasticity (E) and density as the mild steel, so using it does not affect the weight or stiffness in members with the same geometry. However the increase in Yield Strength affects the bending strength. As the bending strength is affected not only by cross sectional moment of inertia of the material but also by the radius, the 4130 allows the usage of a larger diameter tube with a smaller wall thickness. This in turn can allow a reduction of weight. Additionally, the 4130 Chromoly steel is more ductile than the 1018. This means that the 4130 will deform more before its ultimate failure. A chart showing the associated modulus of elasticity, yield strength, and elongation at break values for the mild and Chromoly steel is shown in the following Figure 1.
Material AISI 1018 Steel AISI 4130 Steel Modulus of Elasticity (ksi) 29,700 29,700 Yield Strength (ksi) 53.7 63.1 Elongation At Break 15% 25.50%

Figure 1: Material Properties [2]

While the 4130 Chromoly is not corrosion resistant, neither is the 1018 Mild steel. AS both materials will have to be painted or otherwise coated for use, this will not be a factor in the material comparison. Analysis and Selection Using the SAE guidelines and practical limitations outlined above an analysis of the weight, bending stiffness, and bending strength versus wall thickness for each tubing diameter was done using Microsoft excel. Graphs of each analysiss results are shown below. There are three graphs, showing separate curves for each tubing diameter. They also include the minimum requirements of bending strength, bending stiffness, and minimum wall thickness to maintain bendability. Figure 2 is a comparison of the weight per linear foot versus the wall thickness for each tubing diameter. This graph is important when comparing materials with similar strength characteristics, as to make the choice that will result in a lighter overall design. The graph has a line showing the minimum wall thickness as dictated by the bendability of the material for reference

Weight vs Wall Thickness

1.4
Minimum Wall Thickness

1.2

Weight (lbs/ft)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06 Wall Thickness (in)

0.07

0.08

0.09

1" tube

1.125" Tube

1.25" tube

1.375" Tube

1.5" tube

Figure 2: Weight vs Wall Thickness

Bending Stiffness vs. Wall Thickness

3000000
Minimum Wall Thickness

2500000

Bending Stiffness (lb*in^2)

2000000

1500000

1000000

500000
Minimum Bending Stiffness

0 0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06 Wall Thickness (in)

0.07

0.08

0.09

1"

1.125"

1.25"

1.375"

1.5"

Figure 3: Bending Stiffness vs Wall Thickness

Figure 3 is a comparison of the bending stiffness versus wall thickness for each tubing diameter. It also includes a line showing the minimum wall thickness as well as a line show the minimum bending stiffness; designated in the rules listed above as equivalence to a piece of 1018 steel 1 inch diameter with 0.083 inch thick walls. As can be seen the tubes closest to the minimum bending stiffness while still fulfilling the design requirements are: 1in x 0.083 in, 1.125 in x 0.058 in, 1.25 in x 0.049 in, and 1.375 in x 0.035 in geometrys. (diameter x wall thickness) Of these only the 1 inch and 1.125 inch geometrys fulfill the wall thickness requirement to maintain bendability.
Bending Strength vs. Wall Thickness
9000
Minimum Wall Thickness

8000

7000

Bending Strength (lb*in)

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000
Minimum Bending Strength

1000

0 0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06 Wall Thickness (in)

0.07

0.08

0.09

1" 4130
1" 1018

1.125" 4130
1.125" 1018

1.25 4130
1.25" 1018

1.375" 4130
1.375" 1018

1.5" 4130
1.5" 1018

Figure 4: Bending Strength vs Wall Thickness

Figure 4 is a comparison of bending strength versus wall thickness. There is a separate curve for each tube diameter as well as separate curves for 4130 Chromoly and 1018 mild steel. The 1018 tubes that closest match the minimum bending strength while fulfilling the requirement are: 1 in. x 0.083 in., 1.125 in. x 0.065 in., and 1.25 in. x 0.049 in. geometrys. The 4130 tubes the do so are: 1 in. x 0.083 in., 1.125 in. x 0.058 in., 1.25 in. x 0.049 in., and 1.375 in. x 0.35 in. geometrys. After reviewing each of these analyses it was evident that the best choice would be use 4130 Chromoly tubing with a 1.125 inch diameter and a 0.058 inch wall thickness. As the Northeastern Mini-Baja team has a supplier with extremely good pricing on 4130 tubing, the added cost of using 4130 over 1018 was very small. The lightest tubing size usable in 1018 Mild steel material was 1.125 in. x 0.065 in. tubing. Using the chosen tube shows a 10% weight reduction over the 1.125 in. x 0.065 in. 1018 tubing and a 19% weight reduction over the suggested 1 in x 0.083 in. 1018 tubing. With the final design

