TAU RACING: DESIGN OF A FULLY ADJUSTABLE

PEDAL BOX

Submitted by
Louise Crawford
51443602

Supervisor: Dr Peter Dunning

This project was submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
MEng degree in Mechanical Engineering at the School of
Engineering, University of Aberdeen

April 2018
Abstract
The Formula Student competition tasks teams of university students to design
and manufacture a single seat race car to present to a theoretical customer while
also being scrutinised by a judging panel. The purpose of this project was to
design an adjustable pedal box suitable for use in the Team Aberdeen University
car which will compete at the Formula Student competition. The main goal was
to include an element of adjustability to improve on last year’s pedal box design,
along with other objectives like minimising weight and cost. An in depth look into
research papers and articles was conducted along with designs of similar style
pedal boxes to gain an understanding of the components included in the pedal
box and the theory behind them. The methods of finite element analysis and
topology optimisation were also explored in order to get to know the techniques
which were used in the final design before they were implemented. Initial design
concepts were then created and compared in order to select the best options for
the final design. Finite Element Analysis was used to determine that the brake
pedal would perform under strong forces without failure and Topology
Optimisation was used to enhance the design of the brake pedal.

1
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Formula Student............................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Team Aberdeen University Racing ............................................................................... 4
1.3 Fixed vs. Adjustable Pedal Box ..................................................................................... 5
1.4 Motivation and Aims ........................................................................................................ 5
2. Background and Requirements ........................................................................................... 6
2.1 Analysis of current pedal box design ............................................................................ 6
2.2 Requirements and Desires ............................................................................................. 7
2.2.1 Requirements from FSAE rules.............................................................................. 7
2.2.2 Requirements from TAU Racing ............................................................................ 8
2.2.3 Desires from TAU Racing........................................................................................ 8
2.3 Interdependencies ........................................................................................................... 9
2.3.1 Brakes ........................................................................................................................ 9
2.3.2 Throttle ....................................................................................................................... 9
2.3.3 Clutch ....................................................................................................................... 10
2.3.4 Frame ....................................................................................................................... 10
2.3.5 Position of Driver seat ............................................................................................ 11
2.3.6 Bulkhead .................................................................................................................. 11
2.4 Constraints ...................................................................................................................... 12
3. Literature Review and Theory ............................................................................................ 12
3.1 Assorted styles of pedal box ........................................................................................ 12
3.2 Pedal Ratio ..................................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Master Cylinders ............................................................................................................ 14
3.4 Forces .............................................................................................................................. 18
3.5 Method of Topology Optimisation................................................................................ 19
4. Initial Design Concepts ....................................................................................................... 22
4.1 Platform ........................................................................................................................... 22
4.2 Brake Pedal .................................................................................................................... 25
4.3 Position of Master Cylinders ........................................................................................ 26
4.4 Ideal Pedal Ratio ............................................................................................................ 27
4.5 Throttle and Clutch ........................................................................................................ 27
5. Final Design .......................................................................................................................... 28
5.1 Design Decisions ........................................................................................................... 28
5.2 Detailed Design and Calculations ............................................................................... 30

2
 5.2.1 Brake Pedal ............................................................................................................. 30
5.2.1.1 Brake Pedal Geometry ................................................................................... 30
5.2.1.2 Brake Pedal Calculations ............................................................................... 32
5.2.1.3 Brake Pedal Summary.................................................................................... 35
5.2.2 Brake Bias ............................................................................................................... 36
5.2.3 Throttle Mechanism ................................................................................................ 37
5.2.4 Throttle and Clutch Pedal ...................................................................................... 38
5.2.5 Pedal Box Platform ................................................................................................. 39
5.3 Final Design Summary .................................................................................................. 40
6. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) ........................................................................................... 41
7. Topology Optimisation......................................................................................................... 42
8. Conclusions........................................................................................................................... 45
Appendix .................................................................................................................................... 46
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 48

3
1. Introduction
1.1 Formula Student

Held annually at Silverstone Racing Circuit, Formula Student is Europe’s most

recognised event for university students who are from an engineering
background and have a keen interest to compete in motorsport. It challenges
teams of young engineers to design and build from scratch a single-seat race car
with the intention of presenting the final product to a theoretical customer [1]. The
competition gives students the chance to physically apply knowledge they have
gained during their academic time while simultaneously learning hands-on
engineering skills. It offers the opportunity for students to showcase and advance
their engineering abilities in a degree-level motorsport competition. In order to
compete, teams must manufacture a brand-new car each year while following a
set of rules given by the competition organisers, the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers. The given rules are to certify that each team has an equal chance to
succeed in the competition but remain broad enough to promote learning and
creativity when designing.

Formula Student is comprised of both static and dynamic events to test each
teams design and award points based on how well each car performs. The static
events consist of activities that judge the technical ability of the cars like the tilt
test, a brake and noise test, and a business presentation to a theoretical client.
[2]. On the other hand, the dynamic events are intended to test the physical
performance of the cars and include activities such as a sprint, endurance test,
fuel economy test and acceleration test. A combination of both static and dynamic
events offers a total of 1000 points for teams to win, 325 for the static events and
675 for the dynamic events.

1.2 Team Aberdeen University Racing

In 2007, ten undergraduate engineering students of differing degree backgrounds

formed Team Aberdeen University (TAU) Racing. The team now consists of more
than 50 students from various degree programmes, ranging from engineering
students to business students, and is split into multiple sub-teams. These sub-
teams include engine, electronics, powertrain, brakes and uprights and many
more [3]. Each year the team aims to design and manufacture a single seat race

4
car to compete in the Formula Student competition. Through working as a team
on a degree-level project, team members gain useful skills like team
management, communication and time management, which will be used later in
life on industry standard tasks. TAU Racing is exclusively funded by sponsorships
from partners and associates which allows the team to continually progress the
technology used within the car, bettering the chances of success. In previous
year’s the team has had great success at competition with last year’s TAU-17 car
placing fourth overall. To build on the success of last year, the team wish to alter
the car in many ways. One of these changes is to change the design of the pedal
box so that it is adjustable rather than fixed.

1.3 Fixed vs. Adjustable Pedal Box

Both fixed and adjustable pedal boxes have their advantages and disadvantages.
Fixed pedal boxes tend to be a much simpler design whereas an adjustable set-
up is a lot more complex and time consuming if the best result is desired. With an
added element of adjustability not only the structure must be strong enough to
withstand heavy forces from the driver like in fixed pedal systems, but the
adjustable attachments must also be sturdy enough to withstand these forces.
The adjustability element also implies that throttle and clutch cables, along with
brake lines, will move with the pedal box and therefore a method fixing these to
the pedal box to avoid slacking is necessary. This does not concern fixed pedal
boxes as the components do not move. Despite some disadvantages towards
adjustable pedal boxes, it does however allow the possibility of better driving
performance by accommodating a range of driver heights. Through being able to
move the pedals to their desired position, improved driver ergonomics can be
achieved. Last year’s TAU17 racing car contained both a fixed pedal box and a
fixed driver’s seat meaning that nothing could be adjusted for comfort. An
adjustable pedal box would have better suited the car which brings the motivation
for this project.

1.4 Motivation and Aims

For the team’s performance to progress each year, it is crucial that each design
must also be developed in order to stay up to date with modern technology and
to remain ahead of other competing teams. As designs are becoming more

5
creative and extremely detailed, the time constraint each team faces remains the
same meaning it is important for team members from previous years to pass on
knowledge they have gained so that new members of the team can progress
using this knowledge. The goal of this project is to design an adjustable pedal
box that can be used by the team for years to come with minimal alterations to
the design. As previously mentioned, it is important for designs to be modern and
up to date with the latest in technology in order to be the front running team of
the competition, therefore new concepts are required to be investigated.
Reasoning for design choices regarding part and material selection will be given
along with detailed information leading up to the making of said choices. The
design of the pedal box will mainly be done using Solidworks to create the 3D
model and then Finite Element Analysis will be done using Abaqus and Ansys to
optimise parts of the design.

