See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339311246

Design, Analysis and Optimization of a BAJA-SAE Frame

Technical Report · February 2020

DOI: 10.21275/SR20208233756

CITATION READS

1 3,472

1 author:

Yogesh Chandra
Technische Universität Chemnitz
1 PUBLICATION   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Finite Element Analysis of Chassis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yogesh Chandra on 17 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2018): 7.426

Design, Analysis and Optimization of a BAJA-SAE

Frame
Yogesh Chandra
Manipal Institute of Technology, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Manipal University, Udupi-576103,
Karnataka, India

Abstract: The report being elaborated below involves the design, analysis and fabrication of a multi-tubular space frame. The main
motive of the roll cage is to ensure the structural safety and comfort of the driver under all loading conditions as well as incorporating
all the other subsystems together. The roll-cage has been drafted on various designing software’s such as Solidworks and CATIA. The
analysis and optimization has been done on advanced 3D CAD modelling and FEA software’s such as ANSYS, Solidworks and
Hyperworks. The material used for fabrication was finalized after extensive market surveys on the basis of cost and strength to weight
ratio. Testing and development to meet the design requirements and validation of the specification was undertaken.

Keywords: BAJA-SAE, CHASSIS, FEA

1. Introduction Table 1: 1018 vs 4130

Material AISI 1018 AISI 4130
The roll-cage is fabricated by a material of same Yield Strength 417 MPa 638 MPa
composition but different cross-sections depending on the Ultimate Strength 473 MPa 810 MPa
Bending Strength 402.9 MPa 415 MPa
load. The roll cage has been designed by taking BAJA SAE
Preferred Welding Type MIG Welding TIG Welding
2019 RULEBOOK into consideration. The design discussed
Availability Easily Available Less Available
in the following report involves the incorporation of a Cost Cheap Expensive
305CC single cylinder BRIGGS AND STRATTON engine.
So it becomes more significant to minimize the weight so as
From the above it can be deduced that AISI 4130 has a much
to achieve the maximum possible acceleration by balancing
better strength to weight ratio. Also by using AISI 4130, we
the strength to weight ratio. Best possible fabrication
can ensure a straight weight reduction of 17% per tubing
techniques have been used to manufacture the roll-cage with
length without compromising on its strength.
importance given to driver ergonomics and
2.1 Selection of Cross-Section
2. Material Selection
Primary member
The selection of the material is generally on the basis of its To select the most appropriate section for primary members,
strength to weight ratio, elongation properties and an analysis was done for bending strength, bending stiffness
availability. An optimum balance of fulfilling design and weight per meter of the cross-section. The graphs of
requirements and minimizing weight is crucial for successful Bending Strength and Bending Stiffness versus thickness
design. were plotted in MATLAB. They also include the minimum
requirements for bending stiffness, bending strength and
The materials generally chosen are AISI 4130 and AISI minimum wall thickness (1.6 mm) as specified by the
1018 steels. The following table compares the two materials. rulebook. The cross sections shortlisted were 1 inch, 1.15
inch and 1.25 inch. Through a market survey, it was found
that the above mentioned pipe diameters were available in
following thicknesses - 1mm, 1.2mm, 1.65mm, 1.8mm and
2.1mm

Figure 1: Bending stiffness vs thickness

Volume 9 Issue 2, February 2020
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR20208233756 DOI: 10.21275/SR20208233756 617
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2018): 7.426
The cockpit was designed to protect the driver and permit
easy egress in an emergency.

The visibility of manikin after placing comfortably on the

seat was checked. The kill switch is in the visibility of the
driver.

Figure 2: Bending strength vs thickness

Since the cross section 1.15 inch x 1.65 mm gives minimum

weight along with satisfying all the conditions, it was
selected for the primary members

Secondary Members
Secondary members are provided with an aim of providing Figure 3: RULA analysis in CATIA
structural support to the entire frame and primary members
in particular. Since these members are specifically structural
they are used of smaller diameter and thickness as compared
to the primary ones.

2.2 Welding Technique

Generally TIG and MIG welding is used to weld 4130 steel.

