Jat in Raj pal* et al.

( I JI TR) I NTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF I NNOVATI VE TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH

Volum e No.3, I ssue No.3, April - May 2015, 2075 – 2082.

JATIN RAJPAL RUCHA S. BHIRUD

Department of Mechanical Engineering Department of Mechanical Engineering
MIT College of Engineering MIT College of Engineering
Pune, India Pune, India
ANCHAL K. SINGH AJAY V. HOTKAR
Department of Mechanical Engineering Department of Mechanical Engineering
MIT College of Engineering MIT College of Engineering
Pune, India Pune, India
Prof. SANDEEP G. THORAT
Department of Mechanical Engineering
MIT College of Engineering
Pune, India
Abstract—The paper deals with the structural analysis of automobile frame of EICHER E2 11.10 PLUS
and design modification of frame cross-section to reduce weight of the chassis. Further, a study of rolling
over effect, toppling and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is done and the
rolling over index of the automobile is reduced using the same reduced weight. Structural Analysis of the
frame with reduced rolling over index is done to check for failure. A chassis component belong to the
category of safety components, therefore it must never fail. The chassis serves as a framework for
supporting the body and different parts of the automobile. Also, the seriousness of the rolling over of a
car is to be taken into consideration. Therefore, chassis should be rigid enough to withstand the shock,
twist, vibration and other stresses. Along with strength, an important consideration in chassis design is to
have adequate bending stiffness for better handling characteristics. So, maximum stress, maximum
equilateral stress and deflection are important criteria for the design of the chassis.
Keywords—design modifications of chassis; weight reduction; roll-over index; automobile chassis safety.
I. INTRODUCTION Chassis Control (UCC) System was designed
which calculates the risk of rolling over and then
Automobile chassis refers to the lower body of the
calculates the braking force required to stop the
vehicle including the tires, engine, frame, driveline
vehicle and the brakes are applied to prevent rolling
and suspension. Out of these, the frame provides
over (Yoon, Cho, Kang, Koo, Yi, 2009). A study
necessary support to the vehicle components placed
on active bogies is done for chassis leveling in
on it. Also the frame should be strong enough to
order to keep the center of mass intact (Pijuan,
withstand shock, twist, vibrations and other
Comellas, Nogues, Roca, Potau, 2011). Design
stresses. The chassis frame consists of side
modification for reduction of weight was studied
members attached with a series of cross members
by (Vijaykumar Patel, 2012). Besides this, the
Stress analysis using Finite Element Method
NHTSA has given a report of the number of roll
(FEM) can be used to locate the critical point
over accidents and the fatal injuries and thus has
which has the highest stress. This critical point is
also proposed a rolling over index for different
one of the factors that may cause the fatigue failure.
vehicles, which tells us about the tendency of
The magnitude of the stress can be used to predict
various vehicles to roll over.
the life span of the truck chassis. The accuracy of
prediction life of truck chassis is depending on the III. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF
result of its stress analysis, as in [1]. EXISTING CHASSIS
II. LITERATURE SURVEY A. Chassis Specifications
An Electronic Control Unit (ECU) was designed Model No. = 11.10 (Eicher E2 PLUS)
which calculates the risk of rolling over and then a
Side bar of the chassis are made from “C”
lateral acceleration is produced in a direction
Channels with 210mm x 76 mm x 6 mm, as in [2]
opposite to that of rolling over to prevent the effect
(Yoon, Cho, Koo, Yi, 2009). But, this was more Front Overhang (a) = 1200 mm
prone to accidents as the car went in opposite
Rear Overhang (c) = 1742 mm
direction as intended by the driver. So, A Unified

2320 –5547 @ 2013 http://www.ijitr.com All rights Reserved. Page | 2075

 Jat in Raj pal* et al.
( I JI TR) I NTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF I NNOVATI VE TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH
Volum e No.3, I ssue No.3, April - May 2015, 2075 – 2082.

