S. Shukla et al. 2010. Int. J.

Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(3-4), 102-109

ISSN: 0975-3060 (Print), 0975-3540 (Online)
In tern at iona l Jou rna l of
doi: 10.4273/ijvss.2.3-4.03 Vehicle Structures & Systems
© 2010. MechAero Foundation for Technical Research & Education Excellence Available online at www.ijvss.maftree.org

Weight Reduction in an Indian Railway CASNUB Bogie Bolster Considering

Fatigue Strength
Sanjay Shuklaa, Rajive Guptab, and Nalinaksh S. Vyasc
a
Research Design and Standards Organisation,
Ministry of Railways, Government of India, Lucknow, India.
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur, India.
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India.
Corresponding Author, Email: vyas@iitk.ac.in

ABSTRACT:
Weight and strength are critical measures in the design of a railway bogie. The present work deals with the design of
CASNUB bogie bolster of freight rolling stock in Indian Railways. The bogie is modelled using NX3, UGS software.
Finite element analysis of the model is performed using MSC Patran/Nastran. Natural frequencies obtained from free
vibration analysis are compared with those obtained experimentally using a Rap-Test. Effort has been made to reduce
the weight of bogie bolster considering fatigue strength. Bogie loading includes vertical forces, longitudinal emergency
brake force and vertical as well as lateral track excitations. Transient analysis of bogie is performed to identify the
critical areas and surfaces relevant for weight reduction. Thicknesses of the bolster top, bottom and side surfaces are
subsequently identified as design variables. These parameters are optimized using artificial neural network and genetic
algorithm techniques. Such optimization has resulted in approximately 7.6% reduction in weight of the bolster. The
optimal bogie bolster has been verified for its fatigue strength using Goodman diagram.

KEYWORDS:
Bogie frame, Finite element analysis, Weight reduction, Fatigue strength, Transient analysis

CITATION:
S. Shukla, R. Gupta, and N.S. Vyas. 2010. Weight reduction in an Indian Railway CASNUB bogie bolster considering
fatigue strength, Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(3-4), 102-109.

German railways. The work includes comparison of

1. Introduction power spectral density functions of measured track
A freight vehicle bogie consists of bolster, side frame, irregularities with the analytical functions. The quasi
wheel set and car body. Bogie frame is a crucial static stress distribution in the bogie frame has been
structural assembly subjected to various static and calculated and the regions of stress concentration have
dynamic forces from car body and wheel sets been identified. Oyan [5] developed a Finite Element
respectively. The motion of the railway vehicle is (FE) model of the Taipei Red Line passenger bogie
dependent on geometry of the track and wheel set, frame. It has been solved by taking an overload design
interaction between wheels and rails and the suspension factor of 1.5 and further a safety factor of 2.0 for static
parameters. The weight of the bogie should be kept less loading and 1.5 for fatigue.
for high operating speeds. In order to obtain an optimum
design, a process of iterative evaluation and geometrical
modification of parts is required. The strength of the
bogie is normally calculated according to International
standards such as UIC [1] and ERRI [2]. CASNUB
three-piece freight bogie, as shown in Fig. 1, is
considered in this study.
Sakai et al [3] have developed an automatic design
scheme of railway bogie passenger truck. It adopted an
intelligent CAD system using product model. The
scheme involves data flow, wherein the designed data is
transferred to each subsystem after the fundamental
design is completed. Claus et al [4] developed a flexible
body model in ADAMS interface to analyze the eigen-
behaviour of the bogie of a passenger coach used by Fig. 1: Three piece freight bogie
102
 S. Shukla et al. 2010. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(3-4), 102-109