By conducting destructive tests on weld samples of these
techniques the optimum welding technique that is TIG
welding was selected.

CAD Model Figure 4: Driver vision cone

Rollcage was designed using Solidworks and CATIA.
Analysis and optimization was conducted using ANSYS and CAD Model
ALTAIR Hyperworks. The following parameters were Rollcage was designed using Solidworks and CATIA.
considered while designing the roll-cage: Analysis and optimization was conducted using ANSYS and
ALTAIR Hyperworks.
2.3 Driver Ergonomics

Ergonomics comes into picture with 5 aspects that are to be

concentrated upon:
1) Safety
2) Comfort
3) Ease of use

It is important that the driver be comfortable for the

endurance race in which he is to drive the vehicle for a time
Figure 5: Designed in Solidworks software
length of continuous 4 hours and thus from this point of
consideration for ATV of BAJA SAE, the comfort and
Finite Element Analysis
safety of the driver are vital in order to reduce the fatigue of The multi tubular space frame of an all-terrain vehicle
the driver and hence increase his efficiency.
should be capable of enduring harsh off road environments.
Finite element analysis of the roll-cage was done using
The analysis for driver ergonomics was conducted using
ANSYS workbench 19.2 and Hyperworks. The roll-cage
RULA in CATIA. The emphasis is on the driver comfort
was analysed for various conditions like Front impact, Side
and driver vision taking the rulebook constraints into impact, and Front roll over, Side roll over, Torsional
consideration. There is sufficient distance between brake
Stiffness with the main focus on driver’s safety. The results
pedal and accelerator for comfortable positioning of both
were studied and the necessary changes were implemented.
shoe on pedal. There is bracing provided as a support to
The results of the simulation were interpreted in HyperView.
change position while sitting and prevention from fatigue
The analysis determines the intensity and the areas of the
due to constraint. The manikin was most comfortably placed
highest Von Mises stresses and the deformations that the
and different clearances from manikin, its visibility, knee frame members are subjected for the applied loads.
pivot and ankle angle was measured and RULA analysis was
conducted.

Volume 9 Issue 2, February 2020

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR20208233756 DOI: 10.21275/SR20208233756 618
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2018): 7.426
Meshing The warpage in two-dimensional elements is calculated by
The Roll-cage mid surfaces and cleanup of the geometry splitting a quad into two trias and finding the angle between
were created in ALTAIR Hyperworks and the .iges file was the two planes which the trias form. The quad is then split
imported from Solidworks. 2D meshing was carried out again, this time using the opposite corners and forming the
since the thickness of the pipe was much less than the second set of trias. The angle between the two planes which
diameter of the tube. Shell elements were used for carrying the trias form is then found. The maximum angle found
out the 2d meshing of the roll-cage. The element shape used between the planes is the warpage of the element. Warpage
is TRIA and QUAD for 2D mesh. was maintained below 15 degrees.

The quality index had been used to ensure that the fail The Jacobian ratio is a measure of the deviation of a given
elements are minimal. Also, it was taken care that the element from an ideally shaped element, and it was kept at
element with a size less than 3 mm is minimal in order to 0.6. FIG 3 outlines the important mesh quality criteria.
avoid any unnecessary solver time. The meshing element
was selected as mixed as per the scenario with the thickness
provided as additional input along with material properties
and load collectors and boundary conditions for the solver.

Figure 6: 2D Roll-cage meshing

Components
Primary and secondary tubes were of different thickness and
so, they were assigned with different component as shown in
fig 4.