Wheel Base (b) = 3800 mm L = Wheel Base = 3800 mm

Material of the chassis is Structural Steel Y = 3.0778 mm
(Grade St 52)
According to Deflection Span ratio, Maximum
Modulus of Elasticity (E) = 2.10 x 105 N/mm2 Deflection for simply supported beam is (1/300)
times of total length (6742 mm) which is 22.47mm.
Poisson Ratio ( ) = 0.31 Hence deflection is safe, as in [3].
Radius of Gyration (R) = 210 / 2 = 105 mm Shear Stress is calculated using the Torsional
Capacity of Truck = 8 ton = 8000 kg = 78480 N Formula
Capacity of Truck with 1.25% = 98100 N
Weight of body and engine = 2 ton = 2000 kg =
(3)
19620 N
Total load acting on chassis = (10000 + 2000)
kg = (98100 +19620) N = 117720 N
IV. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF
Chassis has two beams. So load acting on each EXISTING CHASSIS
beam is half of the Total load acting on the chassis.
For carrying out the FE Analysis of chassis as per
Load acting on the single frame = 117720 / 2 =
standard procedure first it requires to create merge
58860 N / Beam
part for assembly to achieve the connectivity and
B. Existing Cross-Section of the Chassis Frame loading and constraining is required to be applied
also idealization of parts is done on structure this
Height (H) = 210 mm, Thickness (t) = 6 mm, will lead to faster analysis since the connected
Width (B) = 76mm, as in [2]. Shown in Fig. 1. structure will not be physical but it will be a sketch
with mechanical properties of mechanical structure.
Procedure is followed in this section.
D. Modelling of Chassis Frame
Using PRO-E Wildfire 5.0, the entire structure of
the chassis is made by using the various features of
the software like sketch, extrude, and mirror, datum
planes, etc. The structure is made as a whole with
the dimensions of the cross-section defined below,
Fig. 1. Existing Cross-Section of Chassis Frame in accordance with the actual dimensions of the
beam. In all there are two beams and 6 connecting
C. Basic Calculations members connecting the beams at various intervals.
Uniformly Distributed Force (w) = Total Force The dimensions between the connecting members
on beam / Length = (58860/6742) = 8.7303 N/mm are all as measured at the plant. From the rear end
of the chassis, the first member is at the extreme
The bending stress, shear stress and deflection end, the distance between the consecutive members
of the frame are calculated using the formula is 72 inches, 45 inches, 45 inches, and 45 inches
Bending Stress ( ) is calculated from Flexure and then the last member is at the front end.
Formula E. Loading and Boundary Conditions
The truck chassis model is loaded with static forces
from the truck body and load. For this model, the
(1) maximum loaded weight of truck plus body is
10,000 kg. The load is assumed as a uniform
distributed obtained from the maximum loaded
Maximum Deflection (Y) weight divided by the total length of chassis frame.
Detail loading of model is shown in Figure. The
magnitude of force on the upper side of chassis is
117720 N. Earth gravity is also considered for the
(2) chassis frame as a part of loading, as in [5].
where, X1 = Front Overhang = 1200 mm There are 7 boundary conditions of model; the first
and the second are the forces applied on each beam,
X2 = Rear Overhang = 1742 mm
the third is the standard gravity acting and the

2320 –5547 @ 2013 http://www.ijitr.com All rights Reserved. Page | 2076

 Jat in Raj pal* et al.
( I JI TR) I NTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF I NNOVATI VE TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH
Volum e No.3, I ssue No.3, April - May 2015, 2075 – 2082.

remaining are the fixed supports at the front and the V. DESIGN MODIFICATIONS FOR
rear overhang. The detailed loading is shown in WEIGHT REDUCTION
figure below. Fig. 2. Shows the loading diagram
G. Sensitivity Analysis
and boundary conditions.
To analyze the sensitivity of frame web height to
the change in thickness and vice-versa for the
approximately same section modulus and flange
width.

