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

net/publication/329401049

Optimization of Torsional Stiffness for Heavy Commercial Vehicle Chassis

Frame

Article · December 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s42154-018-0044-6

CITATIONS READS

0 1,287

3 authors, including:

Shravan H. Gawande Rahul N Yerrawar

M.E.Societys College of Engineering, Pune-411001 Modern Education Society's College of Engineering
66 PUBLICATIONS   340 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Suspension View project

Measurement of Friction and Wear View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shravan H. Gawande on 05 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Automotive Innovation
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42154-018-0044-6

Optimization of Torsional Stiffness for Heavy Commercial Vehicle

Chassis Frame
S. H. Gawande1 · A. A. Muley1 · R. N. Yerrawar1

Received: 2 May 2018 / Accepted: 3 November 2018

© China Society of Automotive Engineers (China SAE) 2018

Abstract
The chassis frame is the backbone of a heavy commercial vehicle (HCV). Its main purpose is to securely carry the determined
load under all designed operative situations. Thus, it should be rigid enough to withstand the various forces acting on it.
The objective of this study was to develop a stiffness model to select an optimum cross section with determined torsional
stiffness. Johnson’s method of optimization was adapted to develop a stiffness equation and select a section with a determined
torsional stiffness and a required mass constraint. The stiffness obtained from the developed stiffness model and finite element
analysis (FEA) is a close match, which proves the validity of the proposed model. The section with the maximum torsional
stiffness was used for frame-level optimization to improve the torsional and lateral stiffness of the overall chassis frame. The
strain energy absorption capacity of the cross member improved by changing the section of the cross member. By using the
optimized section, the torsional stiffness of the frame improved by 44% and a lateral stiffness of 10% was obtained. The Creo
software was used for modeling and FEA was performed with the Hypermesh software.

Keywords Chassis frame · Torsional stiffness · FEA · Cross members · Deformation

1 Introduction 3. Lateral forces caused by the road camber, side wind, and
steering of the vehicle
The chassis frame of a vehicle is an auxiliary member, both in 4. Torque transmitted from engine and transmission.
structural and in functional terms, to all other chassis aggre-
gate systems such as the suspension, steering, and braking
A limited amount of studies has been conducted on tor-
systems. It consists of two side members called the long
sional stiffness optimization for the chassis frame of heavy
members, which are joined by a series of cross members. In
commercial vehicles (HCVs). The available literature was
addition to strength, an important consideration in the chassis
collected from technical periodicals, research articles, and
frame design is adequate bending and torsion stiffness. Ade-
industrial surveys (Metalsa India Pvt. Ltd., Pune, India). Kil-
quate torsional stiffness is necessary to ensure good handling
imnik and Korbin [1] have investigated the calculation of
characteristics. According to the conventional design proce-
fatigue caused by higher stresses at the end parts of the chas-
dure, the stiffness of the chassis is increased by adding cross
sis during torsion and considered the influence exerted by the
members. This results in the overall increase in the chassis
position of the transverse axis along the frame on the state
weight. Hence, it is necessary to design the chassis with ade-
of stress in the structure. Seyfried et al. [2] have highlighted
quate stiffness and strength. The frame is always subjected
the lightweighting opportunities in the HCV frame struc-
to the following loads:
ture by changing the sections that keep the section modulus
at the same level. With this approach, the U-shaped profile
1. Weight of the body, passengers, and cargo loads
can reduce the weight by up to one third of the existing
2. Vertical and twisting load owing to uneven road surfaces
weight.
Oskar and Alejandro [3] investigated the torsional, lat-
B S. H. Gawande eral, and bending stiffness of the Volvo car chassis frame,
shgawande@gmail.com
and Weerawut and Supasit [4] investigated the design of the
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, M.E.S. College of space frame racing car front clip and rear clip for torsional
Engineering Pune, S. P. Pune University, Pune, India rigidity. Lonny et al. [5] have designed a twist fixture to mea-