2. Background and Requirements

2.1 Analysis of current pedal box design

The current pedal box from the TAU17 car performs adequately regarding the
purpose it was designed for but has a lot of room for improvements. There are
many issues with the design which do not allow the driver to perform at maximum
potential and therefore also affects the cars performance. The current design
uses AP Racing CP7855 master cylinders and a simple threaded balance bar to
control brake bias. Due to an overall cost budget for the car, the master cylinders
used will likely remain the same as previous years while the method for brake
bias may change. The brake fluid reservoirs for the master cylinders are currently
welded to the bulkhead of the car as the pedal box is stationary and therefore the
fluid reservoirs do not need to move. An issue that affects the driver directly is
the attachment of a metal shield used to protect the throttle cable which causes
obstruction to the foot when using the accelerator pedal as the shield is placed
directly at the right-hand side of the pedal. Another issue affecting the pedals is
a support rail within the framework which is placed between the driver’s legs,
restricting how the brake pedal can be placed in the pedal box. Due to this
restriction, the brake pedal must be placed closer to the acceleration pedal rather

6
than being placed centrally. This creates a lack of space between the brake and
acceleration pedals leading to difficulty alternating between the two.

Currently the brake pedal design performs well due to being an over-engineered,
generally solid structure with a very high factor of safety. Excess weight could be
removed from the current design to further lighten the overall structure of the
pedal box. As the current pedal box is stationary and does not adjust lengthwise
along the car, it does not provide the maximum possible amount of comfort for
the multiple drivers who range from approximately 5’6” to 6’0” in height. Overall it
can be estimated that there is a lot of excess unnecessary weight on the pedal
box which could be removed through optimisation of the structure. Any changes
made to the current design will be limited by several given rules and regulations.

2.2 Requirements and Desires

The design of the pedal box will need to adhere to a number of requirements
given by both the official rulebook of the competition and the university racing
team itself.

2.2.1 Requirements from FSAE rules

The official Formula Student rulebook states many regulations that the overall
design of the car must follow [4]. Those that affect the pedal box can be found in
Appendix A1. These rules state that the overall braking system must contain “two
independent hydraulic circuits”, one for the front braking system and one for the
rear braking system, to ensure brake power is still possible for two wheels if
damage or failure occurs to one of the hydraulic circuits. Since two hydraulic
circuits are required, there will be two master cylinders contained within the peal
box each with their own brake fluid reservoir attached. The brake pedal must also
be able to withstand an applied force of 2000N without failure occurring.

In the 2018 Formula Student rules there was a minor change to those regarding
the required Over-Travel Switch. Previously it was only necessary that the over-
travel switch triggers if both brake circuits failed but this year a new rule was
introduced where the switch must now trigger if either one or both brake circuits
fail. All other rules regarding the over-travel switch remain the same as previous
years and can be found in Appendix A2.

7
Since the pedal box will contain both master cylinders and the fluid reservoirs
associated with them, the rule concerning non-crushable objects shown in
Appendix A3 will also affect the final design. It simply states that any non-
crushable objects, including the aforementioned master cylinders and fluid
reservoirs, must be contained behind the bulkhead of the car for safety purposes
in case of the event of a crash.

2.2.2 Requirements from TAU Racing

Several requirements have also been set by the university racing team
themselves. The main requirement for the design of this year’s pedal box is for it
to have an element of adjustability to accommodate drivers of differing heights.
As well as being able to provide drivers with a comfortable pedal position, an
adjustable pedal box will consist of a more intricate and detailed design which
ideally will gain more points when judges analyse the design at competition. The
adjustable component of the pedal box should remain simple enough that it is
quick and easy to alternate between positions during driver changes.

2.2.3 Desires from TAU Racing

Alongside the many requirements for the pedal box, there are also a few non-
essential desires and improvements the team wish to make this year. Pre-existing
mechanical issues that are to be resolved include fixing the throttle cable to the
throttle pedal in a new position so that obstruction to the driver’s foot is not
caused, and to find the correct position to attach the clutch cable so that breakage
is avoided. With regards to improving the performance of the car during
competition, a method of determining how to precisely control the brake bias
between the front and rear brakes is sought after. Along with a better method of
regulating the brake bias of the car, an improved value of pedal ratio is also
desired. Evidently it is preferred that both the weight and cost of the final
manufactured pedal box is kept as low as possible but there are no exact given
restrictions. If the pedal box is kept as light in weight as possible then it will aid in
ensuring the overall design of the car weighs as little as possible meaning better
physical performance in terms of faster acceleration and improved handling
around corners.

8
In summary, the main requirements and desires for the design are:

 To include an element of adjustability,

 The brake pedal must be able to withstand a force of 2000N without failure,
 It must contain two separate hydraulic braking circuits,
 The over-travel switch must trigger if one or both brake circuits fail,
 The throttle cable obstruction must be corrected,
 The weight and cost of the new pedal box should be kept to a minimum.

2.3 Interdependencies

As the pedal box is one of three main ways of connecting the driver with the car,
it has a large number of interdependencies with other components of the vehicle.
When designing the pedal box, it is extremely important to take into consideration
the effect the design will have on how the other components associated with it
will interact and operate. The following sections will take a more in depth look at
which components of the car interact with the pedal box and how.

2.3.1 Brakes

Without doubt the pedal box had the greatest number of interdependencies with
the braking system. As stated in the given rules [4], there must be two individual
hydraulic systems meaning there will be two master cylinders contained within
the pedal box to regulate the brake line pressure. Connected to the master
cylinders will be the balance bar which controls the brake bias between the front
and rear brakes of the car. The brake fluid reservoirs for the master cylinders will
also be contained in the pedal box to provide fluid to them but should remain in a
safe place clear of the driver’s feet. The placement of the master cylinders should
be such that the brakes can be easily bled if needed. The brake pedal should be
able to withstand the large forces applied by the driver when braking without
damage or failure.

2.3.2 Throttle

The accelerator pedal connects to the air intake system via the throttle cable. The
throttle cable simply is a straightforward cable which attaches to the accelerator
pedal in a way which causes the cable to be pulled in tension when the pedal is
pressed. It allows the driver to regulate the air intake of the engine and in turn

9
changes the amount of fuel injected to the system, therefore changing the force
provided by the engine. The pedal box should provide a place for the cable to be
mounted to avoid obstruction with the driver’s foot. The throttle cable should
return to its original resting position when there is no force applied by the driver
yet this position should be such that the cable will not bind or stick.

2.3.3 Clutch

Similar to how the accelerator pedal connects to the intake system, the clutch
pedal connects with the clutch mechanism via the clutch cable. Much like the
throttle cable, the clutch cable is also a straightforward pull cable which is
attached to the clutch pedal in a way that the cable is pulled in tension when the
pedal is pressed. When the pedal is pressed and the cable in tension, the clutch
mechanism allows the clutch to disengage and the driver can then change gears.
The clutch cable should also be mounted to the pedal box in a way that does not
cause interference with the driver’s foot and should return to its original resting
position when an applied force from the driver is absent.

2.3.4 Frame

The pedal box is required to fit within the area of the lower frame rails which
determine the width of the chassis. The length between the bulkhead and the
lower front suspension rail determines the maximum length available to fit both
the pedal box and space for adjustability. In addition to the size of the pedal box
being restricted by horizontal lengths (Figure 1), the vertical distance between the
lower and upper rails of the chassis also cause constraint (Figure 2) as both the
pedal box and the driver’s shoes must fit within this domain. The frame must also
be rigid enough to be able to withstand the forces applied by the pedal box when
the driver operates the pedals.

10
 Figure 1. Top view of front section of chassis Figure 2. Side view of front section of chassis

2.3.5 Position of Driver seat

The placement and angle of the pedals on the pedal box will be dependent on
how the driver’s seat is positioned. The distance from the driver’s seat to the
pedal box is negligible because the horizontal position of the pedals will be able
to adjust to suit drivers of differing heights. Depending whether the driver’s knees
are bent or straight while seated will also affect the initial angle of the pedals as
both positions will produce different angles for comfort and maximum
performance from the driver.