Fig. 2. Loading Diagram and Boundary

Conditions of Existing Chassis
F. Results Fig. 6. Dimensions of Sections for Section
Modulus Calculation
The location of maximum Von Mises stress and
maximum shear stress are at corner of side bar, Section Modulus (Z)
which is shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. The Von
Misses stress magnitude of critical point is 363.13
MPa and the Maximum Shear Stress is 202.02 MPa

Fig. 3. Equivalent (Von-Mises) Stress in

Existing Cross-Section

Now, as B>>t and H>>2t

Therefore, B-t B
H-2t H
We get,
Fig. 4. Maximum Shear Stress in Existing
Cross-Section
The displacement of chassis and location of
maximum displacement is shown in Fig. 5. The
magnitude of maximum displacement is 4.4771
mm.
Section modulus (Z) and flange width (B) being
constant K is constant parameter. Taking H as
dependent parameter and t as independent
parameter.
Differentiate the above equation we get,

Fig. 5. Maximum Displacement in Existing Cross-

Section

2320 –5547 @ 2013 http://www.ijitr.com All rights Reserved. Page | 2077

 Jat in Raj pal* et al.
( I JI TR) I NTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF I NNOVATI VE TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH
Volum e No.3, I ssue No.3, April - May 2015, 2075 – 2082.

J. Loading and Boundary Conditions

The truck chassis model is loaded with static forces
from the truck body and load. For this model, the
maximum loaded weight of truck plus body is
10.000 kg. The load is assumed as a uniform
distributed obtained from the maximum loaded
weight divided by the total length of chassis frame.
(4) Detail loading of model is shown in Figure. The
This concludes that with increase in web height, magnitude of force on the upper side of chassis is
thickness of frame can be reduced. With this 117720 N. Earth gravity is also considered for the
relation an approximate value can be obtained with chassis frame as a part of loading.
increase in web height and decrease in thickness, as There are 7 boundary conditions of model; the first
in [5]. and the second are the forces applied on each beam,
By using equation (4), the following cases are the third is the standard gravity acting and the
derived by reducing the value of thickness (t) remaining are the fixed supports at the front and the
between the intervals of 6 mm to 5 mm with a rear overhang. The detailed loading is shown in
common difference of 0.25 mm Fig. 9.

H. Modified Cross-Sections of Chassis Frame

TABLE I. MODIFIED CROSS-SECTIONS
Case Thickness Height Width (B)
(t) (mm) (H) (mm) (mm)
Case 1 5.75 218.75 76
Case 2 5.50 227.5 76
Fig. 9. Loading Diagram and Boundary
Case 3 5.25 236.25 76 Conditions of chassis for CASE 1
Case 4 5.00 245 76 K. Results
The location of maximum Von Misses stress and
maximum shear stress are at corner of side bar,
which is shown in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11. The Von
Misses stress magnitude of critical point is 365.44
MPa and the Maximum Shear Stress is 198.24 MPa

Fig. 7. Modified Cross-Section of Chassis

Modification of cross section of chassis frame
member is made in three different cases. The inside
fillet radius is also increased by 2 times than the
thickness of the cross section. Fig. 10. Equivalent (Von-Mises) Stress in
Chassis of CASE 1
VI. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF
MODIFIED CROSS-SECTION
I. Case 1 (218.75 mm x 76 mm x 5.75 mm)

Fig. 11. Maximum Shear Stress in Chassis of

CASE 1
The displacement of chassis and location of
Fig. 8. Cross-Section of Chassis for CASE 1 maximum displacement is shown in Fig. 12. The

2320 –5547 @ 2013 http://www.ijitr.com All rights Reserved. Page | 2078

 Jat in Raj pal* et al.
( I JI TR) I NTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF I NNOVATI VE TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH
Volum e No.3, I ssue No.3, April - May 2015, 2075 – 2082.

magnitude of maximum displacement is 3.9003 body acts through the edge of the part of the body,
mm. which is in contact with the slope.

