NON-LINEAR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF AN ALLTERRAIN VEHICLE USING ANSYS

Abhijit Duraphe1, Ajit D. Kelkar2 and David Klett3 Dept of Mechanical Engineering, North Carolina A&T State University Greensboro, NC 27411 Tel. (336)-334-7620 x324 Fax (336)-334-7417 Email: duraphe@ncat.edu or kelkar@ncat.edu

INTRODUCTION
The objective of the 1999 Mini Baja Competition is to design and fabricate ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE. This provides engineering students with an opportunity to apply what they have learned in the classroom. Students play the role of a manufacturing firm engineering design team that has been given the task of producing vehicle s prototypes of a single passenger, off-road, all-terrain vehicle. The vehicle must be easily maintained, fun to drive, and most importantly, safe. It is projected that four thousand of these units will be produced at a cost of less than twenty-five hundred U.S. dollars each. Students were provided with a statement of rules and minimum safety requirements. A standard eight horsepower Briggs and Stratton gasoline engine was provided to each team. The engine cannot be enhanced in any way to ensure uniform comparison of overall vehicle design, independent of engine performance. The following functional and design requirements were used as guides in the design process. Functional Requirements The vehicle should: Allow for easy driver entrance and exit Be aesthetically pleasing Be rugged, dependable, and easy to maintain Be able to operate across rough terrain Cost less than $2,500 Maintain safety as a primary consideration.

1 2

Graduate Student Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department 3 Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department

Design Requirements The scope of the design includes: A four-wheel vehicle with a roll cage with appropriate bracing which meets or exceeds all requirements of the SAE Mini Baja competition Optimization of strength/weight ratio for the entire vehicle to enhance performance. A frame constructed of either steel tubing having a minimum carbon content of 0.18%, outside diameter of 1 inch and wall thickness of 0.083 inches, or material having equivalent strength and bending modulus. A frame designed to incorporate continuous lengths of tubing where possible to reduce welding and improve strength. Consideration of the reliability and safety of all components, including frame, suspension, drive train, brakes, and steering.

DESIGN PROCEDURE
The following steps outline the procedure followed for design and construction for each component. Develop an optimum configuration after analyzing alternatives. Develop detailed design if possible. Perform calculations to determine stresses, required gear ratios, etc. Analyze calculations and make necessary changes to design. Select final configuration for construction. Construct vehicle. Test vehicle in all modes of operation and make any necessary modifications.

FRAME AND ROLL CAGE DESIGN

The first step in designing the frame was to develop a configuration that would meet all necessary requirements. This included considerations of past configurations and discussing what should be done to improve the vehicle. Competing designs were developed for comparison and some were eliminated. The chosen configuration (Figure 1) was selected because it meets all minimum safety requirements and is feasible for mass production. The dimensions of the vehicle are presented in Appendix A.

Figure 1: Final frame configuration

Auto Cad software was used to create a scale 3-D model to ensure the proper proportions. Figure 2 shows the vehicle accommodates the required template size (12-in. (304.8-mm) across the top and 41-in. (1041.4-mm) long) for the minimum roll cage dimensions.

Figure 2: Frame with template

The design shown in figure 1 was considered superior to the other proposed ones for the following reasons: Compactness. Driver compartment is small, but comfortable. Swing arm design for rear suspension. Overall frame is small which reduces material costs and weight.

The frame configuration was designed to incorporate continuous tube lengths where possible. This helped to keep the frame as strong as possible, improved efficiency of material usage, reduced the number of welds required and reduced fabrication time. The frame was constructed with the following important features: The firewall roll hoop was tilted back at an angle from the vertical for economy of space. The roll cage widens front to back to increase passenger accessibility. Tubing joint placements were optimized for greater strength of the roll cage. Continuous sections of tubing were utilized where possible to increase the manufacturability of the frame by bending the tubing instead of welding the corners. An adjustable seat to accommodate the height differences of drivers on the team. Material Selection In the past, aluminum was used to manufacture the frame of the vehicle, however it was not considered for use this year. The main reason why it was not considered is because its properties can complicate the welding involved in the assembly of the frame. It was decided that since a non-professional welder would construct the frame, it would be best to use steel. The two material candidates for the new frame were 1O.D. x 0.83 wall DOM steel and 1.125O.D. x 0.065 Chromoly steel. Table 1 shows how the two materials compare in terms of EI (759,784-psi minimum allowable) and weight. The 1.125x 0.065 tubing steel was selected for its high strength and because it was lighter than the 1 tubing.
Table 1: Material comparison