Figure 8: 2D element quality report

Impact Analysis
Linear static analysis was performed that simulates the loads
from a frontal impact using Optistruct solver. The front
impact analysis is done for analysing the rigidity of a roll
cage as well as the safety of the driver in case of a head on
collision of the car. Results of interest from this analysis are
Von Mises stress and displacements for different loading
conditions on the roll-cage structure. If a design cannot
Figure 7: Red color denotes primary members and yellow survive a linear static stress analysis it has to be fixed before
denotes secondary members. moving on to more complex, time consuming and expensive
dynamic or non-linear analysis
Quality Criterion
To ensure model accuracy and efficiency, the mesh of the Assumptions for frontal impact simulation:
model needs to meet a mesh quality criterion. The quality of 1) The chassis material is considered isotropic and
the mesh will affect the time step calculations of the homogeneous
simulations and thus the computation time. The time step is 2) Chassis tube joints are assumed to be perfect joints
directly related to the characteristic length of the elements so
the minimum element size is of particular importance. The Impact forces were calculated using Newton’s second
Severely distorted elements will affect the accuracy of the law which states that the net force acting on a body is equal
results due to an increase in stiffness of the element due to to the product of mass and acceleration of the body.
the distortion. The percentage triangular elements should be
less than 5% of the number of elements in the component Force= Mass * acceleration
because the triangular elements impart an artificial stiffness Force= Rate of change of momentum
into parts modeled with them. This will cause an unrealistic Impulse= Force * time= Change of momentum = Mass *
behavior of the chassis frame. The target element size was Change in velocity
6mm. Force= M*V / impact time

Volume 9 Issue 2, February 2020

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR20208233756 DOI: 10.21275/SR20208233756 619
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2018): 7.426
Velocity was assumed to be 45kmph (for front and rear Table 3: Result of front impact analysis
impact). The weight of car was considered to be 210Kg. Max Stress Max Deformation Factor of Safety
432.52 MPA 3.07 mm 1.47
Front Impact: In actual conditions, the car is going to hit a
tree, another car or a wall. In the first 2 cases, the tree and Side Impact Analysis
the other car are deformable bodies. So the time of impact Side impact analysis was performed to analyze the strength
will be greater, around 0.4 seconds, while the wall is of the roll-cage in the case of accident involving the vehicle
considered as non-deformable i.e. a rigid body. Hence the hit by another car from side.
time of impact will be obviously less than that in the above
case. It is obvious that the impact force in the case of wall Table 4: Loading conditions of side impact analysis
will be more than the first two cases. The vehicle was Maximum Force 4.2KN
considered to be moving with a velocity of 45 kmph and Force applied on SIM member
time of impact as 0.1 seconds. Fixed Lower suspension mounting points

Side Impact: Since both bodies involved are deformable,

the time of impact is slightly more than that of front impact.
In case of side impact, the vehicle was considered to be in a
stationary state. Impact was subjected on the side by an
identical vehicle at a speed of 30 kmph. Time of impact is
taken as 0.4 seconds because both the bodies are
deformable.
Figure 11: Side impact stress distribution
Front Impact Analysis

Mesh Features
Mesh type: 2D mesh of mixed type
Total elements: 43152
Element shape: Quad and Tria.

Table 2: Loading conditions of front impact analysis

Maximum Force 6.6KN
Force Applied On Front Member
Fixed Suspension mounting points

Figure 12: Side impact deformation

Table 5: Results of side impact analysis

Max Stress Max Deformation Factor of Safety
464.7MPa 2.268mm 1.37

Rear Impact Analysis

Rear impact analysis was performed to analyze the strength
of rear members of the roll-cage on impact by other car, the
rear of roll-cage holds and supports drivetrain and crucial
suspension components, which should be protected from
Figure 9: Front Impact Stress distribution external force.

Table 6: Loading conditions of rear impact analysis

Maximum Force 6.6KN
Force applied on Rear
Fixed Suspension mounting points

Figure 10: Front Impact deformation

Figure 13: Rear Impact stress distribution

Volume 9 Issue 2, February 2020

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR20208233756 DOI: 10.21275/SR20208233756 620
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2018): 7.426
Usually side roll over analysis is not so significant in case of
commercial vehicles, since if the vehicle topples while
cornering; it will be because of the faulty suspension design.
But in case of an ATV, there are chances that the vehicle
will topple while encountering a treacherous terrain.

