Hypermesh

MSC AUTOMOTIVE ENGGINEERING JAN 2009
M12MAE Vehicle Structures-GROUP1
Contents
Contents..................................................................................................................... 1
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................2
CHASSIS DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................3
2.1 2D DRAWINGS OF A BASE MODEL CHASSIS......................................................4
HYPERMESH MODEL OF BASE LINE CHASSIS..............................................................5
CHASSIS TORSIONAL STIFFNESS ANALYSIS................................................................6
ANALYSIS RESULTS OF BASE MODEL CHASSIS IN HYPER VIEW...................................9
5.1. CASE 1- BASE MODEL (2).................................................................................9
5.2. POT HOLE ANALYSIS BEFORE OPTIMIZATION (1)...........................................10
5.3. 3g ANALYSIS BEFORE OPTIMIZATION (1)......................................................11
5.4. 2g ANALYSIS WITH OUT OPTIMIZATION (1)...................................................12
5.5. CASE 2 – SIDE BARS ADDED (2)....................................................................13
INFERENCE............................................................................................................ 13
5.6. CASE 3: ADDING CROSS BARS IN BOTTOM OF CHASSIS................................14
INFERENCE............................................................................................................ 14
5.7. CASE 4- X BAR STRUCTURE IN REAR OF CHASSIS.........................................17
INFERENCE............................................................................................................ 17
5.8. CASE 5: CROSS BAR AT BACK OF ROLL CAGE................................................18
INFERENCE:........................................................................................................... 18
5.8.1. 2D DRAWINGS OF A OPTIMIZED CHASSIS...............................................19
5.9. POT HOLE ANALYSIS AFTER OPTIMIZATION...................................................21
5.10. 3g ANALYSIS AFTER OPTIMIZATION..............................................................22
2g AFTER OPTIMIZATION......................................................................................23
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS ......................24
1.SIMPLE SIDE IMPACT STRUCTURE, INCLUDING SILLS AND DOOR BEAMS..............26
SIMPLE ROLL HOOP STRUCTURE...............................................................................26
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................27
10. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................28
Page | 1
ABSTRACT
Understanding the influence of the various structural members on the torsional stiffness of a
chassis. In this work we identify the importance of the individual structural members on the
torsional stiffness of a chassis. Results from the HYPERMESH analysis are used as a guide to
modify the base line chassis with the goal of increase the torsional rigidity by 50% and reduction
the weight by 30% without any change in centre of gravity. The torsional stiffness of the chassis
with various combinations of added members in the front clip area, engine bay and behind the
roll cage area was predicted using the HYPERMESH analysis. torsional stiffness increases and
weight from several competing chassis designs are reported. With strategic placement of
structural members to the chassis, the torsional stiffness can be more than 50% with 30%
reduction of weight.
INTRODUCTION
Increased torsional stiffness of a chassis improves vehicle handling by allowing the suspension
components to control a larger percentage of a vehicle kinematics. In addition, a car chassis must
have adequate torsional stiffness so that chassis structural dynamic modes do not adversely
couple with the suspension dynamic modes.
While designing a new chassis or modifying a base line chassis, structural members must be
strategically located in order to reduce the twist of the frame and minimize local deflections of
suspension support points. In order to reduce twist and deflection, a minimum level of the
chassis stiffness must be achieved, while at the same time reduce the chassis weight and keeping
the centre of gravity same(3)
Structural design of the chassis has been done by trail and error method, possibly accompanied
by some simple measurements of torsional stiffness. The main objective of this study is to
modify the chassis to increase the torsional stiffness by 50% and reduce the weight b 30%
keeping the same centre of gravity. In order to achieve this goal, an analysis will be performed
on a base line HYPERMESH model to help identify the structural members with the most
influence on the torsional stiffness for several different chassis configurations will be computed
using the HYPER MESH SOFTWARE. Results from the hyper mesh analysis are used as a
Page | 2
guide for strategic placements of members with the greatest impact on increased torsional
stiffness.
CHASSIS DESCRIPTION
The chassis consists of the front clip, main cage and rear clip (figure 1) . The front clip includes
the frame members and tubing forward of the firewall, the main cage houses the driver and rear
clip consists of all members behind the main cage. The dimensions of the chassis are
approximately 2370mm long, 1440mm wide and 600mm height. The chassis material is
primarily mild carbon steel. The chassis consists of circular, rectangular and square tube
members.
Rear clip Main cage Front clip
Figure 1: side view of the chassis
Page | 3
2.1 2D DRAWINGS OF A BASE MODEL CHASSIS
Figure 2: CHASSIS 2D DRAWING TOP VIEW

