NON-LINEAR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF AN ALL-

TERRAIN 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’s engineering design team that has been given the task of producing vehicle
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
Graduate Student
2
Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department
3
Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department

1
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.

2
 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.

3
 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 1”O.D. x 0.83”
wall DOM steel and 1.125”O.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
1.125”x 0.065” tubing steel was selected for its high strength and because it was lighter
than the 1” tubing.

Table 1: Material comparison

1" O.D. 0.18% Carbon 1.125" O.D. Chromoly

Steel DOM Tubing Steel Tubing
Young's Modulus, E (psi) 3.00E+07 3.00E+07
Outer Diameter (inches) 1.000 1.125
wall (inches) 0.083 0.065
Inner Diameter (inches) 0.834 0.995
Moment of Inertia (in^4) 0.0253 0.0305
EI (psi) 759784.60 915001.60
Weight (lb./ft) .804 0.7359
Total Weight (for 100-ft) 80.4 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,

4
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’s side (Appendix B-3). The
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’s weight coming down on one front tire
(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.

6
APPENDICES

7
 APPENDIX A: Vehicle Dimensions

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

8
APPENDIX B- 1: MODEL GEOMETRY IN ANSYS

9
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