2.3.6 Bulkhead

The only interdependencies between the pedal box and the bulkhead are
mentioned in the official rules given for the competition. The rules given in
Appendix A3 state that “All non-crushable objects (e.g. batteries, master
cylinders, hydraulic reservoirs) must be rearward of the rear most plane of the
front bulkhead” [4], meaning that the master cylinders and fluid reservoirs
contained within the pedal box must remain behind the bulkhead at all times. The
initial position of the pedals is also required to remain behind the bulkhead but
can travel beyond that point if desired. Although it is allowed it is not
recommended as the impact attenuator would then have to be modified to allow
pedals to travel within it.

11
2.4 Constraints

The most apparent constraint is the size domain of the chassis for which the pedal
box must be fitted inside. Due to the design of the impact attenuator on the front
of the car the width of the chassis cannot be adjusted, only the length if needed.
The design of the pedals themselves also face the size constraint of how large or
small the driver’s shoes are. This will affect both the size of the pedal and the
angle at which they sit. The comfort of the driver also needs to be taken into
account when designing. Another constraint is the large forces which the brake
pedal will be under from the driver. These forces will continue throughout the
pedal box therefore affecting some design concepts for the components and
framework.

3. Literature Review and Theory

3.1 Assorted styles of pedal box

Pedal boxes are not a new concept and so it was not required to design from
scratch but instead already existing designs could be used as reference as to
where to start. Research papers and articles were used along with designs of
similar style pedal boxes to gain an understanding of the components included
and the physics behind them. The pedal box itself includes a clutch pedal, throttle
pedal, and brake pedal along with the master cylinders. Brake fluid reservoirs
may be included depending on the type of pedal box and the model of master
cylinders used. Modern pedal boxes are typically designed with an objective of
minimising cost and weight while maximising strength and durability. The two
types of available pedal boxes are floor mounted or top mounted. Better
understanding of the layout of the two types can be gathered from the pictures
shown below in Figures 3 and 4.

12
 Figure 3. Floor mounted pedal box [5] Figure 4. Top mounted pedal box [6]

Both arrangements are attached to the frame of the car using different methods
with the master cylinders also being fitted alternatively for both. The style of pedal
box used is dependent on the space available from the design of the chassis but
for racing vehicles floor mounted are the most commonly used due to the larger
range of motion available for the throttle pedal so that greater acceleration can
be achieved.

There are a multitude of available material options to construct pedal boxes

ranging from standard metals to advanced polymer composites. Manufacturing
the pedals and other components from composite materials would be beneficial
due to the high stiffness and resistance to corrosion of the material [7]. Using
composite materials to manufacture parts would also help reduce the overall
weight of the pedal box but would need to ensure the material chosen for the
brake pedal was robust enough to withstand the large forces transferred through
it to the master cylinders. The cost of using composite materials compared to
standard materials would also need to be taken into account as composite
materials can be expensive to use and therefore may only be used sparingly.

3.2 Pedal Ratio

For standard pedal layouts, brake pedal ratio tends to rise when the pedal travels
further. If the rate at which the pedal ratio rises is too high then braking will feel
very abrupt which will not be comfortable for the driver. However, if the location
of the input force from the driver and the output force of the brake pedal remain
the same in relation to the pivot point then the ratio is known as the “fixed pedal
ratio” [8] and is the most common pedal ratio used for brake pedals. Pedal ratio
can be defined as the total length of the brake pedal divided by the distance from

13
where the master cylinders connect to the pedal to the pedal pivot point. It can
be calculated using the following formula.

𝑃1 𝐹𝑏
pedal ratio = = (Eqn.1)
𝑃2 𝐹𝑑

Where 𝑃1 is the overall length of the pedal, 𝑃2 is the distance from the pedal pivot
point to the attachment point of the master cylinders, 𝐹𝑏 is the output force of the
brake pedal assembly and 𝐹𝑑 is the input force from the driver [9], all shown in
Figure 5 below. This equation assumes that all parts of the brake pedal assembly
are entirely efficient and experience no energy loss but in reality, this would not
be the case due to factors like friction.

Figure 5. Dimensions for brake pedal ratio

The input force on the brake pedal from the driver can be multiplied by the pedal
ratio as a way to find the output force of the pedal. This can be done as the pedal
ratio is essentially the percentage of input force the pedal applies to the master
cylinders [10]. When the driver uses the brakes, the value of output load for the
brake pedal will grow rapidly for a given input load to the pedal. It is essential that
the selected pedal ratio will provide an output force adequate enough to allow the
master cylinder to perform a full stroke and return to its original location [11].
Calculations may need to be repeated numerous times to achieve the correct
ratio.

3.3 Master Cylinders

The master cylinders are a very crucial component of a car braking system and
must be looked after correctly for them to function at their best. They operate by
a piston moving lengthways through the bore of the master cylinder when the

14
brake pedal is pressed. The pushrod in the master cylinder must ensure that the
piston returns to its original position when there is no force on the brake pedal,
allowing the cylinder to top-up with fluid between brake uses. The piston applies
a force to the fluid contained within the master cylinder and creates an increase
in pressure. This increase in pressure is then transported through hydraulic lines
to slave cylinders held in the brake caliper on each wheel [9]. The pressure at the
master cylinders is also used as force to trigger the brake pads. If the master
cylinders are correctly sized it is possible for all four individual tyres to produce
the same braking power without skidding [12].

Master cylinders are attached to the brake pedal in the pedal box and have the
balance bar between them which controls brake bias. In braking systems where
there are two master cylinders and a balance bar it is very important to check for
binding as it can deviate the brake balance [11]. Brake fluid is delivered to the
master cylinders from the fluid reservoirs usually located above them but can be
positioned anywhere so long as gravitational forces are not able to expose the
fuel holes and let air into the master cylinders. This is shown below in Figures 6
and 7. Typically, two master cylinders are used in a braking system, one to control
the braking circuit for the front wheels and one to control the rear wheels. There
are several different ways of positioning the master cylinders depending on
aspects like space available to place them or the outcome you wish to get from
them.

Figure 6. Master cylinder with fluid Figure 7. Master cylinder with

reservoir fitted directly above remotely located fluid reservoir

15
Forward facing master cylinders are the most conventional and commonly used.
In this position, the master cylinders are in front of the pedals, towards the
bulkhead and away from the driver. Due to the simplicity of this positioning,
design and manufacturing of the brake pedal system is straightforward and cost
effective. Since the master cylinders are placed in a horizontal position, the brake
fluid reservoirs are able to be mounted directly above them meaning less use of
materials like tubing and also allows for the brakes to be bled easily if required.
A downside to the master cylinders being placed in this horizontal position in front
of the pedals is that it adds extra length to the pedal box which in turn decreases
the amount of available space for adjustability. An advantage to forward facing
cylinders is calculating the forces which will be applied to the components is very
simple. Pedal ratio can simply be taken as the total length of the brake pedal
divided by the distance from the pedal pivot point to where the master cylinders
are attached to the brake pedal [9]. The straightforwardness of this design means
that if weight is desired to be cut from the pedal box, then it can only be removed
from the supporting frame or the design of the brake pedal itself. This can be
done through optimisation of the structures. At competition, Formula Student
judges scrutinise cars based on how complex and intricate the design of each
part is. The simplicity of this layout may restrict the amount of points gained for
the braking system as a whole [2] but sometimes simpler designs produce better
performance results.

Rear facing master cylinders are less commonly used and are found mounted
behind the pedals, on the driver side of them. It can be done by either using two
push type master cylinders fixed on both sides of the driver’s foot, provided the
pedal pivot point of the brake pedal is above the cylinders, or pull type master
cylinders can be used and placed beneath the driver’s foot. There are many
negative issues associated with rear facing master cylinders. Fluid reservoirs for
pull type master cylinders cannot be mounted directly above them and need to
be mounted elsewhere meaning more plumbing is needed leading to more
expense. If the push type cylinders are used then they must be positioned at a
distance large enough apart so that the driver’s foot can fit between them thus
possibly increasing the overall width of the car which will affect other components
of the car. Since the push type require the pedal pivot point of the brake pedal to

16
be above the master cylinders, this means that the distance from the master
cylinders to the pivot point will be larger than usual and in turn affect the pedal
ratio in a negative way. An advantage to this style of master cylinder placement
is the minimised overall length of the pedal box which would leave more room for
adjustability.