Park et al [6] have described fatigue strength developed, excluding small holes and projected areas
evaluation and weight reduction of the tilting bogie and like spaces Figs. 3-5. A list of constituents of the full
frame of a Korean tilting passenger train. They have scale bogie model is given in Table 1. Track
considered seventeen load cases for main in-service irregularities, wheel rail interaction, suspension elements
loads namely, vertical, lateral and twisting. Additionally, parameters, and weight of the bogie frame influence the
six cases for service tilting of train have been obtained motion of the vehicle. Vertical and lateral excitation
using multi body dynamics software ADAMS Rail. forces experienced by the wheel-set due to interaction
Static analysis has been performed for twenty three with track are transferred to the side frame via primary
cases. Cases giving maximum stress have been selected suspension and finally to the bolster through secondary
and a few nodes having maximum stress values have suspension. Values of damping coefficient and stiffness
been picked for evaluation. The initial design of the of wedge block and elastomeric pad have been taken
frame does not provide safe design by Goodman criteria. from Shukla et al [7]. These materials, stiffness, and
Thickness of side frame upper, lower and inner vertical damping data ([8] - [10]) for various components are
cover plates have been optimized using Neural Network given in Tables 2 and 3.
and Genetic Algorithm technique. The design satisfies
the Goodman criterion and the weight of the bogie is
reported to have been reduced by approximately 4.7%.
In this paper, an approach based on Artificial Neural
Networks (ANN) combined with Genetic Algorithm
(GA) is developed for weight optimization of CASNUB
bogie bolster. A solid model of the CASNUB freight
bogie frame has been developed using UGS NX3
software [15]. This model is meshed using SHELL type
elements in MSC Patran [16]. In the primary suspension,
four bar elements are used for elastomeric pad and Fig. 2: Solid assembly model of bogie frame
eighteen bar elements are used for various elements of
the secondary suspension. Free vibration analysis is
carried out to extract the natural frequencies.
Experiments are also conducted on the bogie and the
natural frequencies are obtained through a Rap-Test.
Data is acquired with LabVIEW software [18]. Two sets
of frequencies are found to be in agreement with the FE Fig. 3: Solid model of bolster
analysis.
Loading and boundary conditions along with actual
track excitation, as used by Indian railway bogie
designers, have been considered. The FE model is solved
for transient loading conditions. The model has been
solved for an overload design factor of 2.0 and a safety
factor of 2.5. Critical design zones are identified.
Thicknesses of the bolster top, bottom, side wall have
been considered for weight reduction. The natural Fig. 4: Solid model of side-frame
frequencies of the modified design are compared with
the initial design and its fatigue strength is verified using
Goodman diagram. The weight of bolster is optimized
considering top, bottom and side walls thicknesses of
bolster for reduction. A weight reduction of 7.6% in the
existing bolster is predicted.
Modelling of bogie frame is discussed in Section 2. Fig. 5: Solid model of spring plank
It includes FE analysis of bogie frame and determination Table 1: Constituents of full-scale bogie CAD assembly
of mode shapes. The experimental setup to determine the
natural frequency of the bogie is also discussed. Section Constituent parts Used per bogie assembly
3 deals with dynamic analysis of the bogie frame Bolster 1
subjected to different load cases. Section 4 describes the Side frame 2
optimization of various design parameters followed by a Spring plank 1
verification of the modified bogie bolster. Centre pivot vertical 1
Side bearer 2
2. Modelling Elastomeric pad 4
The three piece freight CASNUB bogie frame has Outer Spring 14
mainly three components- a bolster, and two side frames Inner Spring 14
the bogie frame assembled solid model as shown Fig. 2. Snubber Spring 4
The bolster and side frames are cast parts, having small Wedge block 4
holes and projections. A full scale bogie model has been
103
 S. Shukla et al. 2010. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(3-4), 102-109

Table 2: Material properties The model has 12949 elements and 16556 nodes as
Property Value Units detailed in Table 4. Various primary and secondary
Yield Stress 360 MPa suspension systems are created separately, using bar
Ultimate Stress 500 MPa elements as shown in Fig. 10. Stiffness and damping
Endurance Limits 167 MPa properties are defined for the bar elements.
Young’s Modulus 210 GPa Table 4: Details QUAD and TRIA elements
Poisson’s Ratio 0.3 -
Density 7850 kg/m3 Element type
Component
QUAD TRIA
Table 3: Stiffness and damping parameters Bolster 4539 28
Parameter Value Units Side-frame (x2 off) 3939x2=7878 32x2=64
Spring plank 440 -
Centre pivot vertical stiffness 3500 N/mm
Centre pivot vertical damping 35 Ns/mm
Side bearer stiffness 1324.38 N/mm
Elastomeric pad stiffness 49000 N/mm
Elastomeric pad Damping coefficient 0.12 -
Outer Spring stiffness 269 N/mm
Inner Spring stiffness 340 N/mm
Snubber Spring 196 N/mm
Wedge block Damping coefficient 0.1 -