123

sure the torsional stiffness of a Winston cup chassis. Ojo and
Pakharuddin [6] have investigated the optimization of the
Hino model truck chassis frame for high torsional stiffness
with shape modifications. The torsional stiffness depends
on the property of the structure, but is independent of the
applied load’s magnitude. The torsional stiffness of the chas-
sis depends on the types of cross section used and the material
of the chassis frame. Kurisetty et al. [7] have studied the effect
of various frame parameters, such as the frame width, wheel
base, and height and thickness of a long member, on the chas-
sis frame stiffness to acquire the optimum stiffness. Rahul
et al. [8] have investigated torsional stiffness optimization for
a truck frame by providing the X-type member of minimum
thickness. Finite element analysis (FEA) was performed for
the root model and optimized model using ANSYS work-
bench, and a 17% improvement in torsional stiffness was
obtained. Goel et al. [9] have investigated the chassis frame of
the Ashok Leyland Vikings model by replacing the existing
C-section cross member with an I-section and a rectangu-
lar box type section. Their results revealed that the I-section
cross member had the maximum strength; thus, they con-
cluded that changing the cross section of the cross member
did not significantly affect the natural frequency of the chas-
sis frame. Devaraj and Raghu [10] investigated the effect
of stiffness parameters on the crashworthiness of the lad-
der frame. The optimized cross section of the chassis’ side
member was obtained by considering the specific energy.
Patel and Chitransh [11] have reported the design and anal-
ysis of the TATA 2518 TC chassis frame with constraints
of maximum stress induction and the deflection of chassis
under maximum load. Prabakaran and Gunasekar [12] opti-
mized the chassis frame of the Eicher E2 model by varying
the section of a long member for three different cases with
maximum shear stress constraints and the deflection of the
chassis under maximum load. Divyesh et al. [13] investigated
the AMW 2523TP truck chassis with maximum shear stress
constraints and the deflection of the chassis under maximum
load. The analysis was performed using C, I, and rectan-
gular box type cross sections. Gawande [14] have reported
the design and performance investigation of metal expansion
bellows, wherein Johnson’s method of optimum design [23]
was used to select the optimum material for bellows, with
the objective of minimizing the weight and cost. Sahu et al.
[15] have conducted static load analysis with different cross
sections and two different materials (i.e., structural steel and
Al alloy).
Prakash and Prabhu [16] have investigated the improve-
ment in torsional stiffness based on the obtained FEA results.
Improvement in terms of torsional stiffness was achieved by
providing a stiffener in the front and rear portion of the frame.
Patil and Deore [17] optimized the TATA 912 Diesel bus chas-
sis frame with maximum shear stress constraints and chassis
deflection under maximum load and observed that the rect-
123
S. H. Gawande et al.
angular box section provided more strength than the C- and
I-section. Siva Nagaraju et al. [18] investigated the analysis of
the Innova car chassis with different cross sections. The anal-
ysis results revealed that the stresses induced in the C-section
were concentrated in the box type section, but were within
the ultimate strength limit. The C-type cross section weighs
less than the rectangular section and provides operational
benefits. Sharma et al. [19] have designed and analyzed the
TATA LPS 2515 EX truck chassis, for which they observed
that a box type cross section was best in terms of deflec-
tions, although the overall weight of the chassis was higher
than that of other cross members. Vijaykumar and Patel [20]
modified the design of the existing cross section by chang-
ing the dimension to optimize the chassis weight. Singh et al.
[21] have analyzed the TATA LP 912 with higher strength as
the main criterion by applying the vertical loads acting on
different cross sections. Rakesh et al. [22] have investigated
the Ashok Leyland chassis using three different materials,
namely, Al-360, cast iron, and glass fiber-reinforced plastic,
GFRP, to select the best one.
Because the handling characteristics of a vehicle are
mostly related to the torsional stiffness of the chassis, the
torsional stiffness of the chassis frame is one of the most
important factors from a design viewpoint. Increased chassis
torsional rigidity improves the vehicle handling charac-
teristics. Higher torsional stiffness allows the suspension
components to control a larger percentage of vehicle kine-
matics. The chassis frame’s lack of torsional stiffness tends to
magnify the effect under the steering and over steering of the
vehicle. Considering single wheel bump conditions owing
to uneven road surfaces, the front and rear axle portion of
the chassis frame becomes twisted around its x-axis. Studies