Table 10: Loading conditions of side rollover analysis

Max Force 2.42KN
Force applied on RHO member
fixed Suspension mounting points

Figure 14: Rear Impact deformation

Table 7: Results of rear impact analysis

Max Stress Max Deformation Factor of Safety
429.5 MPa 2.25 mm 1.48

Front Rollover Analysis

In the case of front roll over, the vehicle is considered as
toppling while coming down a hill. The roll cage should
protect driver under this severe condition.

Table 8: Loading conditions of front rollover analysis Figure 17: Side Rollover Stress distribution
Max Force 2.42KN
Force Applied on At 45° to FBM-RHO Bends
Fixed Suspension mounting points

Figure 15: Front rollover stress distribution Figure 18: Side rollover deformation

Table 11: Results of side rollover analysis

Max Stress Max Deformation Factor of Safety
273.8 MPa 4.31 mm 2.33

Torsion Stiffness Analysis

The chassis should be stiff enough to sustain dynamic

suspension loads. When the vehicle is negotiating the bump
there might be a case of alternating bumps on left and right
wheels. Considering the left wheel is having the upward
travel (bounce) and the right wheel is having the downward
travel (rebound) the spring forces will act in the opposite
Figure 16: Front rollover deformation direction composing a couple on front of the vehicle.

Table 9: Results of front rollover analysis This couple tries to produce the torsional stress in the
Max Stress Max Deformation Factor of Safety chassis. for the worst case scenario the diagonally opposite
209.6 MPa 1.37mm 3.04 wheels are having the opposite wheel travel i.e. front right
wheel is having the vertically upward travel and at same
Side Rollover Analysis time rear left wheel is having the vertically downward travel
In this case, the analysis is performed for side rollover producing a couple diagonally. This couple is responsible
caused due to the harsh and non-uniform off road condition for the torsional stresses in the vehicle
the car being subjected during the race.

Volume 9 Issue 2, February 2020

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR20208233756 DOI: 10.21275/SR20208233756 621
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2018): 7.426
Table 12: Loading conditions of torsional analysis Firstly, a 1D meshed FEM model of the chassis was
Max Force 2.42KN developed using ANSYS workbench 19.2 modal analysis
Force applied on Diagonally Opposite Suspension Mounts solver. Natural frequencies and mode shapes were calculated
Fixed Diagonally Opposite Suspension Mounts considering a free-free boundary condition and finally
comparison of natural frequency with other sources of
vibration acted on the roll-cage to avoid resonance condition
under any condition.

It was concluded from modal analysis that first six modes of

vibrating frequency does not lie between working frequency
of the engine and hence resonance will not occur. The
vibration frequency of the engine ranges from 15Hz to
31.667Hz.

Mesh characteristics:

Figure 19: Torsional Stress distribution Element length: 10mm

No of elements: 3199

No of nodes: 9553

The matrix solver used Block Lanczos extraction method to

evaluate eigenvectors from 0Hz to 1000Hz

Element type: BEAM188 is suitable for analyzing slender to

moderately stubby/thick beam structures. The element is
Figure 20: Torsional deformation based on Timoshenko beam theory which includes shear-
deformation effects. The element provides options for
unrestrained warping and restrained warping of cross-
Torsional Stiffness
The maximum deformation was at the front RHO bend. sections.
F=2420N
L = Distance between diagonally opposite suspension Model was constrained of nodal displacement and nodal
mounts=730mm rotation for all degree of freedom at the suspension
D = Vertical deformation=9.218mm mounting points.
Θ = Angular
deformation Tan (θ) = D/ Table 13: First six natural modes of chassis
(L/2) Mode Frequency
Torsional Stiffness = (F x L) / θ. 1 63.96 Hz
D=9.218mm 2 84.1 Hz
3 98.89 Hz
Torsional Stiffness= 1244 Nm/degree
4 105.7 Hz
5 107.22 Hz
Modal Analysis
6 116.76 Hz
Modal analysis was done to avoid resonance of the roll-cage.
Engine is the main source of vibration in the vehicle. Since a
4-stroke single cylinder engine is used, dominant half order
excitation frequency of the engine was calculated at idle and
maximum rpm. The dynamic characteristics of the chassis
were assessed in three steps.