ALL DIMENSIONS IN MM
Figure 3: SIDE VIEW AND FRONT VIEW OF CHASSIS

ALL DIMENSIONS IN MM
Page | 4
HYPERMESH MODEL OF BASE LINE CHASSIS
The chassis was constructed using HYPER MESH SOFT WARE. The geometry for the finite
element model of the unsuspended chassis was measured by our group members using faro arm
and some manual measurements.(2)
The chassis was measured by projecting the centres of joints on to the surface to determine the x-
z components. The heights of the key points above the surface plates were measured to
determine the y- coordinates.
The origin of the chassis is place at one end at the rear point at rear most part of the chassis. This
coordinate system is defined such that the positive x-axis is directed towards lateral cross
member and positive z-axis is directed towards the front end and positive y-axis is perpendicular
to the x-z plane directed up.
Using the hyper beam property all the cross sections are drawn as shown in the figure 6.
All the cross sections are assigned to the concern properties.
Meshing is done by using the line mesh keeping the element configuration as bar2 and properties
are given( as shown in figure 5)
The chassis model was constructed with material properties given as steel.
Figure 4: Wire frame of a chassis in HYPER MESH
Page | 5
Figure 5: AFTER MESHING
Figure 6: BEAM CROSS SECTIONS(2)
CHASSIS TORSIONAL STIFFNESS ANALYSIS

In order to evaluate the torsional stiffness of the chassis structure boundary conditions are
applied to model as shown in figure 7.
• A torque is applied to the front end of the chassis by applying equal and opposite vertical
forces on the frame rails at a point in the vicinity of the front suspension pickup points on
Page | 6
the driver side. A force F= ±2695.4 N is applied producing a torque T= F x d, where d ,

is the lateral distance between load application points.
• At the rear suspension, the chassis is constrained in all x, y and z translations and in front
between the forces another constraint is made in z- translation.
• These boundary conditions are representative of constraints applied by a twist fixture

used to measure torsional stiffness. (2)
Figure 7: Chassis with forces and boundaries
The applied torque T=Fd, produces a twisting effect on the chassis. Due to the symmetry within
the chassis, the differential dose result in equal deflection at front load points. The deflection in
the front end pick up points in the vertical y-direction is measured. Torsional stiffness is
calculated from,
Ø1 and Ø2 are the deflections at front end loads.
Page | 7
With the differential loading and the constraints discussed earlier, torsional stiffness for the base
line chassis is as follows
Page | 8
track
y Dz Angle Each force total force Nm K=Nm/degree Mass(Kg)
13,9 1,10758042 2695,4177 5390,8355 388

1440 2 1 9 8 1 3504,397101 137,6
ANALYSIS RESULTS OF BASE MODEL CHASSIS IN HYPER

VIEW
5.1. CASE 1- BASE MODEL (2)

The following figure 8, shows the changes in the forces, displacements, stresses and vibrations
due to the forces applied in the front end of the chassis and the constraints made in rear of the
suspension ends and front middle.
Page | 9
Figure 8: BASE MODEL ANALYSIS
As mentioned earlier the chassis structure is symmetry, so, as a result the change in twist is zero.
The deflections are largest in the front clip indicating this section would benefit for stiffening.
The largest rate of change in twist occurs in the transition section between the front clip and
main cage area, indicating that a large change in stiffness occurs in the transition region where
the frame narrow to wide.
5.2. POT HOLE ANALYSIS BEFORE OPTIMIZATION (1)

Pot hole braking is the load case involving the longitudinal and vertical loads when the vehicle
been to cobbled road surface as shown in the following figure 9.
Figure 9: Application of road loads at tire contact patch
Standard average loads when vehicle subjected to pot hole , vertical load =Fy = 12360N and
longitudinal load=Fz = 15900N from ”The multibody system approach to vehicle dynamics” by
Mike Blundell
The following results clearly shown that the displacement, stresses, forces and vibration variation
in both longitudinal and vertical. We can clearly state that the twist will be more when the
vehicle is subjected to pothole.
Page | 10
Figure 10: POT HOLE ANALYSIS
5.3. 3g ANALYSIS BEFORE OPTIMIZATION (1)