having a calculated total mass of 73.5 lbs, the following chart (Figure 5) shows the associated increases due to the other materials.
Materials 1.125 in. x 0.058 in. 4130 1.125 in. x 0.065 in. 1018 1 in. x 0.083 in. 1018 Overall Weight (lbs) 73.54 81.88 90.45 Weight Gain (lbs) 0.00 8.34 16.90 Percent Increase 0.00% 11.33% 22.99%

Figure 5: Weight Increase Comparison

This tube is what will be used for the majority of the frame design. However the equivalency of 1 inch and 1.25 inch square tubing with a 0.065 inch wall thickness were verified for member that required to be used to mount other components of the overall vehicle design. Figure 6 shows the equivalency calculations for the three types of tubing used in the roll cage.
Material Round Square 1018 4130 4130 4130 Diameter (in) 1 1.125 1.25 1 Wall Thickness 0.083 0.058 0.065 0.065 Bending Stiffness (lb*in^2) 752568.27 824174.07 2148020.05 1057078.42 Bending Strength (lb*in) 2721.41 3112.93 7301.82 4491.69

Figure 6: Equivalency Calculations

Having the building materials decided upon, the next step of the design process is to begin the solid modeling of the design.

Frame Design
To begin the initial design of the frame, there first must be set some design guidelines. These include not only design features and manufacturing methods, but also the tools to be used in the design. From that point, the areas of the design that may show weakness or high loading should be analyzed for stress concentrations should be identified for analysis. Design Guidelines Before beginning the design of the frame it was important to make several global design decisions. These include such details as intended steering and suspension design and also intended fabrication methods. While these decisions are not important to the analysis of the frame, they are important to understanding the design. The rules regarding the frame geometry and driver safety must be considered as well.

The design of the cars suspension will be unequal length A-arms in the front and a swingarm in the rear. The requirements for suspension and shock mounts must be kept in mind throughout the design as well as clearance for suspension travel. As the frame and suspension designs are extremely intertwined, this becomes an iterative process. Through experience Northeastern Universitys design team has found the simplicity and strength of a handlebar and bell crank type method of steering to be advantageous over the conventional steering wheel and rack and pinion. As the handlebars require the driver to have their hands farther apart than with a steering wheel it is important to consider the drivers size and arm position. This becomes a factor when verifying the driver stays within the roll envelope, or the area encased by the roll cage. This is a key factor in the rules regarding driver safety. Some decisions were made based upon past experience while others were based directly off the intended drivers biometric measurements. The intended fabrication is important due to the limitations of the abilities and skills of the build team as well as design directives. The objective is to minimize the number of welded joints on the frame in favor of bent members. Bending is less time consuming and when properly done show a much lower stress concentration. As the design progressed the manufacturability was constantly reviewed with the build team. This ensured that there were no impossible features in the design, and that the team felt confident with its construction. As with the material type, the overall frame geometry is guided by strict rules. These rules were constantly referenced throughout the design of the frame to ensure compliance. As mentioned above the rules change yearly, for this reason they are attached in Appendix A. The interactions of the frame and the strict safety rules required that the frame be designed with a solid modeling software package. The design was done utilizing the Solidworks package. Solidworks was chosen over other packages because of its simple interface for creating three dimensional sketches, checking interferences, and simulating motion. The three dimensional sketching ability was extremely important, due to the number and complexity of bent members in the intended design. Solidworks interference check and motion simulation are as simple as point and click. Where many packages require the user to redefine the position, Solidworks allows the user to drag the part or assembly through its intended motion. The function also has an interference tool built in that allows the user to choose between multiple notification methods. Initial Design The initial design is shown in the Figure 6. Some notable features are the fact that the design consists of 4 main members: the roll hoop, the horizontal hoop, and the two perimeter hoops. The simplification of multiple members