Figure 22: 1st mode deformation

Figure 21: Engine vibration graph from strain

Volume 9 Issue 2, February 2020

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR20208233756 DOI: 10.21275/SR20208233756 622
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2018): 7.426
Explicit Dynamic analysis
In mechanics, the static system is the state of a system that is
in equilibrium with the action of balanced forces and torque
so that they remain at rest. But to get a real case value,
dynamic analysis has to be performed. Considering, this is a
crash analysis with short duration impact, explicit dynamic
analysis had been performed using HyperMesh 17.0. This
analysis had been performed for the particular case of
impact. Here the case considered is impact with a rigid wall.

Figure 23: 2nd mode deformation The vehicle had to make a head-on collision with the rigid
wall from a particular distance from the extreme point of the
roll cage.

Components:
Primary and secondary tubes of different dimensions were
assigned to different components.

Properties:
Thickness had been decided in this card. Other than that,
some important parameters were also decided such as
Ishell=24 (QEPH formulation) which reduces the hourglass
energy & N=5 (number of integration points).
Figure 24: 3rd Mode deformation
Material
M36_PLAS_TAB material of Elasto-plastic type had been
taken considering the ductile material and the specification
of the material had been shown in table.

Table 14: Material Specification

Specification Values
Density(Rho_initial) 7.89e+9 ton/mm3
Young's modulus ( E ) 210000 N/mm2
Poisson ratio(nu) 0.3
Yield stress (a) 638 MPa

Figure 25: 4th mode deformation Considering dynamic analysis, a rigid connection had been
made for each of the components using RBE2, and the
approximate center of mass for each component had been
decided in CATIA, which was bolted to the chassis members
as they have to be.

Adding rigid mass gave us a clear picture of doing the

dynamic analysis as it could be seen in figure 15.

Figure 26: 5th mode deformation

Figure 28: Rigid mass added for each component

The total mass comprising of all components comes out to

be 192kg

Figure 27: 6th mode deformation

Volume 9 Issue 2, February 2020

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR20208233756 DOI: 10.21275/SR20208233756 623
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2018): 7.426

Figure 29: Total mass of the system

Contact
Type 7 contact is created so that the components can interact
in the event of impact. Istf value of stiffness scale factor of 4
was considered with gapmin of 1mm, with Inacti taken as 6
for variable gap with consideration of initial penetration.
Figure 30: Stress distribution
Load collector
Velocity: - Initial velocity of 45 kmph was imparted to our
vehicle using card INIVEL collector and they were made to
collide with the rigid wall which is at a distance of 10 mm
from the front most part of the vehicle.

Cards
Several cards were made in order to optimize the whole
simulation. Some of them were:-
Figure 31: Energy curve vs. time
A. ENG_RUN:
T-stop had been calculated and decide here, which is Tabs:
basically total run time for the simulation. For this, the total Various tabs of the AISI 4130 alloy steel grade as that of the
time taken to hit the second vehicle and coming back to its roll cage were used to mount the powertrain and the
original position has been taken. Considering the second suspension of the car.
vehicle at a distance 10mm from the rigid wall, and vehicle
moving at speed of 45kmph, the total time would be 0.1 These tabs were designed using solidworks and were
seconds. diligently analyzed on hyperworks for linear static analysis
using Optistruct solver.
B .ENG_TFILE:
The frequency of time after which the animation file would 3d meshing was performed using tetrahedral elements of
be generated is mentioned here which is taken as 0.001. 4mm size.

C. ENG_ANIM_ELEM: The simulations of these tabs are shown below.

Those parameters which had to be evaluated other than
displacement (default) had been taken here i.e. hourglass Table 15: Shock Absorber Tab
energy and Von misses stress. Applied Force 6000N
Deformation 0.69mm
3. Result and discussion Factor Of Safety 1.8
Max Stress 354.3 MPa
The post processing had been performed on HyperView.
Two results had been inferred from the analysis, Von Mises
stress and total displacement.

The maximum stress comes out to be 638 MPa.