Fig. 12. Maximum Displacement in Chassis of

CASE 1 Fig. 13. Toppling Effect
Similarly, the Finite Element Analysis was carried If a body is resting on a rough slope, it will be on
out for the rest of the cases and the following the verge of toppling over when the weight of the
results were obtained body acts through the edge of the part of the body,
VII. RESULTS OF FINIITE ELEMENT which is in contact with the slope.
ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT CASES This is because, about the edge of the object, there
Comparison of the results is shown in the table is a net anti-clockwise moment (turning effect).
Remember, the weight acts through the center of
TABLE II. COMPARISON OF RESULTS FOR gravity of the object.
WEIGHT REDUCTION
Vehicle rollovers are divided into two categories:
Max. tripped and untripped. Tripped rollovers are caused
Chassis Shear Max. by forces from an external object, such as a curb or
Sr. Equi.
Section Weight Stress Disp. a collision with another vehicle. Untripped crashes
No. Stress
(Kg.) (MPa) (mm) are the result of steering input, speed, and friction
(MPa)
with the ground.

Existing A rollover can also occur as a vehicle crosses a

1 306.77 202.02 4.4771 363.13 ditch or slope. Slopes steeper than 33% (one
Section
vertical unit rise or fall per three horizontal units)
are called "critical slopes" because they can cause
2 Case 1 296.57 198.24 3.9003 365.44 most vehicles to overturn. A vehicle may roll over
for other reasons, such as when hitting a large
obstacle with one of its wheels or when
3 Case 2 291.33 164.03 3.5296 290.56 maneuvering over uneven terrain, as in [7].

4 Case 3 285.20 178.78 3.4648 321.32

5 Case 4 279.63 204.97 3.4434 358.48

From the above results, it is seen that Case 2 and

Case 3 is the most appropriate case as the Shear Fig. 14. Rolling Over of an SUV
Stress, Maximum Displacement and Maximum
All vehicles are susceptible to rollovers to various
Equivalent Stress are all less than that induced in
extents. Generally, the higher the center of mass,
existing Cross-Section. Case 1 and Case 4 fail for
the narrower the axle track, the more sensitive the
Maximum Equivalent Stress and Shear Stress
steering, and the higher the speed, the more likely a
respectively, as compared to existing chassis of
vehicle is to roll over.
Case 2 and Case 3, Case 3 is the most optimum as
maximum weight is reduced in this case without L. National Highway Traffic Safety
failure. Hence, total weight reduced is 21.57 kg Administration (NHTSA) Report
(7.03 %)
Vehicle rollover is a serious problem in the area of
VIII. TOPPLING AND ROLLING OVER ground transportation and a report published by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
If a body is resting on a rough slope, it will be on
(NHTSA) has found that, even though rollover
the verge of toppling over when the weight of the

2320 –5547 @ 2013 http://www.ijitr.com All rights Reserved. Page | 2079

 Jat in Raj pal* et al.
( I JI TR) I NTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF I NNOVATI VE TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH
Volum e No.3, I ssue No.3, April - May 2015, 2075 – 2082.