and industrial surveys have reported that the torsional load
case is one of the worst load cases. Hence, the torsional stiff-
ness optimization of the chassis frame is required. Based on
this study, Johnson’s optimization method can be modified
to select the optimum dimensions for the required weight
constraints based on torsional stiffness, when the numbers of
different sections with variable thickness are available.
2 Problem Formulation and Research Scope
This paper reports the stiffness analysis of an HCV chassis
frame for different cross sections, which was conducted to
improve the torsional stiffness. Johnson’s method of opti-
mum design was used to select the optimum section with
the objective of maximizing the torsional stiffness under a
given weight condition. The torsional stiffness of the chassis
is a function of the torsional stiffness of the individual cross
members in the chassis frame. The front and rear torsional
stiffness is influenced by the type of cross member present
at the front and rear side of the chassis. If it is difficult to
Optimization of Torsional Stiffness for Heavy Commercial Vehicle Chassis Frame
Fig. 1 Existing third cross member
replace the engine cross member; the third cross member for
the front torsion and the seventh cross member for the rear
torsion should be selected for replacement. The existing chas-
sis frame consists of eight cross members, all of which are
C-sections, and the overall frame weight is 610 kg. The third
and seventh cross members are 30 kg in total. Hence, with
regard to optimization, it is useful to design cross members
with a weight of 15 kg each. The cross member is connected
to long members using a gusset or brackets on each side.
Considering that the bracket weight for the cross member is
4.5 kg on each side, the cross member section must be less
than 6 kg to maintain the original weight of the chassis frame.
The benchmarking data of various truck chassis frames
reveal that C-sections, hollow square sections, and tubular
sections are typically used as cross members in the truck chas-
sis frames. Approximately 65% of HCV chassis frames have
C-sections to ensure good resisting bending forces. Hollow
sections are better in resisting torsional forces in comparison
with the existing C-section. Hence, to optimize the torsional
stiffness of a chassis frame, the existing C-section cross mem-
bers in the third and seventh position should be replaced with
hollow type cross members. Hence, these three sections were
compared with respect to torsional and lateral stiffness and
weight as a constraint. Figures 1 and 2 show the existing third
and seventh C-section cross members, respectively.
3 Analytical Method
Selecting a cross section for a cross member is very important
from a design, weight, and stiffness viewpoint. The stiffness
of the chassis frame depends on the material and type of
sections used. Because the chassis frame material is kept con-
stant, it is necessary to select the best suitable cross section
from a torsional stiffness viewpoint. In this study, John-
son’s method of optimization was modified and implemented
to develop an objective function for torsional stiffness and
weight. In the optimization, the individual sections used as
Fig. 2 Existing seventh cross member
cross members in the chassis frame were considered. The tor-
sional stiffness of the individual sections was obtained using
Johnson’s method [23]. Then, the section with maximum tor-
sional stiffness was used in the chassis frame to improve the
frame’s overall torsional stiffness. Johnson’s method com-
prises the formulation of the primary design equation (PDE),
subsidiary design equation (SDE), and limit equation (LE).
The PDE is the most important design equation and
expresses the most significant functional requirement to be
maximized or the most significant undesirable effect to be
minimized. The PDE expresses the quantity upon which the
particular optimum design is based. The most significant
desirable effect to maximize is the torsional stiffness of the
section, which is expressed as follows:
GJ
S (1)
L
where L is the length of the section, J is the section’s polar
moment of inertia, G is the section’s modulus of rigidity,
and S is the section’s torsional stiffness. The SDE expresses
either the functional requirement or the undesirable effects
according to Eqs. 2 and 3.
π 4 
J D − d4 (2)
32  
π
M D2 − d 2 × L × ρ (3)
4
where D is the external diameter, d is the internal diame-
ter, L is the section’s thickness, and ρ is the density of the
material. In the optimum design, satisfactory ranges are avail-
able for the values of certain parameters. These ranges can
be expressed mathematically by an equation known as the
limit equation, which is always rigid or loose. Moreover,
it is always beneficial to take the advantage of a loose limit,
because a slight change in the value of a parameter may result
in substantial improvement in the optimum design. The mass
limit of the section is expressed as follows:
123
 S. H. Gawande et al.

