2017-02/xxx

A report on design methodology of Braking system of BAJA Vehicle

Abstract: When the brake pedal is applied or pressed,

The rough track of BAJA SAE tests the robustness
of each and every subsystem of the vehicle, one of
those is brakes. Effective braking is a critical factor
in determining the performance of any vehicle.
Apart from this, brakes are the most safety-critical
accident avoidance components of a vehicle.
Brakes must perform safely under all reasonably
foreseeable operating conditions, including slippery,
wet and dry roads; when braking straight or while
turning; with new or worn brakes; on smooth or
rough roads; or when pulling a trailer. Braking
system must function under foreseeable
circumstances, at reasonable cost and brake wear
life, while providing directional stability and
acceptable tire-road friction utilization. The braking
system must comply with all applicable safety
standards, rules and regulations provided by SAE.
Introduction
pressurised hydraulic fluid squeezes the brake pad
friction material against the surface of the rotating
brake disc. The result of this contact produces
friction which enables the vehicle to slow down or
stop.
Last year, we used a tandem master cylinder setup
with identical Polaris brake callipers and Bajaj XCD
brake discs on each wheel. With a mere pedal ratio
of 2.5:1, the pedal travel achieved was not
sufficient. Although the brakes were highly
overdesigned yet the circuit was not able to
generate the required pressure. There was no
biasing.
To overcome all the problems faced previously,
each and every component was critically analysed
and redesigned. This year with an optimum pedal
ratio of 5:1, we are using customised brake discs
with different brake callipers for front and rear for
creating the biasing effect.

A brake is a mechanical device that inhibits motion, Table 2: comparison of 2016 actual vehicle parameters
slowing or stopping a moving object or preventing and 2017 vehicle goals.
its motion. Brakes are broadly classified as disc
brakes and drum brakes. PARAMETER 2017 VEHICLE 2016 VEHICLE
GOAL ACTUAL
Most brakes commonly use friction between two
surfaces pressed together to convert the kinetic TOTAL WEIGHT 160 KG 208 KG
energy of the moving object into heat, though other
FRONT TRACK 50” 48”
methods of energy conversion may be employed.
REAR TRACK 50” 44”
Figure below shows the layout of our braking
circuit. WHEEL BASE 56” 56”

GROUND 11.69” 9.6”

CLEARANCE

TYRES 23X7-10 23X8-12

Figure 1. Braking circuit layout
Objectives
The brakes are one of the most important safety
systems on the vehicle. The braking system should
be such that it brings the vehicle to quick & safe
stop. The braking system must be such that it
should be effective under all circumstances such
as, slowing or stopping, maintaining speed and

0
holding stationary on a downgrade. On the other
hand it should also comply perfectly with all SAE
rules & regulations, such as:
 All four wheels should lock, in static condition
as well as from speed
pavement and on unpaved surfaces.
 The braking system must be segregated into at
least two (2) independent hydraulic circuits
such that in case of a leak or failure at any
point in the system, effective braking power
shall be maintained on at least two wheels.
Design procedure
While starting the design, our main concern were
the assumptions to be made, like what should be
the value of different variable involved in the design
procedure such as coefficient of friction, pedal force
applied by the driver, vehicles gross weight etc.
After a lot of detailed discussions and brainstorming
sessions, it was decided to go for a thorough study
as well as survey regarding each and every variable
in picture. For example: for deciding the value of
coefficient of friction (µ), a detailed survey was
carried out regarding the coefficient of friction (µ) of
all the tires related to off road vehicles such as
trucks, tractors, dirt bikes, commercial ATV’s etc.
Once the data was gathered, the value of coefficient
of friction was determined by taking the average of
all the value. The coefficient of friction came out to
be .In the similar manner all other variables were
determined.
Brake disc
Brake discs were logical components to design in
the early stages of the total system design because
the range of possible diameter is already limited by
other parts of the vehicle. Because the brake circuit
is an outboard system, the assemblies dwell inside
the rims of the wheels, the disc diameter is limited
by the inner diameter of the rims and the clearance
of the callipers with respect to rims. This year we
are using a 10”-5” rim with a 3”-2” offset.
After modelling the rims in Creo 2.0, we came
across the maximum size of the brake disc around
7 inches. In order to generate the required torque,
we decided to use optimum brake discs of size
175mm for front as well as rear. Static structural as
well as thermal analysis was done.
Master Cylinder
The major decision that has to be made when
selecting a master cylinder is whether to use
separate cylinders for the front and rear circuits or
to use one tandem cylinder that serves both. But
the problem faced when using two separate
cylinders was that it required a bias bar system. So
instead, we used a tandem master cylinder and to
create biasing effect we used callipers of different
sizes for front and rear.