constitutes only a small percentage of all accidents, The 21.57 kg weight reduced is used as a dead
it does, however constitute a disproportionately weight to reduce the height of center of gravity of
large portion of severe and fatal injuries. Almost 11 the chassis from the ground level.
million passenger cars, SUVs, pickups, and vans
Height of chassis above ground (h1) = 840mm
crashed in 2002, yet only 2.6% of these involved a
rollover. However, the percentage of fatal crashes Height of center of mass above ground
that involved the occurrence of rollover was about (h)=840+105= 945mm
21.1%, which is significantly higher than the
Base width of chassis (b) = 2491 mm
corresponding percentages for other types of
crashes (NHTSA, 2003). In order to help
consumers understand a vehicle’s likelihood of
rollover, the rollover resistance rating program was
proposed by NHTSA which uses the static stability
factor (SSF), which is the ratio of half the track
width to the height of the center of gravity (CG), to
Now, using the mass reduced, i.e., 21.57 kg to
determine the rollover resistance rating. The SSF
bring down the Center of Gravity, we consider the
has been questioned by the automotive industry as
mass to be a spherical body, placed just above the
it does not consider the effects of suspension
ground clearance of the vehicle, so that there is no
deflection, tire traction aspects, or the dynamics of
disturbance to the existing vehicle.
the vehicle control system. Accordingly, in 2002,
NHTSA published another announcement with Ground Clearance (g) = 220 mm
regard to a tentative dynamical rollover test
Mass of spherical ball + Connecting member =
procedure (NHTSA, 2001), as in [8].
21.57 kg
M. Existing Rollover Prevention Technologies
Neglecting the mass of connecting member
Most existing rollover prevention technologies can
Mass of ball = 21.57 kg
be classified into two types, namely, (1) the type
which directly controls the vehicle roll motion Volume of ball x density = 21.57
through an active suspension, an active anti-roll
bar, or an active stabilizer (Chen & Hsu, 2008)
which can prevent rollover by raising the rollover
(6)
threshold; and (2) the type which indirectly
influences roll motions by controlling the yaw Considering the ball and connecting member to be
motions through differential braking and active made of structural steel st52, density of the material
front steering (Wielenga & Chace, 2000). (3) The is 7850kg/m3. The length of the connecting
unified chassis control (UCC) algorithm has been member is equal to the height of mass bellow
designed to prevent vehicle rollover while, at the chassis, and the radius is assumed to be 5 mm
same time, ensuring good maneuverability and
Solving the above equation we get,
lateral stability by integrating individual chassis
control modules, such as ESC and active front r = 0.08688 m
steering (AFS).
r = 86.88 mm
IX. USE OF REDUCED WEIGHT TO
PREVENT ROLLING OVER Mass of ball = 21.57 kg

The NHTSA has defined a term called rolling over C.G. of ball = 945-220-r = 638.12mm
index for classifying the rolling over tendency of a Assuming chassis to be the reference plane, net
given automobile. Rolling over Index is defined as height of Center of Gravity (h) equals,
the ratio of height of center of gravity to half the
base width. h = [21.57x(-638.12) + 285.2x0]/306.77
h = -44.86 mm
Now Rolling over Index equals
(5)
Where, h = height of center of gravity
b = base width

2320 –5547 @ 2013 http://www.ijitr.com All rights Reserved. Page | 2080

 Jat in Raj pal* et al.
( I JI TR) I NTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF I NNOVATI VE TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH
Volum e No.3, I ssue No.3, April - May 2015, 2075 – 2082.

X. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF TABLE III. COMPARISON OF RESULTS FOR

MODIFIED CROSS-SECTION ROLLOVER INDEX
N. Loading and Boundary Conditions Max.
Shear Max. Roll-
Sr. Equi.
The Loading and Boundary Conditions are same as Section Stress Disp. over
No Stress
in Existing Cross-Section (MPa) (mm) Index
(MPa)
1 Existing 202.02 4.4771 363.13 0.7587
2 Case 3 178.78 3.4648 321.32 0.7587
3 Case 3 165.93 3.4353 319.00 0.7227
Modified

Fig. 14. Loading Diagram and Boundary The Weight (not shown in Table III) of Existing
Conditions of Modified CASE 3 chassis is 306.77 kg, Case 3 chassis is 285.20 kg
O. Results and of Case 3 Modified is 306.8 kg.

The maximum shear stress induced on the modified

chassis is 165.93 MPa. The Von-Mises Stress and
Total deformation are 319 MPa and 3.4353 mm
respectively. The results are shown below.

Fig. 18. Height of Centre of Gravity of Existing

Chassis (Yellow Arrow)