Table 1 Geometry selection

Sr. no. Section Mass (kg) Outside Inside Torsional
parameter
dimension dimension stiffness
(mm) (mm) (kN·m/rad)

1 Tubular (4 mm 6 104 96 417,793.8

thickness)
2 Tubular (5 mm 6 85 75 268,003.71
thickness)
3 Hollow square 6 82 74 282,933.06

M ≤ 6 kg (4) Table 2 Physical properties of BSK46 [8]

Sr. no. Parameter Values
By combining Eqs. 1, 2 and 3 we obtain the following
relationship: 1 Modulus of elasticity 210 GPa

π   2 Modulus of rigidity 80.76 GPa

G D4 − d 4 3 Density 7850 kg/m3
S 32
M
(5)
4 Poisonous ratio 0.3
4 ( D −d )×ρ
π 2 2

By combining Eqs. 4 and 5, to maximize the torsional Table 3 Specifications of existing chassis frame
stiffness S, the value of thegeometryselection factor
 (GSF), Sr. no. Parameter Values (mm)
i.e., S  8.147 × 1012 D 4 − d 4 D 2 − d 2 , should be
maximum. Table 1 presents the estimation of the various 1 Overall length of 9250
geometric parameters of bellows. From Table 1, we can con- frame
clude that the tubular section with a thickness of 4 mm has 2 Front width of frame 890
the maximum torsional stiffness in comparison with the other 3 Rear width of frame 793
sections of the same weight. Therefore, this tubular section 4 Wheel base 5405
was selected for further analysis.

4 Numerical Simulation of Sections
4.1 Specifications of Existing Chassis Frame
In this study, a 25 tonnage capacity truck chassis frame with
a weight of 610 kg was used for optimization. The existing
chassis material was BSK46 steel with a yield strength of
410 MPa. The side members of the existing chassis frame
were made from C-channels with a section size of 290 mm ×
90 mm × 7 mm. Table 2 shows the physical properties of
BSK46, and Table 3 shows the specifications of the existing
chassis frame.
4.2 Solid Modeling of Sections
A tubular section with an external diameter of 104 mm, inter-
nal diameter of 96 mm, and length of 611 mm was created
using the Creo software to perform FEA. Similarly, a hollow
square section with an external dimension of 82 mm, inter-
nal dimension of 74 mm, and length of 611 mm was created.
The same sections were meshed using the Hypermesh 14.0
software. For all sections, a two-dimensional (2D) mesh with
an element size of 10 mm was used. One end of the section
was completely constrained (i.e., Ux, Uy, Uz, Rox , Roy , and
Roz were blocked). At the other end, a torque of 10 kN m
was applied to produce a twisting moment.
4.3 Angular Deformation and Torsional Stiffness
The sections’ angular deformation was measured, and the
torsional stiffness of the section was calculated. The angular
deformation of the tubular cross member with a thick-
ness of 4 mm was 0.0000243 rad, which is the minimum
value among the three sections. The angular deformation
of the tubular cross member with a thickness of 5 mm was
0.0000381 rad, which is approximately 36% higher than the
4-mm thickness section. The angular deformation of the hol-
low square cross member was 0.000039379 rad and is the
maximum value among the three sections. Table 4 shows
the angular deformation and torsional stiffness of the tubu-
lar and hollow square section. The torsional stiffness of the
tubular section with a thickness of 4 mm was the highest
(i.e., 411,522.6337 kN m/rad). The torsional stiffness of
the tubular section with a thickness of 5 mm and that of
the hollow square section with a thickness of 4 mm were
262,329.48 kN m/rad and 251,319.4270 kN m/rad, respec-
tively.