Angled master cylinders, also known as vertical master cylinders, are a more
complex way of positioning but can be extremely beneficial if done correctly. They
use a spherical bearing mount to be able to be placed at an angle which can
reduce the overall length of the pedal box compared to regular forward-facing
cylinders [13]. Since the layout is more intricate, complications can arise when
designing and conducting calculations. When calculating the pedal ratio for the
brake pedal, the difference in length of the master cylinders and the angle of the
pedal now need to be found through the use of calculations [14]. This type of
angled positioning may also be less cost effective due to spherical bearing
mounted master cylinders being more expensive than standard push type and
also due to the need for the fluid reservoirs to be mounted in a location slightly
away from the cylinders meaning more materials are used in connecting the two.
Depending on the angle at which the master cylinders are positioned, bleeding of
the brakes may be problematic. Despite the numerous difficulties associated with
angled cylinders, there are also many advantages to using them. Due to the angle
of the force on the master cylinder from the brake pedal, the framework of the
pedal box will mostly feel these forces in the vertical direction as opposed to
horizontally. These forces also allow for the brake pedal to weigh less, reducing
the overall weight of the pedal box. If optimised correctly, weight could be
removed from other components of the pedal box like the framework or other
pedals. The possibility for a lightweight yet complex design could gain more
points when judged at the Formula Student competition.

In summary:

 Forward facing master cylinders are the most commonly used,

 They are a simple design meaning that they are a straightforward and cost-
effective choice,

17
  A downside is unnecessary added length to the pedal box leaving less
room for adjustability,
 Rear facing master cylinders are less commonly used,
 There are many negatives associated with this style including: more
plumbing needed due to remote fluid reservoirs, the possibility for the need
of a wider pedal box, and the pedal ratio is also affected in a negative way.
 Angled master cylinders are more complex and expensive but can be very
beneficial.
 Many advantages of this style include: a minimised length of pedal box
compared to the standard horizontal style, most of the forces felt by the
framework are vertical, and the possibility exists for a lighter brake pedal
due to these vertical forces.

3.4 Forces

The force transferred from the driver through the brake pedal to the master
cylinders and the braking system as a whole is reliant on the pedal ratio of the
brake pedal. Force from the brake pedal reaches the master cylinders via a
balance bar which disperses the force between the two master cylinders. The
force transferred to the bias bar, Fb, can be calculated by:

𝐹𝑏 = 𝐹𝑑 × 𝑝𝑒𝑑𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 (Eqn. 2)

Where Fd is the force provided from the driver. This equation shows that if pedal
ratio was to be increased then the output force to the balance bar would also
increase. When the threaded balance bar is adjusted, the gap between the two
master cylinders stays the same but the ratio of force distribution will no longer
be equal. The distribution of force between the front and rear master cylinders
can be found through using the reactions of a simply supported beam to obtain
the following equations.

𝐵1
𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑦𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟, 𝐹𝑓 = 𝐹𝑏 × 𝐵 (Eqn. 3)
1 +𝐵2

𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑦𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟, 𝐹𝑟 = 𝐹𝑏 − 𝐹𝑓 (Eqn. 4)

Where Fb is the force transferred to the bias bar, B1 is the distance from the rear
master cylinder to the bearing on the bias bar, and B 2 is the distance from the

18
front master cylinder to the bias bar bearing [9]. A diagram of the front and rear
master cylinder and brake bias set up is shown below in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Rear master cylinder (left) and front master cylinder (right) with brake bias and bias ratio

From the above equations, it can be seen that the proportion of front braking
forces to rear braking forces is dependent on the physical size of the parts
included in the pedal box. It is stated in the Formula Student competition rules
that the brake pedal must be able to withstand a force of 2000N without it or any
component of the pedal box failing [4] but in reality, the force needed to lock all
four wheels up is around 375N [9].

3.5 Method of Topology Optimisation

Structural optimisation can be divided into three individual sub categories;

topology, shape and size optimisation. The three kinds of optimisation have some
mild overlapping in outcomes but topology is the most commonly used in modern
applications due to having a more widespread range of possible outcomes.
Becoming more commonly used in the automotive and aerospace industries,
topology optimisation is a mathematical technique which takes a defined design
domain with specified constraints, like loads and boundary conditions, and
optimises that material domain with the intent of maximising its functionality [15].
It differs from shape and size optimisation because they are limited by pre-
existing provisions whereas topology optimisation has the freedom to take on any
form within the design domain. Due to this freedom, it is often found that the
resulting product is unable to be manufactured and the result must first be altered

19
to some level for production to be made possible although with additive
manufacturing (AM) this is changing. The method of topology optimisation utilises
a mixture of Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and either gradient-based
computational programming or non-gradient-based algorithms to optimise the
final desired design [16]. Since topology optimisation has become a popular
technique to solve structural problems, there have been numerous methods
established to solve said problems.

With pre-existing breakthroughs and knowledge surrounding homogenisation

theory and optimisation, Bendsøe and Kikuchi were able to produce a paper on
using homogenisation methods for optimisation and this would be used
predominantly as a basis for further development into alternative optimisation
methods. The homogenisation approach was based on using an infinite number
of microscopic sized holes in the given design domain as opposed to eliminating
entire finite elements [17]. Despite being a popular original method, the
homogenous approach has the huge difficulty of establishing which microscopic
holes are of optimal standard and even if they are established the structure
cannot be physically modelled due to the absence of an associated length scale
for the microstructures. Although these difficulties are present, this type of
optimisation method remains significant in understanding the theoretical
behaviour of structures [18].

Following the establishment of the homogenisation method to topology

optimisation, a new method was proposed. This method is the “power law
approach” otherwise known as the Solid Isotropic Material with Penalisation
(SIMP) and was developed as a simple technique to minimise the complications
involved in the homogenisation approach. The design domain is represented by
a large number of finite elements and the material property of each element is
assumed to be constant with the density distribution over the elements being the
design variables. The density design variable can either have a value of 0 if the
element is void of material, or a value of 1 if the element has solid material.
Typically, the desire to have a final result of simply solid material and voids is not
computationally possible due to the sheer number of elements required to
represent the design domain. By assuming the relative density of each element
to be a design variable, the SIMP approach can tackle this issue. The relationship

20
between the material property and the density design variable can be shown
through the power law given below.

𝐸(𝜌𝑖 ) = 𝑔(𝜌𝑖 )𝐸𝑜 = 𝜌𝑖 𝑝 𝐸𝑜 (Eqn. 5)

𝑔(𝜌𝑖 ) = 𝜌𝑖 𝑝

Where 𝑝 is the penalisation parameter and 𝐸𝑜 is the Young’s Modulus of the solid
material. If the value of penalisation, p, is selected to be too high or too low this
will either cause the appearance of intermediate densities and cause greyscale
or will cause convergence at local minima to occur too quickly [16]. Intermediate
densities are not wanted in the solution as they are neither solid nor void so
cannot be replicated in real life applications. The SIMP method, or power law
approach, is only valid if “simple conditions on the power are satisfied” [18] for
example if Poisons Ratio of the material used is 0.33 then the penalisation power,
p, must have a value of 3. It has been found that the ideal penalisation number
to achieve good convergence in most results is p=3 [16]. It should be noted that
the power law method only produces valid results which can physically exist when
a volume constraint, perimeter constraint or other filtering constraints are present.
If these filtering constraints do not exist then the results produced will appear as
a checkerboard pattern of alternating areas of black and white elements. This
checkerboard effect is unwanted as it indicates a numerical instability and does
not generate the best possible distribution of material.