Fig. 15. Equivalent (Von-Mises) Stress in

Modified CASE 3

Fig. 19. Height of Center of Gravity of Modified

CASE 3 Chassis
Fig. 16. Maximum Shear Stress in Modified From the above table it can be clearly seen that the
CASE 3 net weight of the existing and the modified chassis
is almost equal. The Shear Stress, Von-Mises
Stress and Total Deformation for the modified
chassis are less than the existing chassis. Also, the
main objective, i.e., to reduce the rolling over of
the vehicle is achieved. As rolling over is directly
proportional to the Rolling over Index, given by the
NHTSA, it can be seen that the Rolling over Index
of the vehicle is reduced from 0.7587 to 0.7227,
Fig. 17. Maximum Displacement in Modified which is a near reduction of close to 4.75%. Hence
CASE 3 rolling over is reduced. At a point, either weight is
reduced by 21.57 kg or rollover index is reduced by
XI. CONCLUSION 0.036 units as using the same weight reduces
Table shows the comparison of results for rollover rollover.
index Therefore, the following objectives were achieved
with the help of the project:

2320 –5547 @ 2013 http://www.ijitr.com All rights Reserved. Page | 2081

 Jat in Raj pal* et al.
( I JI TR) I NTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF I NNOVATI VE TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH
Volum e No.3, I ssue No.3, April - May 2015, 2075 – 2082.

1. Reduction in weight of the Chassis by [8] National Highway Traffic Safety

21.57 kg (7.03 %) Administration (NHTSA), F. (2001). DOT
Announces Proposal to Add Rollover Ratings
2. Reduction in Von-Mises Stress induced by
to Auto Safety Consumer Information
41.89 MPa (11.53 %)
Program. NHTSA Now, 6(7).
3. Reduction in Shear Stress induced by
[9] J. Pijuan, M. Comellas, M. Nogue ́s, J. Roca,
23.24 MPa (11.50 %)
X. Potau, “Active bogies and chassis levelling
4. Reduction in Maximum Deformation by for a vehicle operating in rough terrain,”
1.113 mm (24.85 %) Journal of Terramechanics 49 (2012) 161-171;
received 28 June 2011; received in revised
5. Reduction in Rolling over Index (R.I.) by form 22 December 2011; accepted 8 March
0.036 (4.74 %)
2012 Available online 3 April 2012.
XII. REFERENCES
[10] N. Hägele, C.M. Sonsino, “Structural
[1] Jatin Rajpal, Sandeep G. Thorat, Basavaraj S. durability design recommendations for forged
Kothavale, Swapnil S. Hathwalne, “Design automotive aluminium chassis components
considerations for automobile chassis for submitted to spectrum and environmental
prevention of rolling over of a vehicle,” loadings by the example of a tension strut,”
Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 612 International Journal of Fatigue; received 3
(2014) pp 41-49, November 2014. february 2012; received in revised form 20
March 2012; accepted 22 March 2012.
[2] www.eicher.in details of Eicher 11.10 E2 Pro
chassis cited on 12th September, 2014
[3] P.K. Sharma, Nilesh J. Parekh, Darshit Nayak,
“Optimization and stress analysis of chassis in
TATA turbo truck SE1613,” International
Journal of Engineering and Advanced
Technology (IJEAT);ISSN: 2249-8958;Vol. 3
Issue 3, February – 2014.
[4] Mukeshkumar R. Galolia, Prof. J.M. Patel,
“Structural analysis of a chassis of Eicher
11.10 using PRO-MECHANICA,” Journal of
Information, Knowledge and Research in
Mechanical Engineering.
[5] Patel Vijaykumar V, Prof. R. I. Patel,
“Structural analysis of automotive chassis
crame and design modification for weight
reduction,” International Journal of
Engineering Research & Technology
(IJERT);ISSN: 2278-0181;Vol. 1 Issue 3, May
– 2012
[6] Jangyeol Yoon,Wanki Cho,Juyong
Kang,Bongyeong Koo,Kyongsu Yi, “Design
and evaluation of a unified chassis control
system for rollover prevention and vehicle
stability improvement on a virtual test track,”
Control Engineering Practics 18 (2010) 585-
597; received 6 May 2009; accepted 23
February 2010.
[7] National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), F. (2003). Motor
vehicle traffic crash injury and fatality
estimates, 2002 early assessment. NCSA
(National Center for Statistics and Analysis)
Advanced Research and Analysis.

2320 –5547 @ 2013 http://www.ijitr.com All rights Reserved. Page | 2082