123
Optimization of Torsional Stiffness for Heavy Commercial Vehicle Chassis Frame

Table 4 Angular deformation

Section Tubular section Tubular section Hollow square section
and torsional stiffness
Outer dimension 104 mm 85 mm 82 mm
Inner dimension 96 mm 75 mm 74 mm
Length 611 mm 611 mm 611 mm
Thickness 4 mm 5 mm 4 mm
Mass 6 kg 6 kg 6 kg
Torque applied [A] 10 kN·m 10 kN·m 10 kN·m
Angular deformation [B] 0.0000243 rad 0.0000381 rad 0.00003979 rad
 
Torsional stiffness BA 411,522.6337 kN·m/rad 262,329.48 kN·m/rad 251,319.4270 kN·m/rad

FEA Torsional Stiffness Analytical Torsional Stiffness"

Torsional stiffness (kN.m/rad)

480000.00
417793.80
400000.00
411522.63
320000.00 268003.71
282933.06
240000.00 262329.49
251319.43
160000.00

80000.00

0.00
Hollow Square Tubular (5 mm Thick) Tubular (4 mm Thick)

Fig. 3 Stiffness by analytical method and FEA for individual sections

Johnson’s method of optimum design gives various geom- Fig. 5 Loads and boundary conditions
etry selections for the considered application, because the
difference between the stiffness values of the individual sec-
tions, which were obtained using the analytical method and 4.4 Stiffness Analysis of Existing Chassis Frame
FEA, was within the limit. Figure 3 shows the comparison
of torsional stiffness obtained by the analytical method and For stiffness analysis, 2D meshing with an element size of
FEA for the individual sections. In Fig. 3, it can be seen that 10 mm was used. The deformation of the chassis was mea-
the tubular section with a thickness of 4 mm had higher tor- sured by applying a load of 10 kN at the location of the
sional stiffness (i.e., 417,793.80 kN m/rad). Thus, the tubular shear center. The stiffness was calculated by measuring the
section with a thickness of 4 mm was stiffer than the other hol- deformation of the chassis frame in various load cases. Four
low tubular section with a thickness of 5 mm and the square different load cases were considered, namely, the front tor-
section in terms of resisting torsional loads. The torsional sion load case, rear torsion load case, front lateral load case,
stiffness of the tubular section with a thickness of 4 mm was and rear lateral load case, to compare the overall stiffness of
36% higher than that of the tubular section with a thickness the chassis frame. Figure 4 shows the top view of the existing
of 5 mm, and 32% higher than that of the hollow square sec- chassis frame. Figure 5 shows the loads and boundary condi-
tion. Hence, the tubular section with a thickness of 4 mm was tions used in the FEA. Table 5 shows the constraints for the
selected for frame-level optimization. various load cases.

Fig. 4 Top view of existing chassis frame

123
 S. H. Gawande et al.

Table 5 Constraints for load cases

Symbol Degrees of freedom

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Fig. 8 Front lateral load case

Fig. 6 Front torsion load case

Fig. 9 Rear lateral load case

Table 7 Stiffness for existing chassis frame

Sr. no. Parameter Stiffness
Fig. 7 Rear torsion load case
1 Front torsional 17.46 kN·m/rad
stiffness
Table 6 Stiffness analysis for existing chassis frame
2 Rear torsional 17.10 kN·m/rad
Sr. no. Parameter Deformation Weight (kg) stiffness
(mm) 3 Front lateral stiffness 0.076 kN/mm
4 Rear lateral stiffness 0.127 kN/mm
1 Front torsional 268 610
deformation
2 Rear torsional 208
deformation deformed by 268 mm in the front torsion load case. Similarly,
3 Front lateral 264 Fig. 7 shows the chassis deformed at the rear side by 208 mm
deformation
in the rear torsion load case. In the front and rear lateral load
4 Rear lateral 158
deformation
case, the chassis frame deformed in the y-direction and the
deformation was measured at the point where the load was
applied. Table 6 and Figs. 8 and 9 show the deformation of
Owing to the load applied at the front shear center in the the existing chassis frame by 158 mm and 264 mm in the
front torsion load case, the chassis frame deformed in the z- front and rear lateral load case, respectively. Table 7 shows
direction. One side of the frame was displaced in the positive the stiffness obtained for the existing chassis frame.
z-direction, while the other side was displaced in the negative
z-direction. The deformation value was measured at the point a
tan θ  (6)
where the load was applied. Figure 6 shows the chassis frame b/2