Perimeter hoops

Roll hoop

Horizontal hoop

Figure: 7 Initial Design

As mentioned above the design was made using the Solidworks solid modeling package. The design was done over an approximate 180 hours of design time. This time was taken to make the model fully parametric. This means the features of the model are based upon those preceding it, and will change according to any modifications to the parent features. The usage of parametric design was extremely important with this design. As so many factors interact in the design of the frame, the parametric properties allowed the change of a single part to automatically change the design of all parts interacting with it. This is especially important when ensuring the roll cage envelope considerations as well as the suspension and drive train mounting. In this design there are a few important loading situations that should be analyzed. These include frontal impact, side impact, rollover impact, and suspension forces. These analyses are shown in the next section.

Analysis
The next stage in the design process is to analyze the frame and add features accordingly. There were a few features of the design that the design team felt might need some additional strengthening. For these reasons it was deemed that there should be an analysis of front impact, side impact, rollover impact, and the loading on the frame from the front shocks. However before these analyses are performed an examination of the loading forces exerted on the vehicle must be completed. The finite element analysis software program used for this project was Algor. Its extremely user friendly interface and corporate grant program to SAE competitions are the major contributing factors to this decision.

Loading Analysis To properly approximate the loading that the vehicle will see an analysis of the impact loading seen in the various types of accident was required. To properly model the impact force the deceleration of the vehicle after impact needs to be found. To approximate the worse case scenario that the vehicle will see, research into the forces the human body can endure was completed. The research found that the human body will pass out at loads much higher than 9 times the force of gravity or 9 Gs [3]. A value of 10 Gs was set as the goal point for an extreme worst case collision. It was assumed that this worst case collision would be seen when the vehicle runs into a stationary object. To validate this load an excel analysis using the max speed of the vehicle and the target impact force was done to find the resulting crash pulse, or deceleration time. An excerpt of this analysis is shown in Figure 8.
Crash pulse (s) 0.18 0.181 0.182 0.183 0.184 0.185 Load (lbf) 7597.56494 7555.589443 7514.075216 7473.014695 7432.400485 7392.225347 G force 10.13008746 10.07412013 10.01876782 9.964020456 9.909868171 9.856301316

Figure 8: Crash Pulse Analysis

As the chart shows the crash pulse duration is 0.182 - 0.183 seconds. This is on par with impact testing seen in the automotive industry safety testing, 0.15- 0.20 seconds [4]. As a side impact is most likely to occur with the vehicle being hit by another MiniBaja vehicle it was assumed that neither vehicle would be a fixed object. Referring to automotive industry safety test, which also makes the equivalent assumption, the impact force was assumed to be half that of head on collision with a fixed object or a deceleration of 5 Gs. Due to the damping effects of the shock absorbers in the suspension, the forces seen on the shock mounts were also assumes to be 5 Gs. This

value is an extreme overestimation, but will allow the ability to account for a blown shock absorber. As the impact on the roll cage in a roll over is most often a secondary impact or a glancing blow, it was assumed that the roll cage would see a deceleration of approximately 2.5 Gs.

Front Impact The first analysis to be completed was that of a front collision with a stationary object. In this case a deceleration of 10 Gs was the assumed loading. This is equivalent to a 7500 lbf load on the vehicle. Figure 9 show the point of application of this loading with a red arrow.

Figure 9: Front Impact - Loading Point of Application

Having run the analysis with the 7500 lbf impact loading, the floor of the vehicle as was shown to lack bracing to the first cross member. Figures 10 and 11 show the results of the analysis. Figure 10 is an overall view of the frame and the stress it sees. From examining this overall view an area of concern and redesign was identified. This area is the front section of the floor. A close up of this area of concern is shown in Figure 11. In the image the scale is shown on the upper right. In all images of the finite element analysis completed in this project the scale has any sections seeing failure (stresses above 63.1 ksi ) red in color.