Despite the power law or SIMP approach being the most commonly used method
to find solutions to topology optimisation problems due to its strong mathematical
background, other alternative methods do exist. One of these alternative methods
is the Evolutionary Structural Optimisation (ESO) technique which rather than
determining the best location to place material actually eradicates material
through eliminating finite elements from the design domain in places that do not
need material. This contrasts the SIMP method because the finite element mesh
which represents the design domain is changed throughout the optimisation
process [15]. Other more modern methods for topology optimisation include the
Bubble method, the Level-set method and many others. Although these
techniques may include possible ways to advance the methods currently used in

21
topology optimisation they still need a lot of development before they reach the
stage of being used in physical applications.

From conducting an in depth look into methods of topology optimisation, and

applications these methods are used for, it was found that it is used in a wide
variety of practices. For example, topology optimisation has been used in the
design of structural bracing systems for tall buildings but also has been used
simply for architectural purposes to produce both physically reliable yet
aesthetically pleasing designs [19]. Optimisation has also been used in
environmental situations for the construction of wind turbines. The push for more
environmentally friendly energy production also comes with the challenge of
lowering the capital cost to make it more available for use. A way of doing this is
to use topology optimisation to design a more open structure for the wind turbine
thus reducing the amount of material used and the overall cost making it more
affordable [20]. Topology optimisation is not only used in engineering
circumstances but has also been used in the medical field to replicate bone
morphology in order to further understand bone growth and other conditions like
osteoporosis [21]. In terms of the automotive industry, topology optimisation
tends to be used to aid weight reductions in larger components of vehicles like
the chassis and less for smaller components like the pedal box [22]. Most of the
above examples use the SIMP method with the simulation of bone morphology
being the exception. The SIMP method also allows for the optimised design to be
further refined using shape optimisation to achieve the best design possible.

4. Initial Design Concepts

Before beginning to design the final model of the pedal box, it is important to draw
up some initial design concepts so that the pros and cons of each can be weighed
up and the best ideas chosen to take forward to the final design.

4.1 Platform

The main requirement for the design of the platform for which the pedal box
components will attach to is that it needs to have an element of adjustability so
that drivers of differing heights can adjust it to suit their preferred pedal position.
Another requirement is that the platform must be able to withstand the force

22
applied to the pedals by the driver and any other forces which might occur while
driving.

As it is a more unconventional method of mounting the pedals in smaller race

cars, it was not even considered to mount the pedals to the top of the chassis but
instead they will be floor mounted. Floor based pedal setups are much simpler to
design in general and are far easier to attach all the required components to, as
gravitational force on each component can be used to benefit their secure fixation
to the pedal box. The pedals were also chosen to be fixed to a floor mounted
base due to the master cylinders already supplied from the TAU17 car and the
other pre-decided interdependencies which are intended to fit a floor mounted
design.

Many concepts for the adjustable element of the pedal box were considered while
still bearing in mind all of the aforementioned requirements. Originally the idea of
having hatched sections, like the ones shown below in Figures 9 and 10, came
to mind since it would be simple to adjust and no tools would be required.

Figure 9. Block hatched rail concept Figure 10. Angle hatched rail concept

It was then considered that the steadiness and safety of this design may be
undermined when applying strong forces to the pedals and so this option for
adjustability was ruled out. As safety and reliability should never be compromised
in the design, other options were investigated. A few of these alternative designs
can be found in Figures 11, 12 and 13 below.

23
 Figure 11. Platform attached on top of rails Figure 12. Platform attached within rail

Figure 13. Platform with stanchion clamps

For each design, the pros and cons were weighed up to find the best suited
design for the pedal box along with how these designs would attach to the cars
framework. Two options for attachment were to either fix the rails to the side of
the chassis or to run two rails from the bulkhead to the lower front suspension
rail. Diagrams of these methods can be found in Figures 14 and 15 below.

Figure 14. Side mounted rails Figure 15. Front to back mounted rails

After consideration of the space made available for adjustment and how each set
up would handle the forces applied to the pedal box it was decided that running
two support rails from the bulkhead of the car to the lower front suspension rail is
the best option.

24
4.2 Brake Pedal

Due to the extremely large forces that the brake pedal must be able to withstand,
it requires careful analysis in order to ensure that failure does not occur. An
objective of the design is to keep the overall weight of the pedal box as low as
possible and therefore the brake pedal should remain strong enough to withstand
the required force of 2000N while simultaneously being as lightweight as
possible. The overall design of the pedal box will be dependent on the design of
the brake pedal and components attached to it since the largest forces in the
pedal system occur here. The design of the brake pedal also plays a large part in
determining brake pedal ratio which may also be made adjustable to suit the
driver’s preference. As established through reading literature relative to the
braking system, the brake pedal can be positioned in multiple positions in relation
to the master cylinders. However, interdependencies with other components in
the car also need to be contemplated when positioning parts.

The design of the shape of the brake pedal is very important in terms of ensuring
it is robust enough to withstand heavy braking while simultaneously providing the
driver with a comfortable feel. It was found that the overall length of foot for a 5th
percentile female and 95th percentile male gives lengths of 22cm and 28.5cm
respectively [23]. The average length, considering both men and women, from
the ball of the foot to the tip of the toes is 7cm [24]. Taking the average of the two
overall lengths given and subtracting the average length from toe tip to the ball of
the foot, the appropriate length of the pedal should be approximately 18.2cm.
Provided that the length of the brake pedal gives the desired pedal ratio and the
height and surface area of the pedal pad is suitable to the drivers of the car, the
pedal shape can then be optimised to reduce unnecessary weight as much as
possible while remaining sturdy enough to withstand the required 2000N force.
Initial design sketches are shown below in Figures 16 and 17.

25
 Figure 16. Brake pedal shape concept Figure 17. Brake pedal set-up

4.3 Position of Master Cylinders

As the master cylinders for the pedal box are pre-determined, how they can be
fitted is limited but the angle at which pressure needs to be applied for maximum
performance can still be decided. Placing the master cylinders in a forward-facing
position does not utilise the space available for adjustability and therefore can be
ruled out as an option. Even though rear-facing master cylinders are space saving
lengthwise, they are the most unconventional and difficult type of cylinders to use
and therefore were never considered an option for this design. As the provided
master cylinders include a spherical bearing mount, angled positioning is
possible. Therefore, this style of positioning should be used as benefits include
reduction in length of the pedal box compared to standard forward-facing
cylinders and reduction in weight also. The provided master cylinders for the
pedal box are the AP Racing CP7855 cylinder shown in Figure 18 below, with a
detailed view of the cylinder design in Appendix B.

Figure 18. AP Racing CP7855 master cylinder [11]

26
4.4 Ideal Pedal Ratio

Ideally a higher value of pedal ratio is desired as it will result in the output forces
transferred to the braking system providing a more effective performance. Higher
pedal ratios do come at the cost of a larger pedal travel resulting in a possibly
more uncomfortable pedal feel for the driver. For braking systems in smaller
racing cars, the ideal pedal ratio is typically in the range of 4 to 6. If the pedal ratio
is within this range then it can be shown, through the force calculations, that the
braking system will experience forces adequate enough to be able to lock up all
four wheels if needed. If adjustability of the brake pedal ratio is desired then the
pedal system must be able to let the pedal change angles in order to alter the
lengths included in the pedal ratio calculations.

4.5 Throttle and Clutch

The throttle and clutch pedals have a lot fewer requirements compared to the
brake pedal, meaning more possibilities for design are available. One
requirement that both the throttle and clutch pedal need is a forward pedal stop
so that over exertion cannot occur. Both pedals are also required to return to their
original position when the application of a force is absent. An initial design
concept for these pedals can be found below in Figure 19.

Figure 19. Design for throttle and clutch pedals

Due to the similarity of their functions and the lack of requirements, the throttle
and clutch pedal can use the same design if not very similar. Since the throttle
and clutch pedals both have cable attachments to other components of the car,

27
a mechanism to ensure these cables do not go into slack when there is no
pressure on the pedals is essential. Design concepts will be judged mainly on
their possible weight and how sturdy they would be before the final choice is
made.

5. Final Design

Once initial design concepts had been thought up it was then important to analyse
them to determine which ones were to be used for the final design. The following
explains any design decisions which were made and any calculations conducted
to reach the end result.