123
Optimization of Torsional Stiffness for Heavy Commercial Vehicle Chassis Frame

Existing Frame Optimized Frame

300
268 264
250 234

Deformation (mm)
208
200
158
135 141
150
105
100

50

0
Front Torsional Rear Torsional Front lateral Rear Lateral

Fig. 12 Deformation of optimized frame in various load cases

Existing Frame Optimised Frame

35.000 32.259 31.980
30.000
Fig. 10 CAD model of tubular cross member

Stiffness (kNm/rad)
25.000
20.000 17.455 17.097
15.000
10.000
5.000
0.000
Front Torsional Rear Torsional
Load case

Fig. 13 Comparison of torsional stiffness

4.5 FEA of Chassis Frame with Tubular Cross Member

According to the results obtained by the analytical method

Fig. 11 Meshed frame with tubular cross member
and FEA for the individual sections, the tubular section with
a thickness of 4 mm provided the highest torsional stiffness.
where a is the displacement in z-direction, b is the distance Hence, the same section with a casting bracket was used
between the two nodes where load is applied. for optimization. Because the front and rear torsional stiff-
ness of the chassis depends on the type of cross member
T provided at the front and rear side of the chassis frame, the
kT  (7)
θ third and seventh cross members were replaced by a tubular
F cross member with the dimension listed in Table 1. Figure 10
kL  (8)
c shows the computer-aided design (CAD) model of the tubu-
lar cross member with a casting bracket and an overall cross
where k T is the torsional stiffness, T is the torque, θ  is the member weight of 15 kg. Additionally, Fig. 11 shows the
angular deformation, k L is the lateral stiffness, F is force, and meshed frame with the third and seventh tubular cross mem-
c is the displacement in y-direction. The torsional stiffness bers. Similar analysis was performed by applying the loads
and lateral stiffness can be evaluate by above formulas, and and boundary conditions as shown in Fig. 5. Table 8 shows
the specific values are shown in Table 7. the deformation and stiffness of the optimized chassis frame.

Table 8 Deformation and

Sr. no. Load case Deformation (mm) Stiffness Weight (kg)
stiffness of optimized chassis
frame 1 Front torsion 135 32.259 kN·m/rad 610
2 Rear torsion 105 31.980 kN·m/rad
3 Front lateral 234 0.085 kN/mm
4 Rear lateral 141 0.142 kN/mm

123
 S. H. Gawande et al.

Existing Frame Optimised Frame

0.160
Figure 13 shows the improvement in torsional stiffness by
0.142
0.140 0.127
changing the existing C-section cross member with a tubular
cross member. The torsional stiffness improved because the
Stiffness (kN/mm)

0.120
0.100 0.085 section became stiffer in resisting torsional loads as the mate-
0.076
0.080 rial concentrated farther away from the section’s center of
0.060
gravity. The tubular cross member had more material concen-
0.040
trated away from the section’s center of gravity in comparison
0.020
0.000
with the existing C-section. Therefore, it achieved a better
Front lateral Rear Lateral result.
Load case
Figure 14 shows the improvement in lateral stiffness,
Fig. 14 Comparison of lateral stiffness respectively, when the existing C-section cross member is
replaced with a tubular cross member. The lateral stiffness
of the chassis depends on the spread of the gusset or bracket,
which connects the long member and cross members. In the
5 Results and Discussion existing chassis frame, the C-section cross member was con-
nected with the help of a gusset. The spread of the gusset
From Tables 6 and 8, it was found that, in the optimized over the cross-member web portion was less than the casting
truck chassis frame, the front torsional deformation and rear bracket of the tubular cross member in the optimized chassis
torsion deformation of the chassis frame were reduced by frame. Therefore, the lateral stiffness in the optimized frame
approximately 49%. The lateral deformation of the chassis was improved.
frame in the front and rear lateral load case was reduced by Figure 15 shows the frame’s improvement in terms of natu-
11% and 10%, respectively. Figure 12 shows the reduction ral frequency, when the C-section cross member was replaced
in the deformation of the chassis. with a tubular cross member. To avoid resonance and exces-