2.1. Finite Element Bogie Frame Model Bar elements

The full scale solid model is surface meshed using 2D
shell (QUAD4 and TRIA) elements. Surface thickness of
each meshed surface of FE bogie frame model has been
defined in MSC Patran properties with proper offset for
the shell elements. A fine mesh that is sufficient to
recover the stresses is considered. Bolster and side frame
have been meshed separately with proper mesh seed as
shown in Figs. 6-8. The FE model assembly of meshed
components is shown in Fig. 9.
representing
suspension system
Fig. 10: Load configuration on bogie frame
The dynamic matrix is solved by Lanczos method to
obtain the eigen values and eigenvectors of bogie frame
for free-free vibration [17]. Eleven modes are extracted,
out of which first six modes are eliminated, since they
are rigid body modes. The first five natural frequencies
their mode shapes of the bogie frame assembly are
shown in Fig. 11(a)-(e).

Fig. 6: Meshed model of bolster

Fig. 7: Meshed model of side-frame

(a) Mode I at 4.4 Hz

Fig. 8: Meshed model of spring plank

(b) Mode II at 5.51 Hz

Fig. 11: First five mode shapes for standard bogie frame (cont’d)
Fig. 9: Meshed model of bogie frame assembly
104
 S. Shukla et al. 2010. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(3-4), 102-109

(c) Mode III at 6.91 Hz

Fig. 13: Rap Test response of bogie frame

Table 5: Comparison of first five natural frequencies of analytical
and experiment results

Mode No. I II III IV V

Analytical (Hz) 4.4 5.51 6.91 16.4 20.97
Experimental (Hz) 3.0 6.0 8.0 16.0 19.0

3. Dynamic Analysis
Stress field distribution on the bogie frame due to
various Loads, excitation and constraints applied over
(d) Mode IV at 16.4 Hz the bogie frame has been obtained. The loads, excitation
and constraints applied over the bogie frame are shown
in Fig. 10 and are discussed in this Section [1].
Constraints: Since the objective is to analyze the
lateral and vertical dynamics, the motion of the bogie is
constrained for longitudinal direction. Thus, the lateral,
vertical, roll, pitch and yaw motions are only considered.
Four bogie-frame locations are constrained accordingly
at four nodes as shown Fig.16.

(e) Mode V at 20.97 Hz

Fig. 11: First five mode shapes for standard bogie frame

2.2. Experimental Setup for Free Vibration Test

An experimental setup, as shown in Fig.12, was prepared
to conduct a ‘Rap Test’ for obtaining the free vibration
response of the bogie frame. The response is sensed by
an accelerometer. A Charge Amplifier is used for
amplification and the signal is recorded through a data
acquisition card and LabVIEW program [18]. The
sampling rate was fixed at 4096 samples/s. Table 5 gives
the first five natural frequencies of bogie frame extracted
from the experimental results as shown in Fig. 13. These
frequencies are closer to those from the FE analysis
results (see Fig. 11).
Fig. 12: Experimental set up
105
Fig. 16: Location of constraints
Load f1: This load is taken as 10% of tare weight of
wagon body and full gross load applied over the centre
pivot in vertical direction from top of the bogie frame.
The total load is assumed to be equally divided over two
bogie frames thus,
(
f1 = 10%wt + w p g 2 ) (1)
Where wt and wp are tare (12000 kg) and pay load
(70000 kg) weight of wagon body respectively.
Load f2: This load is an emergency braking force
corresponding to 9g acceleration in the longitudinal
direction. It is given by,
f 2 = 9 gwb (2)
Where wb is the weight of bogie frame.
Load f3: This load is taken as 90% of tare weight of
wagon body in vertical direction acting at the top of the
 S. Shukla et al. 2010. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(3-4), 102-109

bogie frame. Total load is assumed to be equally divided
between four side bearers thus,
f3 = 90%wt g 4
Vertical track excitation d1: Actual track irregularity
excitation in the vertical direction, Fig.14, is taken and
assumed to be acting at the elastomeric pad at four nodes
(No. 16561-16564) as shown in Fig. 10.
(3) Lateral track excitation d2: Similarly, actual track
irregularity excitation in the lateral direction, Fig.15, is
taken and assumed to be acting at the elastomeric pad at
four nodes (No. 16561-16564) as shown in Fig. 10.