Coming back to our design methodology, our 2017

braking system was redesigned significantly and
effectively when compared to our previous car. In
this car we decided to use a single tandem master
cylinder of bore ¾ inch because of the result of our
market survey which was based on many factors
such as availability, cost, bore size, easy
replacements, weight etc. This time, instead of
using that, we decided to go for a self-design
customised pedal box with swing mount pedals
having optimum pedal ratio of 5:1. The main
reasons behind this major change are weight
reduction, ergonomics, aesthetics, compactness Figure 2. Tandem Master Cylinder
and space constraints. Finally coming to the splits,
we installed both F/R & diagonal split in our After doing a market survey, we found out that the
previous years car and then by making the car run most easily available and smallest tandem master
3
with only one circuit working out of the two, we cylinder was of /4 inches.
came to conclusion that in case of any failure, F/R
split yields better & safer results as compared to
diagonal split.

Designing of various braking

components

1
Table2: Different tandem master cylinders
Four wheeler
Tata Nano
Maruti Suzuki Omni
Mahindra Reva
Maruti Suzuki Alto 800
Maruti Suzuki K10
was found out that this proposed pedal setup
design would not fit inside it. This problem was
Cost price(in analysed properly and the new pedal setup was
rupees) redesign significantly with optimum dimensions, to
900 keep the robustness & ergonomics of the entire
system intact.
850
1250 It has swing mount pedals with a single tandem
master cylinder of bore ¾ inches. It is fabricated
700 from mild steel. Certain amount of material was
1100 removed for improving the aesthetics without
compromising with the strength of different
elements of the system.

Stress calculation & analysis:

While designing the brake disc static as well as
thermal consideration were taken into account.
Using ANSYS 14.5, thermal as well as static
structural analysis were performed. Brake clamping
force, heat flux, rubbing area and total braking time
were taken as inputs. The figures below shows the
result obtained.

Figure 3. Pedal orientation

The above image shows the possible orientation of

pedal with respect to master cylinder. Considering
the above two choices we came to a conclusion that
the first choice was better due to proper space
utilisation and ease of mounting.

Brake callipers
Figure 4. Thermal analyisis of front brake disc
Once the master cylinder and brake disc size was
decide, the other two parameter, which we could
vary, were pedal ratio and calliper size. Due to
dynamic weight transfer, more braking force is
required at the front as compared to rear. Hence,
after performing a number of iterations, we came to
a conclusion of using a 38mm bore brake calliper in
front and a 32mm brake calliper in rear. It also
ensures proper brake force distribution as well as
brake force balance.

Pedal design & its mounting

Figure 5. Thermal analysis of rear brake disc
To begin the design process views and opinions
were taken from each and every individual of the
braking design team. Because of this and last
year’s pedal box, concept sketches were generated
by taking optimum and approx. dimensions and
geometry the same was regenerated in Creo 2.0
.Furthermore to get a realistic idea of the design,
cardboard cut-outs of the same model with exact
dimensions were made. Then the model was placed
inside the car’s prototype (made up of PVC pipes).It
Figure 6. Von-mises stress in front disc