Figure 10: Front Impact Overall Stress View

Figure 10: Front Impact Detailed Stress View

After having reviewed the stress concentration it was decided that some sort of triangulation of the floor through additional member was in order. The two members added to the design are shown in Figure 12.

Additional Floor Bracing Figure 12: Additional Floor Bracing.

After having added these members, a second analysis using identical loading constraints was completed. A close up of the high stress area seen in the initial analysis is shown in Figure 13. It can be seen that the large failure area has been reduced to a few small localized areas of yielding.

Figure 13: Final Stress Loading Frontal Impact

Side Impact The next step in the analysis was to analyze a side impact with a 5 G load. This is equivalent to a loading force of 3750 lbf. The point of application of this force is shown in Figure 14. The overall view of the resulting stress is shown in Figure 15, and a detailed view of that stress is shown in Figure 16.

Figure 14: Side Impact - Loading Point of Application

Figure 15: Side Impact Overall Stress View

Figure 16: Side Impact Detailed Stress View

After looking at the detailed view of the stress seen by frame due to the impact it is evident that some support to the center of the side impact member is needed. It would be best if the support ties into the nodes along the bottom of the frame at the front and rear. A side view of the design decided upon is shown in Figure 17, as it most clearly represents the addition.

Additional Bracing Figure 17: Additional Side Bracing

After adding the bracing to the side members an analysis using identical parameters was run. The resulting stress in the affected area is shown in Figure 18. As can be seen in the picture, the stresses were significantly decreased with the addition of the supports to the side member.

Figure 18: Final Stress Loading Side Impact

Shock Mount Loading The next step in the analysis was to analyze the stresses on the shock mounts caused by a 5 G load on the shock mounts. This is equivalent to a loading force of 3750 lbf. The Loading was applied to the 2 shock mounts in the horizontal shock hoop in the front of the vehicle. A side view of the loading application points are shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19: Shock Mount - Loading Point of Application

The resulting stresses from this loading are seen in Figures 20 and 21. Figure 20 is an overall view while Figure 21 is a close up view of the affected area.

Figure 20: Shock Mount Loading Overall Stress View

Figure 21: Shock Mount Loading Detailed Stress View

After reviewing the results of the finite element analysis is evident that some additional bracing is required to the shock mounting hoop. The recommended method used was to add supports between the side members and the perimeter hoops that also contacted the shock hoop. A side view of this addition is shown in Figure 22.

Additional Bracing

Figure 22: Additional Shock Bracing

After adding this additional bracing, the analysis was re-run using identical parameters. The analysis resulted in the following stresses as shown in Figure 23. The additional brace ties the shock mount into a nearby load and also will help brace the perimeter hoop.

Figure 23: Shock Mount Loading Final stress

Rollover Impact The Final step in the analysis was to analyze the stress on the roll cage caused by a rollover with a 2.5 G load on the cage. This is equivalent to a loading force of 1875 lbf. The Loading was applied to the upper forward corner of the perimeter hoop with a combination vector sideways and downward. Figure 24 shows the point of application for the loading on the roll cage. The load was chosen to be on a single corner as this would be a worst case scenario rollover.

Figure 24: Rollover Impact Loading Point of Application

An overall view of the resulting stress is shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25: Roll Over Impact Overall Stress View

As can be seen in Figure 25 even with a 2.5G loading, there is extreme stress on the roll hoop design. The Roll hoop sees significant loading at the point of contact with the shock hoop supports as well as the point of the upper forward bends in the perimeter hoops. The ideal method of support would be the addition of a support from the side member to this bend. The problem is that this member would not work with the suspension or steering designs decided upon, and would also impede the drivers ability to get out of the vehicle in and emergency. Figure 26 shows a detailed view of the upper forward bend of the perimeter hoop to show if the addition of additional bracing in the roof would be useful.

Figure 26: Rollover Impact Detailed Stress View

In an effort to stiffen the roll hoop the addition of a cross member in the roof to triangulate between the two perimeter roll hoops was added. This addition is shown in Figure 27.

Top Bracing

Figure 27: Additional Roof Support

After the addition of the support in the roof, another analysis was run using identical parameters as before. The addition of this top bracing member, showed no appreciable changed in the stress of the frame. A view of the analysis with the addition of the top bracing is shown in Figure 28.