Fig. 14: Vertical excitation from track

Fig. 15: Lateral excitation from track

3.1. Dynamic Response
The dynamic behavior ([12] and [13]) of the bogie frame
has been studied under the loads described in Section 3.
A 3% structural damping has been taken for solution
convergence purposes. The maximum and minimum
values of Von-Mises stresses σmax and σmin have been
obtained for each node. From σmax and σmin , the mean
stress σm and the stress amplitude σa are calculated [11]:
σ m = (σ max + σ min ) 2 , σ a = (σ max − σ min ) 2
The safety factor (s) is defined as:
s = σw σa
Where σw is the working stress obtained using Goodman
diagram as shown in Fig. 17. The line ‘C’ represents the
upper limit of safe designs under fatigue.
Critical areas based on the nodal results have been
located on the basis of the Von-Mises stress plots. These
are also verified from the fatigue consideration using
Goodman diagram. An over load design factor of 2 and a
safety factor of 2.5 have been taken in the present study.
Figs.18 and 19 show the locations (identified by the node
numbers) of the Von-Mises stress peaks for the bolster
frame. The stress values and safety factors at these nodes
are given in Table 6.
(4)
(5)

Fig. 18: Peak stress locations for the bolter top and side wall

Fig. 17: Goodman diagram for the bolster Fig. 19: Peak stress locations for the bolter bottom and side wall
106
 S. Shukla et al. 2010. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(3-4), 102-109

Table 6: Design parameters of Von-Mises stress peaks Table 8: Safety factors at critical nodes (inputs to neural network)

σm σa Design Safety Factor (s)

Location s
(MPa) (MPa) No. variables Bolster Bolster Bolster
Bolster Top (Node 6199) 78.00 25.00 2.73 x1,x2,x3 Top Bottom Side wall
Bolster Bottom (Node 10607) 77.75 25.25 2.75 1 18,18,11 2.22 2.25 2.72
Bolster Side wall (Node 9524) 81.75 20.25 3.38 2 18,18,13 2.27 2.34 2.88
3 18,18,15 2.29 2.46 3.05
4 18,22,11 2.27 2.59 2.88
4. Weight Reduction 5 18,22,13 2.32 2.76 3.02
The thickness of (i) Bolster top x1, (ii) Bolster bottom x2 6 18,22,15 2.36 2.77 3.15
(iii) Bolster side wall x3 are to be redesigned such that 7 18,26,11 2.34 2.94 3.02
8 18,26,13 2.39 3.02 3.15
the bolster weight is minimum and design is safe under
9 18,26,15 2.44 3.14 3.22
fatigue. The design variables are taken as (i) set of 10 22,18,11 2.60 2.33 3.09
values of in the existing design (ii) set of lower bound 11 22,18,13 2.68 2.42 3.26
values of x1 to x3 in the design range being considered 12 22,18,15 2.66 2.50 3.38
(iii) set of upper bound values of x1 to x3 in the design 13 22,22,11 2.69 2.61 3.23
range being considered. These sets are given in Table 7. 14 22,22,13 2.73 2.75 3.38
15 22,22,15 2.75 2.80 3.48
Table 7: Design variables for the selected surfaces
16 22,26,11 2.79 3.00 3.33
Thickness (mm) 17 22,26,13 2.66 2.90 3.19
Selected Surface Lower Upper 18 22,26,15 2.81 3.16 3.60
Initial 19 26,18,11 3.00 2.37 3.46
Bound Bound
Bolster Top , x1 18 22 26 20 26,18,13 3.01 2.42 3.52
21 26,18,15 3.04 2.53 3.69
Bolster Bottom, x2 18 22 26
22 26,22,11 3.02 2.67 3.59
Bolster Side Wall, x3 11 13 15 23 26,22,13 3.13 2.72 3.70
24 26,22,15 3.11 2.84 3.87
The optimization problem may be stated as: 25 26,26,11 3.10 3.01 3.71
3 26 26,26,13 3.18 3.04 3.83
Minimise F ( x) = ∑ Ai xi ρ 27 26,26,15 3.19 3.20 3.95
i =1