2

Figure 7. Von-mises stress in rear disc
Figure 8. Deformation in front brake disc
Figure 9. Deformation in rear brake disc
Assembly:
Figure 10. Front braking assembly
Figure 11. Rear disc assembly
Conclusion
After initial testing of the setup and its
implementation on the vehicle the overall
adjustability of the braking system meets the design
goals of possessing better and responsive braking
system. The other design objective of achieving
minimum stopping distance was also achieved.
Thus the objective of designing a rugged braking
system for an ATV is achieved.
References
1. Limpert Rudolf (2011), “Brake design and
Safety”, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
2. Walker James (2005), “The Physics of Braking
system.” Stop tech: High performance braking
system
3
 2
Calculations a = 4.94 m/s

Pedal ratio = 5:1 a = µg

Master cylinder bore diameter = 19.05mm µ = 0.503

Brake rotor: Front = 175mm Therefore, ∆dyn = *a*W

Rear = 175mm =36.211Kg

Weight distribution = 45:55 FzF,dyn = 141.961Kg (1392.63N)

Total weight = 161 Kg FzR,dyn = 93.039Kg (912.712N)

Wheel base = 56 inches Front axle Braking force:

Drivers weight = 75Kg FxF = µ * FzF , dyn

C.G height = 17.14” = 947.841 N

Static weight distribution: FzF = 105.75 Kg FxR = µ * FzR, dyn

FzR = 129.25 Kg = 638.8988 N

Torque:

TxF =

= 255.7807 Nm

TxF = 127.89036 Nm (single)

TxR =
Figure 12. Notations of various parameters
= 166.6355 Nm
Lf =
TxR = 83.8177 Nm (single)

= 30.8”

LR = L-Lf System Design:

= 25.2”
Master cylinder bore: 19.05mm

Ψ= Area of master cylinder: 2.85*10 m

-4 2

= 0.55 Brake rotor; F: 175mm (72.5mm effective radius)

Dynamic axle load: R: 175mm (72.5 m effective radius)

2
FzF , dyn = (1-ψ + χa)W Calliper front:38mm(area=1134.1149mm )
2
Calliper rear:32mm(area=804.2477mm )
Where, χ = =
Pedal force: 250N
χ = 0.3060
Pedal Ratio= 5:1
∆dyn wt transfer = χaW

4
Leverage efficiency=0. Where, Vtr = initial vehicle velocity

Fmc = P.R*P.F*0.8 tr = driver reaction time

= 1000N ta = brake system application time

Pmc = = 35.08489 bar ts = braking time

2 a = deceleration
=3508489.318 N/m
Now,
Fcalliper = Pmc * Acalliper * ηwc
Vtr = 40Km/h = 11.11m/s
Fcalliper front = 3899.054349 N
tr = 1 sec
Force on disc = 2*0.4*3899.05
ta = 0.25 sec
= 3119.243479 N
tb = 0.3 sec
Fcalliper rear = 2765.260575 N
a = µ*g=0.7*9.81
Force on disc = 2*0.35*2765.260
2
a= 6.867m/s
= 1995.682403 N
So,
Torque generated

Torquefront = 226.145122 Nm Stotal = 11.11*1+

Torquerear = 140.3369742 Nm =20.097m

Torque generated at the front and rear is greater
than the required torque.

STOPPING DISTANCE:

SIMPLIFIED:

Figure 12. Simplified stopping distance time period

Stotal = Vtrtr+

Also, = ts

So, Stotal = Vtrtr +

5
DETAILED: Sizing of master cylinder:

SIMPLIFIED

VF=4[(Awc)F*(B.F)F+(Awc)R*(B.F)R

=4(907.36+562.954)
3
VF=5.881256 cm

Bore diameter of master cylinder used = 19.05mm

Maximum stroke length = 36mm

Vmc = * 19.052 * 36
3
Vmc =10.260cm

Since Volume of master cylinder is greater than

volume required. Hence, selection of master
cylinder is justified.