Figure 28: Final Stress- Rollover Impact

While the addition of the top bracing did lessen the stress on some sections of the perimeter roll hoop, it was not able to reduce the stress in the areas with high concentrations, such as the bends and the point at which the perimeter hoop meets the shock bracing. While this the addition of another support member was not possible in the

design of this frame do to pre existing conditions such as the suspension design, steering method and driver safety it is the authors recommendation that future frame design have the following support member as shown in Figure 29. The suggested member is drawn in red.

Figure 29: Future Design Recommendation

The difficulty with the addition of this member is that it will either require an entire redesign of the suspension and steering design or a complete redesign of the frame. The weakness of the cage in this spot was however a feature that was kept in mind during the usage of the vehicle. This weakness proved evident in the real world usage.

Real World Testing Results

In the course of the usage of this frame design during the 2004-2005 MiniBaja season, the structural properties of the frame came into account on multiple occasions. While there was absolutely no issue with the frontal impact, side impact, or shock mount loading; there was a problem with the rollover impact loading. In the course of the Suspension Event, the car was subjected to a high speed rollover. The vehicle landed a jump at an awkward angle, caught a corner and flipped at high speed (approximately 35mph). The cage bent in the fashion predicated in the Rollover Impact Analysis. This can be seen below in Figure 30. As can be seen by the displacements, the majority of the stresses were at the bend and the point at which the perimeter hoop meets the shock mount bracing. These failure points are de3monstrated with arrows in Figure 30. While this can be considered a failure in the terms of structural integrity, it does validate the analysis performed in the course of this thesis. The addition of the member discussed in the previous section and shown in Figure 29 would have most likely prevented the failure.

Point of Failure

Figure 30: Actual Roll Cage Failure

The following illustration shows the areas of failure in the equivalent finite element analysis.

Point of Failure

Figure 31: Roll Cage Failure in FEA

Conclusion
The usage of finite element analysis was invaluable to the design and analysis of the frame for Northeasterns MiniBaja Car. The analysis allowed the addition of three important and key structural components to help the vehicle with stand front and side impacts as well as the forces due to the loading of the shock mounts. While a viable solution to the stresses seen in a rollover type impact could not be found due to the set design constraints, the finite element analysis gave a very accurate prediction of where failure would occur in this situation. This prediction was validated in an actual rollover occurrence. Even though a fix was unable to be implemented in this frame design, the findings from the finite element analysis and the actual failure will allow future designers to integrate a solution to this problem into their design from the beginning.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Professor Hashemi for his constant support over the course of this thesis. Also, for their help with the usage Algor, I would like to thank Chris Mickiewicz and the Algor Users Group. Their experience and advice was invaluable to my ability to make an accurate analysis.

Bibliography
1 Consolidated Rules For Mini Baja East, Midwest and Mini Baja 100, Society of Automotive Engineers, September 2004. http://www.matweb.com Elert, Glenn. Acceleration That Would Kill a Human, http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/YuriyRafailov.shtml Linder, Astrid; Avery, Matthew. Change of Velocity and Pulse Characteristics in Rear Impacts: Real World and Vehicle Tests Data, The Motor Insurance Repair and Research Centre. Thatcham, United Kingdom. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/esv/esv18/cd/files/18ESV-000285.pdf

2 3

Appendix A

SECTION 3 ROLL CAGE, SYSTEMS AND DRIVERS EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS

30. INTRODUCTION The following design requirements apply to all Mini Baja competitions. A few of the regulations may not pertain to all events. For example, the rules concerning deep water only apply to Mini Baja East. These design and technical rules will be strictly enforced. It is the responsibility of each team to meet all technical requirements. Failure to do so may mean disqualification from the competition. If you have any doubts about any technical requirement, present your questions, by email, to the National Technical Inspectors who will make the ir best efforts to respond within 2 weeks. 30.1 Rules Requirements and Restrictions 30.1.1 Technical Inspection All Mini Baja vehicles must pass a technical inspection before they are permitted to compete. Once a vehicle has passed technical inspection it must remain in as approved condition throughout the competition. Repairs must be made with identical parts. 30.1.2 Required Modifications All installations and construction are subject to the approval of the technical inspectors, who may require modifications at their discretion. All competitors should be prepared to note these modifications during technical inspections. 30.1.3 Unsafe Vehicles Any vehicle exhibiting handling or other vehicle dynamics that are deemed unsafe or unstable by the technical inspectors will not be permitted to participate in the dynamic events. 31. ROLL CAGE 31.1 Objective

