Materials Today: Proceedings 60 (2022) 2132–2140

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Structural analysis and weight optimization of automotive chassis by

Latin hypercube sampling using metal matrix composites
A. Agarwal ⇑, L. Mthembu
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of South Africa, South Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Automotive chassis is used for supporting the functioning structure and balancing on the road. Being an
Available online 18 February 2022 initial requirement chassis vehicles like trucks, trailers, and semi-trailers have stepping skeleton (ladder
chassis). Automotive chassis comprise of two bars organized corresponding to the longitudinal hub of the
Keywords: casing and a transverse beam arrangement laterally. Such chassis, the side elements of the lead frames
Chassis generally consist of open channels or other sections. The work involves a ladder type frame of a
MMC heavy-duty truck considering the MMCs Al GA 7-230 and Al6092/SiC/17.5p MMC materials respectively
Steel
using in comparison with ST52E steel. Latin hyper cube scheme of response surface method is used for
Response surface
Equivalent Stress (ES)
the optimization purpose on ANSYS 18.1. Results shows that, the mass of chassis is 62.564Kg and
71.502 Kg using Graphite Al GA 7-230 and Al6092/SiC/17.5p MMC respectively whereas the actual mass
is 214 Kg in case of conventionally used Structural steel alloy. Therefore, a significant amount of mass is
reduced considering a number of other performance factors.
Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Latest Developments in Materials & Manufacturing.

1. Introduction
The word ‘Chassis’ is derived from French terminology and refer
to the frame parts of the motor vehicle [1]. Automotive chassis is
one of the most valuable component which works as initial frame-
work for carrying the upper body portion and all other parts
required in the functioning of it [2]. The chassis in the absence of
the wheels and additional parts (engine, suspension etc.) is some-
times called automotive frame which provides strength and adapt-
ability. It acts as the backbone or base of any vehicle supporting the
functioning structure and balancing on the road [3]. The legitimate
plan and improvement of vehicle body is critical piece of produce
area as its weight and whole outer burden including traveler
weight are based on it [4]. The current designing requests of cre-
ators to foster an assortment of abilities in arranging, exchange,
solace, assurance and configuration demonstrating [5–8]. Manu-
facturing research has to find solutions to boost worth of products,
flexibility, and supply chain to manage intricacy in technologies
among competitive markets [9]. An Automotive chassis consists
of side members and cross members. A few explorations have
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lmlab.unisa@gmail.com (A. Agarwal).
shown that the stress & mass investigations utilizing finite element
techniques can be utilized to find the critical variables. It has like-
wise been shown that, various optimization technique(s) are reas-
suring approaches for organized strategy expansion in the
engineering specially automotive segment [10,11]. In this series
Chiandussi [12], Pedersen [13], Duddeck [14] have broadly tended
to the enhancement of suspensions, design profiles, and body parts
[11,15]. In material aspect, the material choice for body relies on
different elements like daintiness, economy, security, recyclability,
and flow of life [15]. These norms are based on various factors
including government laws, standards, and customer requirements
however contradictions between these criteria may take place. The
optimization of chassis structures would depend upon the follow-
ing considerations [16,17]; Operating or service environment, see
temperature, humidity, presence of chemical products etc. Largely,
Structural steel alloy is utilized broadly in the auto business due to
cost, availability and excellent mechanical properties including
formability and planar isotropy [18,19].
Various new materials have also been made, investigated and
tried which have same weight passing on limit in much the same
way as those of existing materials yet gauge out and out lesser than
used ones [20]. Shiva Krishna et al. [21] have conducted FEA sim-
ulation on roll cage chassis made of different materials i.e. AISI