5.1 Design Decisions

Due to the shape of the front chassis of the car and the space available, it was
decided that a floor mounted pedal box would best suit the car. The support rails
needed for the pedal box will run from front to back in the car from the bulkhead
to the lower suspension support rail. The use of front to back rails as opposed to
those mounted to the side of the chassis is preferred since side mounted rails are
less likely to be able to withstand the horizontal and vertical forces that will be
applied to them by the pedal box platform.

From the initial design concepts there were multiple options for the pedal box
platform and the rails it sits upon. All design options were compared for several
criteria, and a numerical representation of their suitableness was produced. This
representation, 1 being not very suitable and 10 being extremely suitable, can be
found in the table below.

28
 Style of Platform
Hatched Attached Attached Stanchion
Criterion Rails Above Rails Within Rails Clamps
Strength 5 7 7 8
Stability 3 6 7 8
Ease of Adjusting 9 6 6 8
Weight 7 8 7 8
Ease of 8 9 9 7
Manufacturing
Total 32 36 36 39

From the table above, it can be seen that the platform concept including
cylindrical rails and stanchion clamp adjusters totalled the highest score and
therefore is the most beneficial design idea. In order to aid the grip between the
rails and the clamps, a rubber insert of some sort will be need to be added to the
inside of the clamps. Analysis of the platform will also need to be conducted to
ensure the final design will perform under loads from the driver without buckling
or failure.

Another feature of the pedal box which has multiple options for positioning is the
master cylinders. Like the design for the platform, all position possibilities for the
master cylinders were compared using select criteria and given a numerical
representation. The criteria and numerical weighing can be found below in the
following table.

Position of Master Cylinders

Criteria Forward Facing Rear Facing Angled
Simplicity 8 8 6
Space Consumed 6 8 7
Cost 7 7 5
Weight 5 5 8
Beneficial 7 5 9
Appeal
Total 33 33 35

29
As seen in the table above, all possible positions of master cylinders have their
own advantages and disadvantages but it is the angled master cylinders that
come out to be the best choice. Although the angled master cylinders are more
expensive than the other options, the possible points that could be gained for the
design at competition along with the weight savings that could be made are too
opportunistic to not take advantage of.

5.2 Detailed Design and Calculations

Certain decisions could not be made until calculations had been conducted.
These include the size of the pedals and the angle at which the master cylinders
will sit. This section will go through the calculations used along with other factors
to create the final design.

5.2.1 Brake Pedal

The brake pedal itself is a highly important feature in the overall design of the
pedal box since it must withstand a lot of force yet also connect to the brake bias
system and in turn the master cylinders. When designing the brake pedal, the
interaction between the pedal, the brake bias system and the master cylinders
must be carefully evaluated. Other significant factors which will also need to be
carefully evaluated are the pedal travel and pedal ratio. The following sections
will go through the geometry and calculations conducted to reach the final design
for the brake pedal.

5.2.1.1 Brake Pedal Geometry

The main objective of studying the geometry of the brake pedal is to determine
the ideal value for pedal ratio and the brake pedal shape needed to achieve that
ratio. In order to find the best value for the amount of travel the pedal should
swing and the pedal ratio it should have, some initial values need to be specified.
These values include the overall length of the brake pedal, the distance between
the pedal pivot and the spherical bearings of the master cylinders, and the initial
angle of the pedal. The centre of the pedal face must be at a height which can
accommodate a range of foot sizes, both men and women included. A diagram
of the brake pedal geometry can be found below in Figure 20.

30
 Figure 20. Brake Pedal Geometry

Where b is the fixed length of the brake pedal and c is the master cylinder length.
The master cylinder length, c, will change as the pedal swings through its arc and
angle C changes. The length from the pedal pivot point to the spherical bearings
of the master cylinder, a, will remain constant and does not change. From Figure
20 it can be seen that the law of cosines can be used to determine the master
cylinder length using:

𝑐 = √𝑎2 + 𝑏 2 − 2𝑎𝑏 ∙ cos(𝐶) (Eqn.6)

The amount the pedal travels is the equivalent to the length of the arc of which it
follows and can be calculated using basic geometry:

𝑝𝑒𝑑𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙 = (𝐶𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝐶𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 ) ∙ 𝑏 (Eqn.7)

Where the initial and final pedal angles are measured in radians. As previously
stated, the initial brake pedal ratio can simply be calculated as the overall length
of the pedal divided by the distance from the pedal pivot point to where the master
cylinders connect to the pedal. In this case as the pedal changes position the
pedal ratio at each given point on the arc can be determined by:

𝑝𝑒𝑑𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙
𝑝𝑒𝑑𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = (Eqn. 8)
∆𝑐

Where ∆𝑐 is the change in master cylinder length. Following this, the location of
where the pedal must stop need to be determined. This location is the point at
which the input force from the driver meets the requirement to lock all four wheels
and bring the car to a complete halt. The forces from each master cylinder on the
pedal box can be calculated using:

31
 𝐵1
𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑦𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟, 𝐹𝑓 = 𝐹𝑏 × 𝐵 (Eqn. 9)
1 +𝐵2

𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑦𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟, 𝐹𝑟 = 𝐹𝑏 − 𝐹𝑓 (Eqn.10)

Hence the total force from the braking system is:

𝐹𝑏 = 𝐹𝑓 + 𝐹𝑟 (Eqn.11)

And the input force from the driver required can therefore be calculated using:

𝐹
𝐹𝑑 = 𝑝𝑒𝑑𝑎𝑙𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 (Eqn.12)

The ergonomics of the design must also be taken into account. The maximum
pedal travel usually occurs at a 15 degree angle towards the front of the car
meaning that the initial pedal angle should be around 10 degrees towards the
rear of the car. A diagram showing this can be found below in Figure 21.

Figure 21. Initial (right) and Maximum (left) Brake Pedal Angles

5.2.1.2 Brake Pedal Calculations

The calculations for the brake pedal were done using MatLab. Initially the values
for overall pedal length, initial pedal angle and the distance from the pedal pivot
point to the spherical bearings of the master cylinders were input. The code
created simulates the brake pedal moving through its arc and calculates the pedal
ratio and input force needed. Figure 22 shows a range of pedal angles from 90
degrees to 0 degrees.

32
 Figure 22. Change Of Master Cylinder Length vs Pedal Travel for a 90 to 0 degree angle range

Since initial pedal angle can be chosen and the majority of the remaining
geometry is specified, whereabouts on the pedal travel curve the pedal operates
can also be selected. A small rise in pedal ratio when a force is applied to the
brake pedal is advantageous to the driver and so a region on the curve which is
somewhat linear is preferred to operate in. From Figure 22 above it can be seen
that the linear region is from having a pedal angle in the range of 90 degrees to
80 degrees. Setting the initial angle to being 10 degrees towards the rear of the
car, the initial pedal length as being 182mm and having a distance of 43mm from
the pedal pivot to the master cylinder bearings provides Figure 23.

33
 Figure 23. Change In Master Cylinder Length vs Pedal Travel for the linear range of 80 to 105 degree pedal angle

This is showing the more linear region in which the pedal box will operate best in.
Since this region is reasonably linear, only a small rise in pedal ratio will occur
when a force is applied to the brake pedal as desired.

The input force needed from the driver to lock up all four wheels can be
determined by evaluating the input force at every angle on the appropriate pedal
travel arc. This is shown in Figure 24 below.

34
 Figure 24. Required Input Force from Driver vs Pedal Travel for range of 80 to 105 degree angle

It can be seen that the input force needed from the driver is in the preferred range
of 375N which is considered to be a realistic value [8]. The pedal ratio ranges
from 4.3 to 5.2 as it moves through the arc which is in the range of the desired
value. The geometry of the pedal is suitable for use for a wide range of drivers,
both men and women included.

5.2.1.3 Brake Pedal Summary

From the above calculations, the following design in Figure 25 was produced for
the brake pedal.

Figure 25. Final Brake Pedal Model

35
The body of the brake pedal will be made from aluminium alloy with the pedal
face made of the same material but with a rubber cover to provide grip between
the pedal and the drivers foot. Finite Element Analysis of the brake pedal will be
conducted in a later section to ensure this design will perform without failure
under large loads.