The purpose of the drivers roll cage is to prevent the driver who is wearing a restraint system from being crushed or seriously injured in the event of an impact or a rollover. The cage must be large enough for a the drivers helmet to be 12.7 cm (5 inches) away from a straight-edge applied to any two places on the structure of the car, excluding the drivers seat and the rear driver safety supports.

16

31.2 Roll Cage Requirements 31.2.1 Elements of the Roll Cage The elements of the roll cage are : Rear Roll Hoop Lateral Diagonal Bracing Roll Hoop Overhead members Lower Frame Side members Side Impact members Front Bracing members Fore-Aft Bracing members Lateral Crossmember (RRH) (LDB) (RHO) (LFS) (SIM) (FBM) (FAB) (LC) Rule 31.2.2 Rule 31.2.3 Rule 31.2.4 Rule 31.2.5 Rule 31.2.6 Rule 31.2.7 Rule 31.2.8 Rules 31.2.4 - 31.2.6

All the above shall be made of material meeting specifications per 31.4. Reference points: See drawings in this section. NOTE: Dimensional requirements: All dimensions relative to tubing are center-to-center unless otherwise noted. 31.2.2 Rear Roll Hoop (RRH) Rear Roll Hoop shall be attached to the Lower Frame Side members (LFS) at a point behind the drivers seat. These junctions define Point AR on the right side and point AL on the left side. The drivers seat may not intrude into the plane(s) of the RRH. The upper junctions in straight-tube construction shall define points BR and BL. (See R1A) If bent-tube construction is used, points BR and BL will occur at the upper end of each bend. (See R1B) The radii of the upper bends at the tube center may not be greater than 5. Points B shall be located above the drivers seat by a minimum of 41 inches and behind the drivers head as defined in section 31.3. The RRH shall extend upward vertically +/-20 degrees from points A to points B. (See R1C) If the RRH is defined by more than one plane or if the RRH verticals are not straight in a rear view, sound engineering practice must apply. (See R1D)

17

31.2.3 Rear Roll Hoop Lateral Diagonal Bracing (LDB) Lateral Bracing for the Rear Roll Hoop shall begin at a point along the vertical portion of the RRH within 5 vertically of point BL or BR and extend diagonally to a point no farther that 2 above point AR or AL respectively. (See R1E) The angle between the vertical of the RRH and the LDB must be no less than 20 degrees. Lateral bracing may consist of two or more members if needed. (See R1F)

BRACING THAT DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENTS Re: Sections 31.2.4 thru 31.2.7.2: It is understood that each definition requires a right side and a left side. 31.2.4 Roll Hoop Overhead members (RHO) Roll Hoop Overhead members shall join the RRH within 2 inches vertically or laterally of points B and extend generally horizontally to points C. (See R2A) The RHO shall be located above the drivers seat by a minimum of 41 inches and points C shall be located forward of the drivers seat by a minimum of 12 inches as defined in section 31.3. (See R2B) Points CR and CL shall be joined by a lateral crossmember (LC). (See R2A)

18

31.2.5 Lower Frame Side members (LFS) Lower frame side members shall join the RRH at points A and shall extend forward and generally horizontal to points AF forward of the drivers heal. A lateral crossmember (LC) shall join point AF R to point AF L. (See R3)

31.2.6 Side Impact members (SIM) Side impact members shall join the RRH at points S and extend generally horizontal to points SF forward of the drivers toes. (See R4A) The SIM shall be between 6 and 12 (as measured vertically) above the lowest part of the seat in contact with the driver. From any direction, there shall be at least 2 clearance between the SIM and the drivers hips. Points SFR and SFL shall be joined by a lateral crossmember (LC) . NOTE: The drivers feet must be behind the plane created by points AFR,L and SFR,L.

