Torsional analysis of the chassis and its validation through Finite

Element Analysis
Ayush Anand
Student(Production)
BIT Mesra,Ranchi,
Jharkhand-835215,India
ayush.aand@gmail.com

Keywords: Roll cage, Torsional analysis, HyperMesh

Abstract
The most important aspect of the vehicle design is the frame part or roll cage. The frame has the operator,
engine, brake system, fuel system, and steering system, it must be of adequate strength to protect the driver
in the event of a rollover or impact. BAJA SAE roll cage is generally constructed of steel tubing, with minimum
dimensional and strength requirements dictated by Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The torsional
stiffness of a vehicle’s chassis has a significant effect on its handling characteristics and is, therefore, an
important parameter to measure. In the present paper, the torsional stiffness of BAJA roll cage is
experimentally computed which was then, validated by the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) using HyperWorks
13.0.

Introduction

The biggest effect of torsional deflection has been found on lateral load transfer distribution between the front
and rear axle. During a steady state turn, an infinitely rigid chassis will cause the both front and rear roll angle
to be same, which is assumed when suspension design calculations are performed [4]. Allowing for a twist in
the chassis will redistribute some amount of weight transfer between the front and rear tires, causing these
values to deviate from their designed values [5]. Most racecars design frame to stiffer than suspension roll
stiffness.
To find out the torsional stiffness of the frame experimentally, a fixture has to be made to constrain the roll
cage from all the directions and then, a load has to be applied from one direction and the deflection would be
measured using a dial indicator. A similar frame had been modeled in CATIA which was then trimmed and
mid-surface is generated in CATIA itself. The model had been processed in hyper mesh and similar load had
been applied. The measured deflection had been compared with the experimental value for its validation.

Process Methodology

A. Torsional analysis using FEA (Finite Element Analysis)

Material and property

Fig 1. Assigning components and properties

1
As it could be observed from fig 1, all the parts like chassis, A-arms, solid springs were assigned different
component and properties as per their thickness and material using different cards available in the hyper
mesh. This had to be done to get more accuracy in the result and get more realistic view.

Constraint and load

Fig 2. Load and constraint applied

Two equal and opposite forces of 75 lbs were applied at the ends of the front suspension as shown in fig.2.
The rear part was constrained in all the degree of freedom while the front part was constrained in all
translational 3 degrees of freedom but was set free in rotational motion. The shocks were modeled as solid
links.

B. Torsional analysis using experimental setup

Design and fabrication

All the fixture were made and welded in the college premises with the suitable material and good thickness.
All of the components fabricated for the fixture were made of mild steel. This choice was made because mild
steel is cheaper than aluminum, does not require heat treatment after welding and is easy to machine. The
stands were made 14 inches tall so that the chassis could clear the torsion fixture. The adapter plates were
made large enough to accommodate the bolt patterns of the chassis. Big I-beam section was used to hold the
G-clamps and the entire roll cage.

Adapter mounting plate

The adapter mounting plate is a very crucial part in the fixture and it should be validated using FEA that there
is not any significance error in the plate.

Fig.3. Meshing of plate Fig.4. Load applied Fig.5. Result

The plates were thick enough to enable the wheel hub studs to pass through the other side. An FEA with a
worst case scenario load of 2000N revealed that deflection would be less enough, less than the resolution of
our dial gauges. All the procedure had been shown in fig. 3.

2
Procedure

The rear hubs were constrained in all the degree of freedom by mounting it tightly to the adapter plate via
the block to the I-beam section. The adapter plate had been welded firmly to the block.It had been shown in
fig. 4.

Fig.4. Rear mounted firmly

Front mounting points were constrained in all degree of freedom except one rotational degree of freedom
along X-axis. For that, a roller had been made in the front system.

The front torsion stands attach the front hubs of the chassis to an I-beam. The axis of rotation of the beam is
parallel to the longitudinal axis of the chassis. Weights are now placed on the end of the pivoting beam
alternatively, causing it to pivot. This raises one stand and lowers the other by an equal amount while keeping
the rear stands fixed. The moment or torque applied is the amount of weight multiplied by its distance from
the center of rotation. It had been shown in fig.5.

Fig.5. Front mounting has been given one degree of freedom

The twist of the frame is found by measuring vertical displacement of the pivoting I-beam. In this experiment,
a dial indicator was used since proof of concept and not accuracy was the goal. Four dial indicator had been
used in this experiment near all the suspension mounting points.

3
Fig.6. Complete setup

Result

In this section, the procedures used to calculate torsional stiffness using the twisting fixture for the chassis
are discussed. Measurements from a fully assembled car are used to illustrate the uncertainty in the design.

Finite element analysis (FEA) result

Fig.7. Post-processing result

A vertical displacement of 0.51 mm was recorded as could be seen in fig. 7, which has been evaluated from
post-processing in hyperview. The torsional stiffness value for this particular displacement would be
calculated as follow -
Θf = 2δ ÷ Lf (radian) (1)
=2*0.51 ÷ 470
=0.002 rad
=0.114°
Where Lf is the lateral distance between the front dial indicators. Force reactions at the left front and right
front, denoted Rf and Rr, respectively, are given by putting weights. The torque is calculated from
T= {(Rf + Rr)/2}*Ls (2)
= {(75+75)/2}*0.77
=56.77 lb-ft.