 s > 2.5 
18 ≤ x ≤ 26  (6)
 1 
Subject  
 18 ≤ x 2 ≤ 26 
11 ≤ x3 ≤ 15 
Where s is safety factor, A is the area of the surface and
ρ is the density of the bogie frame. The optimization
problem is solved in three phases using FE
analysis/computation, ANN interpolation and GA.
Phase 1: Finite Element Computation
The stress values are obtained using the FE model that is Fig. 20: ANN convergence plot
analysed for a limited number of values of the design
variables within the range enclosed by the upper and Amongst the post-processed safety factor values
lower bounds. A total 27 (=33) experiments are made. between 2.22 to 3.95 (see Table 8), the design vector is
The stress response and safety factors are obtained for to be selected for minimum weight of bogie frame and
these sets of design variables. The computed safety the safety factor values at critical nodes remain greater
factors for the three critical locations (at the node than 2.5. The output of the neural network, in terms of
numbers 6199, 10607 and 9524) are given in Table 8. the variation of safety factor with respect to thickness of
bottom and side wall for given top wall thickness is
Phase 2: ANN interpolation shown in Figs. 21-23.
In the next phase, an ANN program is developed to take
the safety factors from the FE calculations of the first Node 6199 Node 10607
phase as inputs and generate the stress values for
intermediate design parameter sets (x1 to x3) that lie in
the prescribed range. A three-layered, back propagation
neural network comprising an input layer, one hidden
layer and an output layer is used. The hidden layer
contains 10 neurons. Leverberg Marquardt algorithm has Node 9524
been used to train the network. The convergence of ANN
is shown in Fig. 20.
Fig. 21: Variation of Safety Factor w.r.t. bottom wall (BW)and side
wall (SW) thickness (constant top wall thickness 18 mm)

107
 S. Shukla et al. 2010. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(3-4), 102-109

Node 6199 Node 10607 4.1. Verification of Modified Design

Node 9524
Fig. 22: Variation of Safety Factor w.r.t. bottom wall (BW)and side
wall (SW) thickness (constant top wall thickness 22 mm)
FE analysis of the modified bolster design has been
performed to study the effect of weight reduction on the
natural frequencies and mode shapes. The first five mode
shapes are shown in Figs. 25(a)-(e). The mode shapes of
the modified design are like-a-like with those of the
initial design (see Figs. 11(a)-(e)). A comparison of the
natural frequencies of first five modes is given in Table
10. It is observed that the frequencies of the modified
design change marginally for all modes except for third
and fifth natural frequencies.

Node 6199 Node 10607

Node 9524

Fig. 23: Variation of Safety Factor w.r.t. bottom wall (BW)and side
wall (SW) thickness (constant top wall thickness 26 mm)
(a) Mode I at 3.48 Hz
Phase 3: Genetic Algorithm
Weight optimization problem as in Eqn. (5) is carried out
using GA. The OPTIMSET function of MATLAB [19]
is used as an optimization tool. The tool requires coding
of the objective function and constraints set. The safety
factor constraint function is made such that its value is
computed from the ANN output. The population size is
taken as 50 with a maximum generation of 8. The
convergence of the objective function using GA [19] is
shown in Fig. 24. The optimum values for the design
variables using GA are as follows, x1 = 20.83 mm, x2 =
21.03 mm, x3 = 11.0 mm. The corresponding reduction (b) Mode II at 4.55 Hz
in the weight is found to be about 7.6% of the weight of
standard bolster weight. The stress and safety factors
using Goodman diagram for the critical locations of the
bolster are given in Table 9.

(c) Mode III at 6.92 Hz

Fig. 24: Convergence plot of GA

Table 9: Stresses and safety factors after design modification

σm σa
Location s
(MPa) (MPa)
Bolster Top (Node 6199) 83.75 27.25 2.5
(d) Mode IV at 13.13 Hz
Bolster Bottom (Node 10607) 84.75 26.75 2.53
Bolster Side wall (Node 9524) 88.0 22.0 3.05 Fig. 25: First five mode shapes for modified bogie frame (cont’d)