31.2.7 Front Bracing members (FBM) Front bracing members shall join the RHO, the SIM and the LFS. (See R5A) The upper Front Bracing members (FBMUP ) shall extend generally downward and forward and join points C on the RHO to the SIM at or behind points SF. The angle between the FBMUP and the vertical shall be less than 45 degrees. At the point where the FBMUP joins the SIM, the lower Front Bracing members (FBMLWR) shall extend generally downward and join the SIM to the LFS at or behind points AF. The angle between the FBMLWR and the vertical shall be less than 45 degrees. 19

31.2.8 Fore-Aft Bracing members (FAB) Fore-Aft bracing members shall be provided for the cage using either of the following methods: 31.2.8.1 Front Fore -Aft Bracing Front FABUP shall extend generally downward from points D and join the FBMUP to the SIM at points E. The angle between the Front FABUP and the FBMUP shall be at least 30 degrees. (See R6A) Front FABLWR must join points E and the LFS. (See R6A) The angle between the Front FABUP and the Front FABLWR must not be greater than 15 degrees in a side view. If two FABLWR members are needed, the angle between the two members must not be greater than 90 degrees. (See R6B)

31.2.8.2 Rear Bracing From a side view, construction must be entirely of contiguous triangles, with the maximum length of any member not to exceed 32 between attachment points. A bent tube not exceeding 28 between attachment points may be considered as one side of a triangle. Rear bracing must as a minimum include FAB Upper, FAB Mid (a generally horizontal brace per side connecting FAB Up or FAB lwr to the RRH), and FAB Lower (See: Rrh 14 ok, Rrh 12 not ok). Additionally, at least one horizontal crossmember (HMX) must connect the left and right sides of the rear bracing, attached within 15 of the center of the outer perimeter (as viewed from the side) 20

of the rear bracing. (See HXM Lateral OK.) Rear bracing must attach within 2 of Br and Bl, extend rearward beyond all engine componentry, and connect at or belo w Sr and Sl to the RRH. The lower attachments (at or below Sr and Sl) must be connected directly to the RRH (may not be inboard). (See below) NOTE: Bent tube construction must not show any signs of stress tear or buckling. Please be aware that if your roll cage shows any problems in the bend area your team will need to fix it before you are allowed to compete.

Rrh 1 OK

Rrh 1 NOT OK
NOT CONTIGUOUS TRIANGLES

Rrh

2 OK

Rrh 2 NOT OK
NOT CONTIGUOUS TRIANGLE

O UTER P ERIMETER

Rrh

3 OK

Rrh 4 OK

HXM LATERAL OK

31.2.9 Final Judgment The roll cage structure defined in this section is intended to protect the driver. The design rules are considered a minimum but the final judgment as to safety will rest with the National Technical Inspectors. COMMENT: Note that in all cases, especially bent-tube construction, event judges may require additional bracing if they feel the roll cage does not offer adequate crushprotection. 31.3 Driver Head Clearance

For driver head clearance, the roll cage must extend a minimum of 104.14 cm (41 inches) above the seating surface to the bottom of the upper roll cage tubes measured vertically using the Template in Figure 1. The template radiused bottom should be placed in the joint of the seat 21

base and the seat backrest and positioned vertically. The template tee top describes the projection of the required clearance height forward and rearward. While the clearance height forward is fixed by the template, the clearance height rearward must be extended in each design over the helmet top of a seated and secured driver. Taller drivers may be accommodated by lengthening the template vertical member and raising the entire clearance height envelope above the 104.14 cm (41 inches) minimum. 31.3.1 Head Clearance - Minimum In all cases, a minimum of 12.7 mm (5 inches) vertical clearance must be provided from the helmet top of the teams tallest driver to the bottom of the roll cage top tubes or members. FIGURE 1 ROLL CAGE DESIGN