Young's Modulus, E (psi) Outer Diameter (inches) wall (inches) Inner Diameter (inches) Moment of Inertia (in^4) EI (psi) Weight (lb./ft) Total Weight (for 100-ft)

1" O.D. 0.18% Carbon Steel DOM Tubing 3.00E+07 1.000 0.083 0.834 0.0253 759784.60 .804 80.4

1.125" O.D. Chromoly Steel Tubing 3.00E+07 1.125 0.065 0.995 0.0305 915001.60 0.7359 73.59

A one-inch outer diameter tubing with a 0.049-inch wall thickness was used for low stress cross members of the frame to achieve a lower weight vehicle. The 1.125-inch outer diameter tubing with a 0.065-inch wall thickness was used at high stress points,

such as the roll cage and the two lower main frame loops. The yield stress for the 4130N Chromoly tubing is 118,000 psi compared to 30,000 psi for the mild steel tubing. An ANSYS Stress analysis was performed on the final frame design as discussed in the next section. Stress Analysis The frame has thirty-two nodal points that were entered into the ANSYS finite element package and analyzed with 1.125 diameter Chromoly steel with 0.065 wall thickness for four different loading scenarios. The tubular frame structure was conveniently represented by pipe elements. A lumped mass method of incorporating the weight of the driver and the engine block was used to simplify the model. The weight of one of the bar members of the frame was modified to incorporate the weight of the driver and the engine. The stress levels were below the yield strength of 118ksi. The first case simulated an end-over-end-rollover situation with a worst case scenario of full impact on only one corner of the roll cage. One top corner of the frame was constrained and the entire structure was subjected to an acceleration load of 2g in the z direction. Appendix B-2 shows the stress plot for this case. A maximum stress of 313 MPa is in the top bar member. The second case simulated a rollover onto the vehicle side (Appendix B-3). The s entire frame was subjected to an inertia load of 2g acceleration in the y direction The top corner of the roll cage hitting the ground was constrained. For this case there is a maximum stress of 1778 MPa, in the front of the roll cage hoop, which is above the yield strength of the material. Since the stresses were above the yield strength of the material, this case was reinvestigated. In the reinvestigation, it was observed that 2g acceleration in y direction, is unrealistic, and that value was reduced to 1.2 g, In addition, a geometric non linear analysis was carried out, and it was observed that stresses were within the yield strength of the material. The third case simulated the vehicle soaring off the ground and landing on one back tire (Appendix B-4). It was assumed that the tire and shock absorber would help absorb the load before it reached the frame. The shock and A-arm mounting points were constrained. The entire structure was subjected to an acceleration of 2g in the -z direction. For this case there is a maximum stress of 407 MPa. The last case simulated the vehicle weight coming down on one front tire s (Appendix B-5). Each of the five mounting points of one side of the front suspension (four points from two pairs of A arms and one for the shock mount) were constrained to simulate the transfer of force from the suspension of the vehicle were to nose dive on one front wheel. The entire structure was subjected to an acceleration of 2g in the -z direction. There is a maximum bending stress of 203 Mpa in the top suspension mounting point. The results of the stress analysis indicate that the design is of adequate strength. The forces applied in these calculations are considered to represent worse case
5

conditions. The manner of loading is conservative in that the impact points in each case were constrained in all three orthogonal directions, which is unlikely to occur in reality and which amplifies the bending stresses. No yielding stresses were observed in the ANSYS simulation under these severe loading conditions.

CONCLUSIONS
ANSYS can be effectively used to model the All-Terrain Vehicle Tubes 1.125 diameter made of Chromoly steel with 0.065 wall thickness were found to be suitable material for All-Terrain Vehicle To get the realistic values of stresses, it is necessary to perform a geometric non linear analysis, The structural analysis indicated that the suggested design is of adequate strength. This simple practical structural analysis problem generated lot of interest in finite element analysis using ANSYS particularly in Mechanical Engineering undergraduate students.

REFERENCES
(1) ANSYS on line User's Manual (2) Metals Handbook, Volume 2, Tenth Edition, ASM International.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Vehicle Dimensions

(Drawings are in millimeters. All bends have a 101.6-mm radius)

APPENDIX B- 1: MODEL GEOMETRY IN ANSYS

APPENDIX B- 2: ROLLOVER CASE STRESS PLOT

10

APPENDIX B- 3: STRESS PLOT FOR VEHICLE LANDING ON ITS SIDE

11

APPENDIX B- 4: STRESS PLOT FOR VEHICLE LANDING ON ONE BACK WHEEL

12

APPENDIX B- 5: STRESS PLOT FOR VEHICLE LANDING ON ONE FRONT WHEEL

13