DETAILED:
η η
Amc=
η

Where,

Fp= pedal force, N

Lp= pedal lever ratio

2
Pk= knee point pressure, N/cm

η = wheel cylinder efficiency

η = pedal level efficiency

Figure 13.Detailed stopping distance time period
Awc= Area of wheel cylinder

Stotal = Vtr (tr + ta + )+ - SL= reducer slope

r= rotor radius
=11.11(1 + 0.25 + ) + ( ) +
R= tyre effective radius
)
W= vehicle total weight
=15.554 + 8.9873 – 0.02575
a = deceleration
Stotal = 24.5155m

η η
Amc=
η
TOTAL TIME = tr + ta + +
SL=0; η =0.8; η =0.98; Fp=250N; Lp=5:1; r=
2
=2.2089 sec 72.5mm; BFF = 0.8; BFF = 0.7; (Awc)F=1134.2 mm ;
2
(Awc)R=804.22mm ;

R=11.5”; a=0.9; W=235Kg; Pk=0.

6
Amc=

4. Master cylinder losses:

=

2
Vmc=Kmc*PL
=212.746670 mm
3 2
2
Kmc = specific master cylinder volume loss cm /N/cm
Amc =2.1274 cm
-6
2
Vmc= 150*10 *350.8489
Area of master cylinder selected is 2.85cm
3
Vmc=0.05262cm
Detailed Volume Analysis:

5. Calliper deformation:
1. Pad rotor clearance:
Vc= KcPL + Vr
3
Front Calliper = 115.2347 mm
3
Vc = volume loss in calliper, cm ,
3
Rear Calliper = 81.7067 mm
Vr = residual air volume
Total clearance volume = 115.2347+ 81.7067
For diameter between 38 and 60mm,
3
=196.9414mm
-6 -6 3 2
Kc=482*10 dwc-1632*10 cm /N/cm
3
=0.1969 cm
dwc = wheel cylinder diameter, cm,
2. Brake line expansion: -6 -6
Kc,F.C= 482*10 *3.81-1632*10
VBL= -6 3 2
=204.42*10 cm /N/cm

Where, -6
Vc=204.42*10 *350.8489+0.31

D=outer diameter= 4mm 3

Vc =0.762cm

T=wall thickness of pipe= 0.7

7 2
E= elastic modulus= 2.05*10 N/cm 6. Brake pad compression:
2
PL=brake line pressure=350.8489N/cm Vp=4Σ[(Awc)*Cs*PL]
L= length of brake line=54” Awc= wheel cylinder area, cm
2

2
Cs = brake shoe compressibility, cm/(N/cm )
Therefore, =4*19.3842*18*10 *350.8489
-6

3
VBL= Vp=0.48966 cm

-3 3
VBL =1.69551*10 cm

7. Brake fluid compression:

3
3. Brake hose expansion: VA=Vo+4Σ[(Awc).W] cm
3
VH=KH*LH*PL Vo = brakefluid volume with new shoes, cm

-6
=4.39*10 *460*350.8489
3
VH = 0.7085cm

7
Vo=master cylinder volume+ volume of front calliper+ =8.9585 cm
volume of rear calliper+ volume of rigid brake hose+
volume of flexible brake hose = 3.5269”

3 The total travel considering all the losses is

Vo= 136.0227 cm
in accepted range. Hence, the selection of
VFL=VA*CFL*PL master cylinder is justified.

W=wear travel of shoes=0.635 cm

-6 2
CFL= brake fluid compressibility factor = 5*10 cm /N
at 422 K

VA= 136.0227+4(19.3842*0.635)
3
VA=185.258568 cm

VFL=VA*CFL*PL
-6
=185.258568*5*10 *350.8489

VFL=0.324985

8. Air or Gas in the brake system:

VGL=

3
VGL=2 cm

These calculations are done for cold brake; hence

3
the residual air volume is taken as 2cm .

9. Fluid losses in hydrorac (booster)

3
=0 cm

Total Volume Requirement:

ΣVi=0.0016955+0.7085+0.05262+2+0.762
+0.48966+0.324985+0.1967

ΣVi =4.5363

Sp=[Σ * lp

Where, lo = pushrod travel to overcome

pushrod play

lp = pedal ratio.

Sp = *5