31.4

Roll Cage & Bracing Materials

The material used for all of the required roll cage members must, as a minimum, be either: (a) Circular steel tubing with an outside diameter of 25.4 mm (1 inch) and a wall thickness of 2.10mm (0.083 inch) and a carbon content of at least 0.18. Or (b) Steel members with at least equal bending stiffness and bending strength to 1018 steel having a circular cross section having a 25.4 mm (1 inch) OD and a wall thickness of 2.10 mm (0.083 inch). The bending stiffness and bending strength have to be calculated about an axis that gives the lowest value. Bending stiffness is proportional by the EI product and bending strength is given by the value of S yI/c, (for 1018 steel the values are; Sy = 370 Mpa (53.7 ksi) E=205 GPa (29,700 ksi). E = the modulus of elasticity 22

I = the second moment of area for the cross section about the axis giving the lowest va lue Sy = the yield strength of material in units of force per unit area c = the distance from the neutral axis to the extreme fiber NON-STEEL ROLL CAGES ARE PROHIBITED 31.4.1 Roll Cage Specification Sheet All teams must submit a copy of the SAE Mini Baja Roll Cage Specification Sheet (See Section 8 Forms & Deadlines) to the National Technical Inspectors during technical inspection. These forms must be completed for each competition. Complete roll cage specifications must be supplied with the Roll Cage Specification Sheet. Teams that do not submit a Roll Cage Specification Sheet will not be allowed to compete. NOTE: Judges recommend that material documentation may be mailed with the roll cage specification sheet. (see 31.4.5) 31.4.2 Roll Cage Padding The cockpits frame tubes must be padded with resilient material in the area around the drivers head. Recommended materials are ethafoam or ensolite. In addition, a head rest of at least 25.4 mm (1 inch) thick resilient material must be mounted behind the drivers head. 31.4.3 Inspection Holes The National Technical Inspectors will instruct the students where to drill two 4.5mm (.18 inch) diameter holes during initial tech inspection. 31.4.4 Sharp Edges on Roll Cage - Prohibited All sharp edges which might endanger the driver, crew, officials and safety staff must be eliminated by radiusing, shielding and/or padding. This includes brackets, gussets, sheet stock, fastener ends, clamps, ty-raps or other features accessible during servicing, judging or competition impact or roll over. 31.4.5 Materials - Documentation Teams are required to bring with them Safety Inspection documentation (invoices, bills, etc.) of the materials used in the roll cage and bracing. Teams may also submit this information as an attachment to the Roll Cage Specification Sheet.

23

31.5

Bolted Roll Cages

Bolted roll cages are acceptable only if the following requirements are met (a) Flanges or tabs must be twice (2X) the thickness of the tube structures, made of the same material type. They must be properly welded to each tubing part to be joined (b) Flange mounts must be twice (2X) the diameter of the attached tubing, flush mated, with no gap between the faces greater than 0.07 mm (0.003) inches (c) Tab mounts must be dual, parallel and on each side of the tubing to which they are welded, having a welded length of at least twice (2X) the diameter of the adjoined. Tubing held by bolt must be reinforced such that the area through which the bolt passes cannot be compressed from tightening or impact. 32. COCKPIT 32.1 Design Objective

The cockpit must be designed to (1) protect the driver and (2) permit easy driver exit in an emergency. 32.2 Driver Exit Time Maximum time for a driver to exit the vehicle is five (5) seconds. Teams should be prepared to demonstrate this requirement with any driver. 32.3 Firewall A firewall between the cockpit and the engine and fuel tank compartment is mandatory. This firewall must be metal, at least 0.508 mm (0.020 inches) thick, and must completely separate the engine compartment and fuel tank from the cockpit. Cutouts for the pull starter will be allowed, only if their design meets sidewall safety standards. 32.3.1 Front or Mid-engine Cars If the engine is not placed in the rear of car then it must meet the following standards: (a) Gas tank must be in a sealed container that prevents fuel from leaking in the event of gas tank failure. (b) Splash shields must prevent fuel from being poured anywhere in the cockpit area during fueling. (See rule 35.4 Spill Prevention) (c) Engine must be completely enclosed and protect the driver in the event of a engine failure, shielding must meet guarding requirements (See rule 38.1 Powertrain Guards). (d) Driver must be able to still egress from either side of the vehicle. (e) The exhaust must not exit towards the driver and must be shielded. 24