Fig. 15 Natural frequency at Existing Frame Optimised Frame

first five modes 30
27.4
Natural Frequency (Hz)

25 25.7
19.43
20 18.51
19.41
15 18.00

10 9.26
6.09 8.67
5
4.28
0
Mode 1 Torsion Mode 2 Lateral Mode 3 Lateral Mode 4 Bending Mode 5 Torsion
bending bending

Fig. 16 a, b Strain energy contribution of existing third cross member and tubular cross member in front torsion load case

123
Optimization of Torsional Stiffness for Heavy Commercial Vehicle Chassis Frame
Fig. 17 a, b Strain energy contribution of existing seventh cross member and tubular cross member in rear torsion load case
sive vibrations, the first five modes are very important. In the
existing chassis frame, the weakest mode is torsion with a
natural frequency of 4.28 Hz, which improved by 1.81 Hz in
the optimized frame. Figures 16 and 17 show the strain energy
contribution of the existing C-section cross member and the
tubular cross member, respectively, in the front and rear tor-
sion load cases. The strain energy contribution of the cross
member demonstrates its ability to absorb strain energy. In
the existing C-section, the cross member does not absorb the
strain energy, while a portion of the strain energy is absorbed
by the long member section. In the optimized chassis frame,
the strain energy is absorbed by the cross member. The sec-
tion highlighted in blue and orange color on the cross member
shown in Figs. 16 and 17 shows the higher strain energy
absorption capacity for the front and rear torsion load cases,
respectively. Hence, the tubular sections contribute more in
the torsional load case, in comparison with the existing C-
section.
6 Conclusion
The primary objective of this study was to develop an opti-
mum design model for torsional stiffness. Johnson’s method
of optimum design was modified such that it provided the
optimum value of torsional stiffness for a mass constraint
to select the best section among the number of available
sections. However, the torsional stiffness model is limited
to closed sections only because the torsion of an open sec-
tion causes warping and has difficulty in cogitating the effect
of warping. The tubular section with a thickness of 4 mm
was found to be better than the hollow square section with
a thickness of 4 mm and the tubular section with a thick-
ness of 5 mm. The front and rear torsional stiffness of the
chassis frame is influenced by the type of cross member used
at the front and rear side of the chassis. Hence, to optimize
the torsional stiffness of the chassis frame, the third and sev-
enth cross members were replaced with a tubular section,
whose dimensions were obtained by the modified Johnson’s
method.
The FEA results revealed that for same chassis weight, the
front and rear torsional stiffness was improved by 44%, while
the front and rear lateral stiffness was improved by 10%. The
modal analysis results for the existing and optimized chassis
frame indicate an improvement in terms of natural frequency
for the first five modes. In the existing frame, the weakest
mode is torsion and is improved by using the proposed tubu-
lar cross member with a thickness of 4 mm. The strain energy
contribution indicates that the tubular section absorbs more
strain energy than the existing C-section cross member in the
front and rear torsion load cases. The results of this study can
be used to modify the well-established Johnson optimization
method to select the optimum dimensions for the required
weight constraints based on the determined torsional stiff-
ness, when the numbers of the diverse sections with variable
thickness are available.
References
1. Kilimnik, L.S., Korbin, M.M.: Torsional stiffness of tractor trailer
chassis. Sov. Appl. Mech. 2(5), 82–85 (1966)
2. Seyfried, P., Taiss, E.J.M., Calijorne, A.C., et al.: Light weighting
opportunities and material choice for commercial vehicle frame
structures from a design point of view. Adv. Manuf. 3(1), 19–26
(2015)
3. Oskar, D., Alejandro, G.: Influence of body stiffness on vehi-
cle dynamics characteristics in passenger cars. Master’s Thesis
in Automotive Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology
Goteborg, Sweden (2015)
4. Weerawut, C., Supasit, R.: Design of the space frame racing car
front clip and rear clip for torsional rigidity. In: The 18th Confer-
ence on Mechanical Engineering Network October 18–20, 2004.
Province-Khon Kaen (2004)
5. Lonny, T., Jon, L., Harry, L.: Design of a twist fixture to measure
the torsional stiffness of a Winston cup chassis. In: Motorsports
Engineering Conference and Exposition, Dearborn, Michigan
November 16–19 (1998)
6. Ojo, K., Roslan, A.R., Pakharuddin, M.S.: Optimization of heavy
duty truck chassis design by considering torsional stiffness and
123