108
 S. Shukla et al. 2010. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 2(3-4), 102-109
(e) Mode V at 21.15 Hz
Fig. 25: First five mode shapes for standard bogie frame
Table 10: Comparison of first five natural frequencies of standard
and modified bolster
Design/Mode I II III IV
Standard (Hz) 4.4 5.51 6.91 16.4
Modified (Hz) 3.48 4.55 6.92 13.13
% change 20.91 17.42 -0.15 19.94
5. Concluding Remarks
A comprehensive method for weight optimization of the
bolster of a three piece railway freight bogie is
presented. The method involves numerical analysis and
experimental testing of the components. Full scale 3-D
solid model of CASNUB bogie frame has been
developed using UGS NX-3. Safety factors for a
combination of design variables are obtained through FE
analysis. ANN is then employed for generation of these
values for a large number of design vectors. This saves
upon FE analysis computation time. GA is finally used
for the weight optimization problem. Thus, a
combination approach involving, FE analysis, ANN and
GA has been successfully used to optimize the weight of
bogie frame such that the safety factor at all three critical
locations are above 2.5. For the modified design, a
weight reduction of 7.6% in the existing bolster is
predicted. Further, comparisons of the first five natural
frequencies and their mode shapes of the modified
design with those of the initial design have shown that
the modified bolster has met the design requirements.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
The authors acknowledge the support from the
Government of India, Ministry of Railways, Research,
Designs and Standards Organisation (RDSO), Lucknow,
India, in providing standard data and design details.
REFERENCES:
[1] International Union of Railways. 1994. Motive Power
Units, Bogie and Running Gear, Bogie frame Structure
Strength Tests, UIC 615-4.
[2] European Rail Research Institute. 1993, Programme of
Tests to be Carried out on Wagon with Steel Under frame
and Body (Suitable for Being Fitted with the Automatic
Buffing and Draw Coupler) and on Their Cast Steel
Frame Bogies, 7th Edition, ERRI B12/RP17.
[3] S.Toshihiko, U. Eiji, and M. Yukimi. 1991. Intelligent
CAD system for railway bogie truck design, Proc. IEEE
Int. Conf. Industrial Electronics, Control &
Instrumentation, 42-47.
[4] H. Claus and W. Schiehlen. 1998. Modeling and
simulation of railway bogie structural vibrations, Vehicle
System Dynamics, 29, 538-552.
V [5] C. Oyan. 1998. Structural strength analysis of the bogie
20.97 frame in Taipei rapid transit system, Proc. IMechE Part
21.15 F: J. Rail & Rapid Transit, 212 (3), 253-263.
-0.86 [6] P. HwaByung, K.P Nam, K.S. Jung, and L.Y. Kang. 2006.
Bogie frame design in consideration of fatigue strength
and weight reduction, Proc. IMechE Part F: J. Rail &
Rapid Transit, 220, 201-206.
[7] S. Shukla, R. Gupta, and N.S. Vyas. 2009. Parametric
study of suspension elements for ride index analysis of an
Indian Railway freight vehicle, Int. J. Vehicle Structures
& Systems, 1(4), 70-77.
[8] Indian Railways Specification No. WD-17-CASNUB-
22HS-BOGIE-92 (Revision-3) for CASNUB-22W, 22HS
Cast Steel Bogies with friction damping arrangement for
broad gauge, 2006, RDSO, Ministry of Railways,
Lucknow, India.
[9] Stress Investigation and Fatigue Test in Cast Steel
Suitability to 23.5t Axle Load Freight Stock, MT-151,
1998, RDSO, Ministry of Railways, Lucknow, India.
[10] Indian Railways specification of Elastomeric pad No.
WD-20-Misc.-95 (Revision-3), 2006, RDSO, Ministry of
Railways, Lucknow, India.
[11] J.E. Shigley.1986. Mechanical Engineering Design,
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
[12] O.C. Zienkiewicz and R.L. Taylor. 1989. The Finite
Element Method, McGraw-Hill International Editions.
[13] J.N. Reddy. 2005. An Introduction to the Finite Element
Method, Tata McGraw-Hill.
[14] S. Rajasekaran and G.A. VijayalakshmiPai. 2003. Neural
Network, Fuzzy Logic, and Genetic Algorithms, Prentice-
Hall of India.
[15] UNIGRAPHICS NX3 Users Manual.
[16] MSC.PATRAN Users Guide, 2008, Release 2.
[17] MD. NASTRAN Quick Reference Guide, Release 3.
[18] LabVIEW Users Manual, April 2003.
[19] MATLAB Users Guide, 2008 A.
109
Copyright of International Journal of Vehicle Structures & Systems (IJVSS) is the property of Mechaero
Foundation for Technical Research & Education Excellence (MAFTREE) and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.