An energy curve was also plotted for this analysis on

HyperGraph to ensure that the total energy remains constant
throughout the process and hourglass energy to be zero.

Figure 32: Stress distribution on shock absorber tab

Volume 9 Issue 2, February 2020

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR20208233756 DOI: 10.21275/SR20208233756 624
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2018): 7.426
Table 16: Upper A-Arm Tabs Table 19: H-Arm Mounting Tabs
Applied Force 6000N Applied Force 6000N
Deformation 0.78mm Deformation 0.15mm
Factor Of Safety 1.73 Factor Of Safety 1.24
Max Stress 368.7 MPa Max Stress 511.3 MPa

Figure 36: Stress distribution on H-arm mounting tab

Figure 33: Stress distribution on upper arm tab
SEAT: Glass fiber is used as a reinforcement and hand lay-
Table 17: Lower A-Arm Tabs up technique is used for the manufacturing of the seat. An
Applied Force 6000N analysis was run on ANSYS Structural by considering the
Deformation 0.82mm weight of the driver (80kgs) using ACP (pre) setup.
Factor of Safety 1.47
Max Stress 434.1 MPa Material data: Defined Epoxy E-glass wet material of
0.5mm thickness of 6 layers.

Meshing:
No of elements=54114
No of nodes= 64295

Element type is SOLID185, is used for 3-D modeling of

solid structures. It is defined by eight nodes having three
degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x,
y, and z directions. The element has plasticity,
hyperelasticity, stress stiffening, creep, large deflection, and
large strain capabilities. It also has mixed formulation
capability for simulating deformations of nearly
Figure 34: Stress distribution on Lower a-arm tab incompressible elastoplastic materials, and fully
incompressible hyperelastic materials.
Table 18: Gearbox Mounting Tabs
Applied Force 6000N Constraints: constrained all the bolt holes
Deformation 0.73mm
Factor Of Safety 1.12
Max Stress 625.1 MPa

Figure 37: Stress distribution on seat

Figure 35: Stress distribution on Gearbox mounting tab

Volume 9 Issue 2, February 2020

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR20208233756 DOI: 10.21275/SR20208233756 625
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2018): 7.426
Table 20: Results of seat analysis [6] BAJA SAE Rulebook
Applied force 1569.6N
Max stress 114.03 MPa
Inverse reverse factor 0.8612
Max deformation 0.5956mm

Figure 38: Deformation on seat

4. Conclusions on Fea of Chassis

After performing the Front impact, side impact, and roll
over and torsion analyses and making the necessary
changes, the following design was finalized.
 The above designed chassis is much stiffer and stronger
than the preliminary design. The chassis members were
optimized by changing dimensions of the pipes in required
positions.
 In the case of front impact and side impact analysis, the
deformation of the front most member of the roll cage
must be less than 10% of the clearance between driver roll
cage members ensuring the safety of the driver. Though
the factor of safety in front impact is 1.47 and in side
impact is 1.37 , deformation is within limit, ensuring that
the driver is safe
 For front roll over, the deformation is important than the
maximum stress. The deformation is 1.37mm and it is safe
for the driver.
 The modal analysis was carried out without any
consideration of damping components such as vibration
isolators, Panels, etc. If they are included, the frequency
will be even much lower.

5. Acknowledgements
Author is grateful to ‘Team Manipal Racing’ for resources
and consistent support required for this study.

References
[1] Racing and Sports Car Chassis Design, Michael Costin
and David Phipps
[2] Thomas D. Gillespie. Fundamentals of Vehicle
Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
[3] Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Jornsen Reimpell. The automotive
chassis: engineering principles (2001). Butterworth
Heinemann.
[4] Jonathan Hastle.(2005) Mini-BAJA vehicle design
optimisation. North-eastern university.
[5] T. Stolarski, Y. Nakasone & S. Yoshimoto (2006).
Engineering Analysis with ANSYS Software. Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Volume 9 Issue 2, February 2020
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: SR20208233756
View publication stats DOI: 10.21275/SR20208233756 626