mass of the structure. Appl. Mech. Mater. 554(2014), 459–463
(2014)
7. Kurisetty, P., Sukumar, N., Gupta, U.: Parametric study of ladder
frame chassis stiffness. SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-1328
8. Rahul, V., Nirmal, R., Aniket, N.: Structural analysis of pick-up
truck chassis using FEM. Int. J. Chemtech Res. 9(6), 384–391
(2016)
9. Goel, G., Garg, R., Ranjan, T., et al.: Structural and modal anal-
ysis of a ladder frame chassis. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 11(23),
13599–13603 (2016)
10. Devaraj, S., Raghu, V.: Parametric analysis of factors influencing
stiffness and crashworthiness of a ladder frame. In: Proceedings of
the ASME 2016 International Mechanical Engineering Congress
and Exposition. November 11–17 (2016)
11. Patel, A.S., Chitransh, J.: Design and analysis of TATA 2518TC
truck chassis frame with various cross sections using CAE tools.
Int. J. Eng. Sci. Res. Technol. 5(9), 692–714 (2016)
12. Prabakaran, S., Gunasekar, K.: Structural analysis of chassis frame
and modification for weight reduction. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Res. Tech-
nol. 3(5), 595–600 (2014)
13. Divyesh, N., Vinod, M., Dharmeet, P.: Strength and rigidity anal-
ysis of heavy vehicle chassis for different frame cross section by
analytically and FEA under various loading condition. Int. J. Adv.
Res. Eng. Sci. Technol. 3(5), 411–420 (2016)
14. Gawande, S.H.: A combined numerical and experimental study on
metal expansion bellows for STHE. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng.
40(9), 465 (2018)
123
View publication stats
S. H. Gawande et al.
15. Sahu, R.K., Sahu, S.K., Behera, S., et al.: Static load analysis of a
ladder type chassis frame. Imp. J. Interdiscip. Res. 2(5), 1404–1409
(2016)
16. Prakash, V., Prabhu, M.: Design and analysis of heavy vehicle
frame. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Res. 1(1), 486–494 (2016)
17. Patil, K.Y., Deore, E.R: Stress analysis of ladder chassis with vari-
ous cross sections. IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng. (IOSR-JMCE) 12(4),
111–116 (2015)
18. Siva Nagaraju, N., Sathish Kumar, M.V.H., Koteswarao, U.: Mod-
eling and analysis of an innova car chassis frame by varying cross
section. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 2(12), 1868–1875 (2013)
19. Sharma, A., Kumar, P., Jabbar, A., et al.: Structural analysis of
heavy vehicle chassis made of different alloys by different cross
section. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 3(6), 1778–1785 (2014)
20. Patel, V.V., Patel, R.I.: Structural analysis of automotive chassis
frame and design modification for weight reduction. Int. J. Eng.
Res. Technol. 1(3), 1–6 (2012)
21. Singh, A., Soni, V., Singh, A.: Structural analysis of ladder chassis
for higher strength. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Adv. Eng. 4(2), 1–7
(2014)
22. Rakesh, N.L., Kumar, G.K., Hussain, J.H.: Design and analysis of
Ashok Leyland chassis frame under 25 ton loading condition. Int.
J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 3(11), 17546–17551 (2014)
23. Johnson, R.C.: Method of optimum design. J. Mech. Des. 101,
667–673 (1979)