4
Where Ls is the distance between the pivoted tube and the point where force had been imposed. The twist
angle is adjusted by subtracting the deflection at the rear. The twist angle at the rear, θr, is calculated from
vertical deflections measured near the rear spring perches.
θr= (δf+δr)/Lr (Radian) (3)
=0(approx.)
Where δf and δr are the right and left vertical deflections measured (by dial indicators) near the rear spring perches and
Lr is the lateral distance between the rear dial indicators. The torsional stiffness at each increment is calculated by
K=T/θ (4)
=56.77/0.114
=498 lb-ft/deg
θ= θf- θr.

Experimental result

Dial indicators are used to measure the equal and opposite applied vertical deflections δ, at the left and right
front spring perches. The increment is chosen such that at least 5 data points are obtained.

Table 1: Left side (weight added) Table 2: Left side (weight removed)

Weight(lbs) Moment(ft-lb) Θ(deg) Weight(lbs) Moment(ft-lb) Θ(deg)

0 0 0 100 77 0.13
25 19.2 0.032 75 56.77 0.12
50 38.5 0.09 50 38.5 0.1
75 56.77 0.114 25 19.2 0.03
100 77 0.15 0 0 0

Table 3: Right side (weight added) Table 4: Right side (weight removed)

Weight(lbs) Moment(ft-lb) Θ(deg) Weight(lbs) Moment(ft-lb) Θ(deg)

0 0 0 100 77 0.127
25 19.2 0.02 75 56.77 0.12
50 38.5 0.09 50 38.5 0.09
75 56.77 0.114 25 19.2 0.03
100 77 0.16 0 0 0

The deflection in the rear side was approx. zero and so we neglected the deflection in the rear part.

Based on the above data values, a graph has been plotted between moment and angle to find out any
discrepancy in between the left and right side or the weight added and weight removed plot. Also, an
average plot has been made in the graph itself to find out the average torsional stiffness value.

The torsional stiffness value while loading weight on left side comes out to be 423 lb-ft/deg as calculated
from the graph in fig.8.

5
 Fig. 8. Left side

The torsional stiffness value while loading weight on right side comes out to be 433 lb-ft/deg. as calculated
from the graph in fig 9.

Fig.9. Right side

So, the average torsional stiffness value is 428 Lb-ft/deg.

Discussion and conclusion

To prove the repeatability of the torsion fixture, weights were applied on either end (right, left) of the pivoting
beam in two separate experiments.
Now, error percentage = [498(from FEA) – 428(experimental value)] ÷ 428
= 16.35 %
A small amount of fluctuation was observed. This can be attributed mainly to the clearance in the holes on
the suspension mounts. The overall curve was linear which shows the torsion fixture is giving the value of
the roll cage torsional stiffness.
Other Inference:
• Roll stiffness of the suspension was 165 Lb-ft/deg in front and 270 Lb-ft/deg in the rear. The
torsional stiffness value is quite good as compared to the roll stiffness of the chassis.
• Good torsional stiffness ensures that no extra bracing is required between LFS and SIM member.

6
Assumptions:
• All fasteners, tabs and welded joint on the roll cage were assumed to be rigid.
• The stands, solid shocks, fasteners, I-beams, and all other fixture components are assumed to be
rigid and stationary.
• The 75-pound weights are assumed to be exact.

Acknowledgement

I sincerely thank the production department of BIT Mesra, Ranchi, India for funding this project work.The
author would like to express their gratitude to Altair Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. for helping in carrying out all
the work.

References
[1] Thompson L., Lampert K., Law H., “Design of a Twist Fixture to Measure the Torsional Stiffness of a Winston Cup Chassis,” SAE
Paper 983054.
[2] Claisse, A.; Featherston, C.A.; Holford, K.M, C.A.; Holt.; Manning, D.: Measuring the Torsional Stiffness of a Space Frame Chassis
using 3D Motion Capture Techniques, Applied Mechanics, and Materials, 2006, pp. 423-428,
[3] Law, E.H.; Raju, S.; Sone, P.H.; Thompson, L.L.: The Effects of Chassis Flexibility on Roll Stiffness of a Winston Cup Race Car,
Motorsports Engineering Conference Proceedings, 1998.
[4] Hartog, J.P.D.: Advanced Strength of Materials, McGraw-Hill Book Co, New York, NY, 2014.
[5] Brown, J.C., Robertson, A.J.; Serpento, S.T.: Motor Vehicle Structures, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2013.
[6] Crocombe, A.; Sampe, E.; Somiotti, A.: Chassis Torsional Stiffness: Analysis of the Influence on Vehicle Dynamics, SAE 2010
World Congress & Exhibition, 2010.
[7] Nitin S. Gokhale.: Practical Finite Element Analysis, Altair, 2015