3g bump is the load case involving the positive vertical loads when the vehicle been too cobbled
road surface as shown in the following figure 9.
Standard average loads when vehicle subjected to 3g bump , vertical load =Fy = 11180N and
from ”The multibody system approach to vehicle dynamics” by Mike Blundell
The following results clearly states that the displacement, stresses, forces and vibration variation
in vertical direction. And the twist will be more when the vehicle is subjected to 3g bump
Page | 11
Figure 11: 3g ANALYSIS
5.4. 2g ANALYSIS WITH OUT OPTIMIZATION (1)

2g bump is the load case involving the negative vertical loads when the vehicle been to cobbled
road surface as shown in the following figure 9.
Standard average loads when vehicle subjected to 2g bump , vertical load =Fy = -7460N and
from ”The multibody system approach to vehicle dynamics” by Mike Blundell
The following results clearly states that the displacement, stresses, forces and vibration variation
in vertical direction. And the twist will be more when the vehicle is subjected to 2g bump
Page | 12
Figure 12: 2g ANALYSIS
5.5. CASE 2 – SIDE BARS ADDED (2)
Figure 13: AFTER ADDING SIDE BARS
INFERENCE
In this case almost 20% of the weight is reduced and side bar of size 25mm x 25 mm is added
as shown in figure this bar helps to reduce torsion by reducing stresses in the side base bars and
transverse to the top section so that the load is distributing to number of tube. Expected the
torsion will increase by 10%. And reduce the diameter size and the thick ness of bars helps us to
reduce weight to 103kgs. Analysis results are as shown in the following figure 14.
Page | 13
Figure 14: AFTER SIDE BAR ANALYSIS
track
y Dz Angle Each force total force Nm Nm/degree Mass(Kg)
1440 10 0,795724 2695,41779 5390,836 3881,402 4877,826733 103
After adding the side bar stiffness increased to 4877 Nm/degree that means almost more than
20%.
5.6. CASE 3: ADDING CROSS BARS IN BOTTOM OF CHASSIS
INFERENCE
Several combinations of supporting members in different diagonal orientations were examined.
The configuration with the most benefit to torsional stiffness is the cross section shown in the
figure 15, smaller size with 25mm diameter and thickness of 3mm are used to minimize added
weight to the bottom of the chassis in order to keep the centre of gravity remains same. The
Page | 14
torsional stiffness with the added roof bars and higher than the base line. The weight increased
by 1.2kgs with this change.
Figure 15: After adding cross bars under chassis
The following figure 16, shows the Displacement, stresses and vibration distribution in the hyper
view. And the values clearly show the torsional stiffness increase.
Page | 15
track
1440 9,7 0,771854779 2695,41779 5390,83558 3881 5028,668246 104,3
Figure 16: cross bars under chassis analysis
Page | 16
5.7. CASE 4- X BAR STRUCTURE IN REAR OF CHASSIS
Figure 17: CROSS BARS AT REAR END
INFERENCE
Above figure 17, shows the added X-bar section in the rear of the vehicle. In order to reduce the
torsion because of the 3g, 2g and pot hole analysis creating the X-bar section in the rear of the
suspension helps in increasing the torsional stiffness by 3% with increase of weight 1.2kgs.
This rear diagonal also helps to maintain the symmetry of the chassis.
Page | 17
Figure 18: CROSS BARS AT REAR END ANALYSIS
The above results show the changes in displacement, stresses, forces and vibrations due to the
changes made in the rear of the chassis.
track
0,76946788 2695,4177 5390,8355 5044,26719

1440 9,67 7 9 8 3881 4 105
5.8. CASE 5: CROSS BAR AT BACK OF ROLL CAGE
INFERENCE:
To further decrease the twist in the chassis cross bar at the back of the roll cage is constructed in
such a way that the load is equally distributed. Adding this structure as shown in figure 19,
increase in the torsional rigidity by 6-8% and weight by 1kg.
Page | 18
Figure 19: After adding cross bars back of roll cage
5.8.1. 2D DRAWINGS OF A OPTIMIZED CHASSIS
Figu
re 20: SIDE VIEW AND FRONT VIEW OF MODIFIED CHASSIS
ALL DIMENSIONS IN (mm)
Page | 19
Figure 21:TOP VIEW OF MODIFIED CHASSIS

ALL DIMENSIONS IN (mm)
The following figure 22, shows the displacement, stress, vibration and force variations in hyper
view.
Figure 22: cross bars back of roll cage analysis
Page | 20
track
2695,4177 3881,40 5876,78213