5.2.2 Brake Bias

The next key component in the design of the pedal box is the brake bias system.
The brake bias system contains a balance bar which links two master cylinders
and allows for the overall brake bias between the front and rear brakes to be
varied. Due to the size of the bore on the master cylinders, they should initially
be positioned at an equal distance from the middle of the balance bar. The style
of brake bias system chosen for this design is that which a spherical bearing is
located in a tube within the brake pedal, and a clevis at either end of the balance
bar which attaches the master cylinders. The balance bar is secured axially but
remains able to rotate inside the spherical bearing situated in the brake pedal.
The balance bar itself is threaded and therefore can easily be connected to the
push rod clevises on either end of the bar. When the balance bar is rotated the
spherical bearing will move back and forth through the tube it is enclosed in and
the brake bias will adjust accordingly.

Figure 26. Brake Bias System Assembly

It can be seen from Figure 26 above that one end of the balance bar is longer
than the other. This is to account for the use of a remote adjuster, like the one
shown in Figure 27 below, which is fitted to the end of the balance bar and runs

36
to the cockpit of the car so the driver can easily adjust the front-to-back bias of
the braking system.

Figure 27. Brake Bias Remote Adjustment Cable

The material choice for the balance bar is alloy steel due to its high yield strength
so as to avoid plastic deformation during use. Other components of the brake
bias system with have pre-set materials which cannot be optionally chosen, like
bearings which are bought in, but should still be ensured that they perform to a
high standard.

5.2.3 Throttle Mechanism

The purpose of the throttle mechanism is to provide a linking point between the
pedal and the cable, which leads back to the throttle body, to allow the pedal
motion to be translated into movement of the cable which in turn turns the throttle
plate and alters the air intake to the engine. It was found that the simplest and
most effective throttle linkage system was a bell-crank style design like the one
shown below in Figure 28. The motion of the throttle pedal forcing the bell-crank
to move in one direction will cause a similar motion to occur for the cable
movement at the other end of the bell-crank.

Figure 28. Bell-crank for throttle linkage system [25]

37
Inspiration was taken from the above design, along with physically studying
existing systems, when creating the final throttle mechanism design. The final
linkage system also includes a support block which attaches to the pedal box
platform and houses a bearing which allows rotation of the bell-crank. Multiple
bolt holes are a feature on the bell-crank to allow the attachment of a rod at one
end and the cable at the other end. Positioning of the rod and cable can be
adjusted by moving the attachment to a different hole. A pair of adjustable rod
ends join the bell-crank to the throttle pedal. The length of the rod ends can be
altered to avoid any binding of the linkage as the throttle pedal moves. Clearance
of the throttle mechanism system from other parts of the vehicle must be
accounted for. Even though this mechanism was designed for the throttle pedal
it could also be used for the clutch pedal if desired.

5.2.4 Throttle and Clutch Pedal

Creating the final design for the throttle and clutch pedal was a relatively simple
task as the design shape remained much the same as the initial concept. Slight
changes did have to be made however. The cut outs in the centre of the pedal
body had to be repositioned to accommodate the attachment of the throttle
mechanism and to ensure it was in the correct position. The pedal stop was also
redesigned so that the pedal will only be able to move in the desired range of 10
degrees from vertical towards the rear of the car through to 15 degrees from
vertical towards the front of the car. Since the forces on the throttle and clutch
pedals are not large, it was not required to be as robust as the brake pedal and
therefore a thinner design could be used to save weight. For ease when driving,
both the throttle and clutch pedal were made the same height as the brake pedal
so that it is non-problematic for the driver to alternate between pedals. Due to its
lightweight yet strong material properties, aluminium alloy was chosen as the
material to construct the pedals from. To help with grip between the drivers’ foot
and the pedal, a rubber cover will be used on the pedal face. The final design for
the throttle and clutch pedal, including the pedal stop, can be found below in
Figure 29.

38
 Figure 29. Final Throttle and Clutch Pedal Design

5.2.5 Pedal Box Platform

The pedal box platform is required to house numerous components including the
brake, throttle and clutch pedals, support mounts for the master cylinders,
mechanisms for the throttle and clutch cables, and any other associated plumbing
or tubing that is needed. A simplistic approach was taken when designing the
main body of the platform so as not to overcomplicate it. The forces applied to
the brake pedal cause it to pull up and towards the front of the car whereas the
forces on the master cylinders cause them to push down and towards the front of
the car. Due to these counteracting forces, the connection of the pedal box
platform and its supporting rails to the chassis of the car must ensure that the
pedal box does not rock up and down while in use. Four solid clamps located
under the four corners of the platform will restrict the up and down motion while
also preventing the pedal box from any rotational motion. The two supporting
guide rails which run through the four clamps will run horizontally from the
bulkhead of the car to the lower front suspension support bar. The final design
for the pedal box platform can be found below in Figure 30.

39
 Figure 30. Pedal Box Platform Assembly

The platform will be made of alloy steel and the supporting rails also. This choice
of material is strong and will be able to withstand the large forces and also will be
straightforward to manufacture as steel is much less difficult to weld than
aluminium.

5.3 Final Design Summary

The final design now includes the element of horizontal adjustability that previous
years’ pedal boxes did not include. The design consists of a standard moving
platform to permit drivers of differing heights to adjust the pedal box to suit their
preferences. The added component of adjustability should aid the team in gaining
more design points during judging at competition while simultaneously enhancing
the overall performance of the car through the ability to modify the pedal position
to suit individual drivers. A full assembly of the final design for the pedal box can
be seen from different angles below in Figures 31 and 32.

Figure 31.Final model from front view Figure 32. Final design from back view

40
6. Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

Abaqus CAE was used to conduct Finite Element Analysis on the brake pedal.
Abaqus CAE presents an environment where models can either be created or
imported and then analysed, the results of which can then be reviewed. The brake
pedal was to be analysed while under the required 2000N load it must be able to
withstand and to determine the stresses within the model, locating any possible
failure areas. The model of the brake pedal created in Solidworks was imported
into Abaqus and material properties for aluminium, Young’s Modulus of 68.9GPa
and Poisson’s Ratio of 0.33, were set. Since only a static linear elastic analysis
was being performed this was enough material information. All structural
elements are required to be assigned a section and therefore a section was
created on the side face of the pedal and assigned to the geometry of the whole
pedal body, with the thickness for the created material set to 10mm. For finite
element analysis to be performed, the part needed to be inserted into the
assembly as an instance or else the analysis model would be empty. An analysis
step was then created so that load and boundary conditions could be set for the
pedal and eventually run. A multi-point constraint (MPC) was created for the
pedal pivot point, with the centre of the pivot point being the reference point and
the outer edge being the control point, so that it can later be used to set boundary
conditions. The required load of 2000N was then applied to the vertical flat edge
of the pedal where the pedal face would be located. It is at this point which the
boundary conditions were specified. A rotational boundary condition was created
for the pedal pivot point, where the pedal pin would be located, using the earlier
created points. The pedal was then meshed and the mesh was then checked for
errors or distorted elements so as to avoid problems later. Once the mesh was
verified, a job was created and submitted to perform the static linear elastic
analysis of the pedal. The following result in Figure 33 was produced and show
the stresses in the pedal under the 2000N applied load.

41
 Figure 33. Stresses in the brake pedal under 2000N load

It can be seen that the stresses at the top of the pedal are very low whereas at
the lower section of the pedal the stresses are slightly larger but the structure will
not fail under load. The largest stresses are around the pivot point where the
connecting pin is located but these are to be expected and are not an issue in the
design.

7. Topology Optimisation

Topology optimisation on the design of the brake pedal was performed in Ansys.
Ansys is very similar to Abaqus in the sense that they both provide an
environment where parts can be imported and studied. Before the optimisation
process could begin, a new model of the brake pedal had to be created in
Solidworks but this time with no cut out sections. Once created, the part was
imported into Ansys and the options to conduct a static structural analysis and
topology optimisation were selected. Much like when finite element analysis was
performed on the original design for the brake pedal, the same material properties
for aluminium were applied. The model was then meshed and the mesh was
verified to ensure there were no errors or distorted elements. For this optimisation
process it was decided to use a finer mesh to achieve a more accurate result.
The original 2000N load and rotational boundary condition for the brake pedal
were also set for the new brake pedal model. The result for the static structural
analysis for the new brake pedal before optimisation can be found below in Figure
34.