1440 8,3 0,660464 9 5390,836 2 5 107.8
5.9. POT HOLE ANALYSIS AFTER OPTIMIZATION

Following figure 23, clearly shows the optimised chassis is having more torsional rigidity than
the base line model. Displacements are low when compared with the base line model, stresses
arel also the same when compared with base line model. The modified model which is case 5
having more torsional stiffness when compare with previous model.
Page | 21
Figure 23: POT HOLE ANALYSIS AFTER OPTIMIZED
5.10. 3g ANALYSIS AFTER OPTIMIZATION
3g bump is the load case involving the positive vertical loads when the vehicle been to cobbled
road surface as shown in the following figure 9.optimized chassis is designed based on the
Page | 22
previous base line chassis analysis, 3g, 2g and pot hole analysis. Again 3g analysis is run on the
optimized chassis and the values are more satisfying. Increase in torsional stiffness when
compare with the base line model. Results of 3g analysis are as shown in the figure 24.
Figure 24: 3g ANALYSIS AFTER OPTIMIZATION
2g AFTER OPTIMIZATION
In order to maintain the symmetry, and increase torsional stiffness, when the vehicle subjected
to 2g,cross bars are created at the rear end to reduce the deflection. And because of the normal
negative forces, we have created side beams to distribute the loads to all the members.
The analysis results clearly states that optimized chassis is having more torsional stiffness and
more than 20% of weight reduction.
Page | 23
Figure 25: 2g ANALYSIS AFTER OPTIMIZATION
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS

A summary of the torsional stiffness and weight of the five design cases that are considered in
the study is given in the figures 26 and 27. Bases on the torsional stiffness calculations, the most
significant changes to the base line chassis in order of importance were.
• Side bars in case 1
• Cross bars in the rear of chassis
• Cross bars under the chassis
• Cross bars back of the roll cage area
• Bar near engine bay
Page | 24
The most significant increase in torsional stiffness occurred with the addition of side bar.
Another important member is the rear diagonal bar present in the original chassis. This bar
increased torsional rigidity by 10-15%, but more importantly the asymmetry in the twist
behaviour is reduced considerably with the addition of bar. The graphical representation clearly
shows the change in torsion and weight with respect to the different cases.
Figure 26: CASES vs TORSIONAL STIFFNESS
Figure 27: CASES vs. WEIGHT INCREASE
Page | 25
1. SIMPLE SIDE IMPACT STRUCTURE, INCLUDING SILLS

AND DOOR BEAMS
Side impact structures are provided for protecting vehicle occupants from injury in the event
of a collision from the side and are typically used as door reinforcement. Depending on the
stability of the basic configuration of the door, the side impact structure should have high rigidity
in a direction transversely to the traveling direction.
Figure 28 Door Sill and Door Beam
SIMPLE ROLL HOOP STRUCTURE

Basic considerations in design of a roll hoop:
1.The basic function of a roll hoop is to protect the driver and the passenger in case of a roll over.
Page | 26
2. The roll hoop must be able to withstand the compression forces resulting from the weight of
the vehicle coming down on the roll hoop structure and to bear the loads due to skidding of the
car on the roll structure.
3. The size of the tubing used depends on the weight of the vehicle and its speed potential.
4. The roll bars should be attached in such a way that the load is distributed over a wider area
and an extension of the frame itself rather than just fixing to the frame. Bracings help in
distributing the loads evenly on the structure.
5. The bracing should be the same size as that of the main roll hoop.
6.The tubular member of roll hoop should be of one continuous length with smooth bends and no
crimping.
7. The top of the roll hoop structure should not be below the top of the drivers head and should
be atleast within six inches behind the driver
8. The hoop structure that may come in contact with the driver should be padded with non-
resilient material such Etha foam or Ensolite with a minimum thickness of one-half inch.
Figure 29: Roll Hoop Structure
CONCLUSION
The torsional stiffness of the chassis with various combinations of added members in the front
clip area, engine bay, area behind the roll cage was predicted using hyper mesh analysis. A total
of 10-15 load cases were considered culminating in a final design with a significantly increased
torsional stiffness with decrease in weight. Addition and relocation of structural members were
Page | 27
positioned with adequate clearance for serving engine and other vehicle and suspension
components. The transition section between the front clip and roll cage had a large gradient in
deflection. Based on the torsional calculation, the most significant structural changes to the
chassis were the addition of a side bar, cross member in the rear which reduces the asymmetry,
member in the lower surface of the chassis in middle.
For the purpose of this study the boundary condition were sufficient to predict the relative
changes between competing chassis configurations.
10. REFERENCES
1. Mike Blundell and damian harty, Multi body system approach to vehicle dynamics.
London: Elsevier.
2. Christopher Bastein, class notes and hyper mesh tutorials.
3. L Thompson, Srikanth raju and Harry Law, Design of a Winston chassis for torsional
rigidity, SAE Publishers,1998
4. Halderman A, automotive technology ,first edition, London: Elsevier
Page | 28

Hypermesh

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Hypermesh

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

MSC AUTOMOTIVE ENGGINEERING JAN 2009

M12MAE Vehicle Structures-GROUP1

Figure 1: side view of the chassis

2.1 2D DRAWINGS OF A BASE MODEL CHASSIS

Figure 2: CHASSIS 2D DRAWING TOP VIEW

Figure 3: SIDE VIEW AND FRONT VIEW OF CHASSIS

HYPERMESH MODEL OF BASE LINE CHASSIS

All the cross sections are assigned to the concern properties.

Figure 4: Wire frame of a chassis in HYPER MESH

Figure 5: AFTER MESHING

Figure 6: BEAM CROSS SECTIONS(2)

CHASSIS TORSIONAL STIFFNESS ANALYSIS

the driver side. A force F= ±2695.4 N is applied producing a torque T= F x d, where d ,

• These boundary conditions are representative of constraints applied by a twist fixture

Figure 7: Chassis with forces and boundaries

Ø1 and Ø2 are the deflections at front end loads.

13,9 1,10758042 2695,4177 5390,8355 388

ANALYSIS RESULTS OF BASE MODEL CHASSIS IN HYPER

5.1. CASE 1- BASE MODEL (2)

Figure 8: BASE MODEL ANALYSIS

5.2. POT HOLE ANALYSIS BEFORE OPTIMIZATION (1)

Figure 9: Application of road loads at tire contact patch

Figure 10: POT HOLE ANALYSIS

5.3. 3g ANALYSIS BEFORE OPTIMIZATION (1)

Figure 11: 3g ANALYSIS

5.4. 2g ANALYSIS WITH OUT OPTIMIZATION (1)

Figure 12: 2g ANALYSIS

5.5. CASE 2 – SIDE BARS ADDED (2)

Figure 13: AFTER ADDING SIDE BARS

Figure 14: AFTER SIDE BAR ANALYSIS

1440 10 0,795724 2695,41779 5390,836 3881,402 4877,826733 103

5.6. CASE 3: ADDING CROSS BARS IN BOTTOM OF CHASSIS

Figure 15: After adding cross bars under chassis

1440 9,7 0,771854779 2695,41779 5390,83558 3881 5028,668246 104,3

Figure 16: cross bars under chassis analysis

5.7. CASE 4- X BAR STRUCTURE IN REAR OF CHASSIS

Figure 17: CROSS BARS AT REAR END

Figure 18: CROSS BARS AT REAR END ANALYSIS

0,76946788 2695,4177 5390,8355 5044,26719

5.8. CASE 5: CROSS BAR AT BACK OF ROLL CAGE

Figure 19: After adding cross bars back of roll cage

5.8.1. 2D DRAWINGS OF A OPTIMIZED CHASSIS

Figure 21:TOP VIEW OF MODIFIED CHASSIS

Figure 22: cross bars back of roll cage analysis

2695,4177 3881,40 5876,78213

5.9. POT HOLE ANALYSIS AFTER OPTIMIZATION

Figure 23: POT HOLE ANALYSIS AFTER OPTIMIZED

5.10. 3g ANALYSIS AFTER OPTIMIZATION

Figure 24: 3g ANALYSIS AFTER OPTIMIZATION

Figure 25: 2g ANALYSIS AFTER OPTIMIZATION

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS

• Side bars in case 1

• Cross bars in the rear of chassis

• Cross bars under the chassis

• Cross bars back of the roll cage area

• Bar near engine bay

Figure 26: CASES vs TORSIONAL STIFFNESS

Figure 27: CASES vs. WEIGHT INCREASE

1. SIMPLE SIDE IMPACT STRUCTURE, INCLUDING SILLS

Figure 28 Door Sill and Door Beam

SIMPLE ROLL HOOP STRUCTURE

Figure 29: Roll Hoop Structure

2. Christopher Bastein, class notes and hyper mesh tutorials.