42
 Figure 34. Static Structural Analysis for the new brake pedal

Once the structural analysis for the new brake pedal was completed, the topology
optimisation job could now be set up. The same material, mesh size, load and
boundary condition were used as the optimisation process follows on from the
static structural analysis. The specified objective for the optimisation was set to
minimise the compliance of the model. Mass and volume constraints could also
be set to retain a certain amount of the mass or volume from the imported part.
The mass constraint was set to retain 20% of the imported model. Manufacturing
constraints could also be set depending on the manufacturing method you wish
to use or the result you desire to achieve. Figures 35a and 35b below show the
optimised brake pedal with an extrusion manufacturing constraint, while Figure
36 shows the optimised brake pedal with a symmetry manufacturing constraint
applied to it. Extrusion and symmetry manufacturing constraints are the two most
likely to be used in production.

43
 (a) (b)

Figure 35. Extrusion manufacturing Figure 36. Symmetry manufacturing

constraint on optimised brake pedal constraint on optimised brake pedal

It can be seen from the figures above that the symmetry manufacturing constraint
provides an optimised result with a clearer idea of where the best location of cuts
would be compared to that of the extrusion constraint. Since the symmetry
constraint produced a hollow design, this would not be simple to physically create
and so the design can be used instead as a reference guide to creating a more
manufacturable pedal. The optimised design was then exported from Abaqus and
imported into Solidworks where the part could be drawn around to create the
shape of the final optimised brake pedal design. The new brake pedal created in
Solidworks, using the optimisation result as a reference guide, is shown below in
Figure 37.

44
 Figure 37. New optimised brake pedal

8. Conclusions

Overall, the main goal of adding an element of adjustability to the pedal box
design was achieved. The horizontal rails allow the driver to move the pedals into
a position which best suits them. The weight of the original TAU17 pedal box was
a total of 3.10kg and the new weight of the adjustable pedal box is 4.06kg,
meaning that adding the element of adjustability to the platform along with the
new throttle mechanism has added 0.96kg to the total weight of the design. The
brake pedal itself from the adjustable pedal box has a weight of 0.21kg and
through using topology optimisation the new optimised brake pedal has a weight
of approximately 0.19kg, making roughly a 20 gram weight saving in the brake
pedal design. In conclusion, confirmation of whether the adjustable pedal box
design is a better option for Team Aberdeen University Racing would be
determined once manufacturing and testing had been fully completed.

45
Appendix
Appendix A
A1:

A2:

A3:

46
Appendix B

47
Bibliography

[1] Imeche.org. (2016). About Formula Student. [online] Available at:

https://www.imeche.org/events/formula-student/about-formula-student
[Accessed 12 Oct. 2017].
[2] Imeche.org. (2016). What is the Formula Student challenge - IMechE.
[online] Available at: https://www.imeche.org/events/formula-student/about-
formula-student/the-challenge [Accessed 12 Oct. 2017].
[3] TAU Racing. (n.d.). About. [online] Available at:
http://www.tauracing.com/about/ [Accessed 14 Oct. 2017].
[4] Imeche.org. (2017). Formula Student Rules 2018. [online] Available at:
http://www.imeche.org/docs/default-source/1-oscar/formula-student/fs-
rules_2018_v1-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2 [Accessed 14 Oct. 2017].
[5] Demon Tweeks. (2018). OBP PRO RACE V3 UNIVERSAL FLOOR MOUNT
PEDAL BOX. [online] Available at: https://www.demon-
tweeks.co.uk/motorsport/pedal-box-assemblies-balance-bars/obp-pro-race-v3-
universal-floor-mount-pedal-box.
[6] Demon Tweeks. (2018). OBP UNIVERSAL PRO RACE TOP MOUNT 3
PEDAL ASSEMBLY. [online] Available at: https://www.demon-
tweeks.co.uk/motorsport/pedal-box-assemblies-balance-bars/obp-universal-pro-
race-top-mount-3-pedal-assembly.
[7] Sapuan, S. (2017). Composite Materials. In: S. Sapuan, ed., Composite
Materials - Concurrent Engineering Approach, 1st ed. [online] Oxford: Elsevier,
pp.57-93. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128025079000039
[Accessed 17 Nov. 2017].
[8] [13] Mok, J. (2007). Design of a Variable Ratio Brake Pedal. Undergraduate.
University of Toronto.
[9] Seward, D. (2014). Race car design. 1st ed. London: Palgrave, pp.193-200.
[10] McLeod. (2013). How to calculate proper pedal ratio using hydraulics.
[online] Available at: https://www.mcleodracing.com/content/tech-
article/calculate-proper-pedal-ratio-using-hydraulics/ [Accessed 15 Dec. 2017].
[11] Milliken, D. and Milliken, W. (2003). Race Car Vehicle Dynamics.
Warrendale, Pa.: SAE International, pp.749-754.
[12] Swearingen, C. (2014). Design, Manufacture, and Validation of the Formula
Student Pedal Assembly. Undergraduate. Oregon State University.
[13] Apracing.com. (n.d.). AP Racing - Race Car - Master Cylinders - Bearing
Mounted Types - CP7855 Type. [online] Available at:
https://www.apracing.com/product_details/race_car/master_cylinders/bearing_
mounted_types/cp7855_type.aspx [Accessed 6 Nov. 2017].
[14] Schiller, B. (2007). 2007 Formula SAE Pedal Box. Undergraduate.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

48
[15] Tsavdaridis, K., Kingman, J. and Toropov, V. (2015). Application of
structural topology optimisation to perforated steel beams. Computers &
Structures, 158, pp.108-123.
[16] Sigmund, O. and Maute, K. (2013). Topology optimization approaches.
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 48(6), pp.1031-1055.
[17] Suzuki, K. and Kikuchi, N. (1991). A homogenization method for shape and
topology optimization. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, 93(3), pp.291-318.
[18] Sigmund, O. (2001). A 99 line topology optimization code written in Matlab.
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 21(2), pp.120-127.
[19] Kingman, J., Tsavdaridis, K. and Toropov, V. (2014). Applications of
topology optimization in structural engineering. Leeds: The University of Leeds.
[20] Warshawsky, B. (2015). Practical application of topology optimization to the
design of large wind turbine towers. University of Iowa.
[21] Xinghua, Z., He, G. and Bingzhao, G. (2005). The application of topology
optimization on the quantitative description of the external shape of bone
structure. Journal of Biomechanics, 38(8), pp.1612-1620.
[22] Cavazzuti, M., Costi, D., Baldini, A. and Moruzzi, P. (2011). Automotive
Chassis Topology Optimization: a Comparison Between Spider and Coupe
Designs. In: World Congress on Engineering. [online] London. Available at:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ae1/c31af6ed2a701982eba57e9ed23e50536
4f9.pdf [Accessed 11 Feb. 2018].
[23] Fsaeonline.com. (2018). FORMULA SAE ANTHROPOMETRIC
REFERENCE DATA 5 TH PERCENTILE FEMALE & 95TH PERCENTILE
MALE. [online] Available at:
https://www.fsaeonline.com/content/FSAE%20Rules95th_2016.pdf [Accessed
25 Feb. 2018].
[24] Luo, G., Houston, V., Mussman, M., Garbarini, M., Beattie, A. and
Thongpop, C. (2009). Comparison of Male and Female Foot Shape. Journal of
the American Podiatric Medical Association, 99(5), pp.383-390.
[25] Apart, A. (2018). Allstar Performance Throttle Bell Crank - Arms Set 70°s
Apart : 54152. [online] Pitstopusa.com. Available at: https://pitstopusa.com/i-
5076273-allstar-performance-throttle-bell-crank-arms-set-70s-apart.html
[Accessed 5 Mar. 2018].

49