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.02.059
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Latest Developments in Materials & Manufacturing.
A. Agarwal and L. Mthembu
10l8, AISI 1020, AISI 4130. The modeling of roll cage was conducted
using solid-works 3D and structural analysis was conducted using
ANSYS [21]. Ketha Jaya Sandeep [22] have conducted FEA simula-
tion on AISIS 4130 and AISI 1018 material with varying cross sec-
tions. The chassis design was based on ergonomic consideration.
The strength of AISI 4130 material has shown better results as
compared to AISI 1018 [22]. Chaithanya Raam [23] have conducted
research on design of chassis frame using solidworks/creo design
software. The design of chassis is based on FOS, available manufac-
turing techniques and toughness. The design philosophy of chassis
is oriented to achieve ergonomic and lightweight design. DFMEA
was also conducted for chassis. Shripad Mane [24] have conducted
FEA analysis on BAJA ATV chassis frame. The chassis was modeled
using AISI 4130 material. The outer diameter of chassis is 29.2 mm
with 21 mm thickness. The design parameters of chassis are ade-
quate ground clearance and light weight structure. The design of
chassis should not compromise on strength and ergonomics. The
designs are based on FEA simulation of frontal crash impact [24].
Tidke [25] showed FEA on Eicher E2 chassis using ANSYS and ASTM
A710, 302 steel, 6063-T6 materials. The cross sections used for
analysis are C type and rectangular box. The structural analysis
has shown that ‘‘Rectangular box section have additional strength
than C cross section and the Rectangular box sections have low
deflection, lowest stress, and deformation” [29].
Molwane et al. [26] researched the use of Al MMC material for
ATV plate brakes in auto utilizing trial and mathematical proce-
dures. The conclusions revealed that circle brake produced using
Al MMC have better HT qualities when contrasted with ordinary
one [26]. The material choice incorporate the essential of high
strength and great erosion opposition aluminum compounds for
the composite materials [27]. The examination includes an under-
lying investigation that connects to the enhancement of a truck
chassis utilizing MMC (s) which are light weight DRA MMC-
Graphite Al GA 7-230 [15] and Al6092/SiC/17.5p [28,29].
Fig. 1. Modelled chassis.
Fig. 2. Variable assignment.
2133
Materials Today: Proceedings 60 (2022) 2132–2140
The current work emphases on the structural investigation, sen-
sitivity examination of TATA-1612 truck chassis utilizing ANSYS
programming. The goal of current study is to decrease weight uti-
lizing light weight Graphite Al GA 7-230 and Al6092/SiC/17.5p
MMC materials by Latin Hyper Cube (LHC) sampling RSM tech-
nique [30,31]. The Latin hypercube sampling conducted very less
iterations and is based on response probability stratification [32].
‘‘Stratification divides the cumulative curve into equal intervals
on the cumulative probability scale (0 to 1.0).
Latin Hypercube also aids the analysis of situations where low
probability outcomes are represented in input probability distribu-
tions. By forcing the sampling of the simulation to include the out-
lying events, Latin Hypercube sampling assures they are accurately
represented in simulation outputs” [32].
2. Methodology
The FEA (Finite Element Analysis) of heavyweight motor vehicle
(HMV) truck chassis is initiated followed by design optimization
using Latin Hyperbolic Sampling (LHS) scheme of (RSM) response
surface method. The CAD model of frame is created in ANSYS plan
modeler utilizing expel and sketch instrument [33]. The created
CAD model is displayed in Fig. 1.
Resulting process includes defining variables i.e., cross member
1 (CM1), cross member 2 (CM2), and cross member 3 (CM3), each
having length of 65 mm as appeared in Fig. 2 [34].
The chassis design is discretized using tetrahedral elements
with growth rate set to 1.2, The number of elements generated is
20,080 and number of nodes generated is 42,840 [15]. The meshing
is displayed in Fig. 3.
The side bar is made from ‘‘C” Channels with116mm x25mm x5
mm made of St52E = 2.10  105 N/mm2 [11]with a total load of
257022 N. loading and B.C. (boundary conditions) are presented
in Fig. 4.
A. Agarwal and L. Mthembu Materials Today: Proceedings 60 (2022) 2132–2140

Fig. 3. Ansys Meshed model of chassis.

Fig. 4. loading and B.C. (boundary conditions).

3. Result and discussion
The ES (equivalent stress) plot in of the chassis in Fig. 5 shows
that the equivalent stress observed 3277.6 MPa.
The maximum deformation plots are also obtained for both
materials as shown in Fig. 6. In case of Al GA 7-230 MMC
(Fig. 6a) the chassis has lower deformation of 78.334 mm due to
high stiffness which increases resistance of lateral load while in
case of Al 6092/SiC MMC the chassis has deformation of
694.83 mm as shown in Fig. 6b.
The DPs (design points) are generated using Latin Hypercube
sampling using both MMCs Al GA 7-230 MMC and Al 6092/SiC
MMC respectively along with different combinations of cross
member 1 (CM 1), cross member 2 (CM 2) and cross member 3
(CM 3) dimensions. In case of Al GA 7-230 MMC each DP (design
point) are presented in Table 1 below.
The most extreme (max.) and least values of these O/P parame-
ters/boundaries in case of Al GA 7-230 MMC are presented in
Table 2.
The maximum ES (equivalent stress) 3522.2 MPa and minimum
ES (equivalent stress) 3217.4 MPa is acquired from optimization
while the (TD) deformation and SM appear less disparity. The
actual chassis mass with ST52 E is 214.64Kg however using Gra-
phite Al GA 7-230 MMC is 62.564Kg. In case of Al 6092/SiC MMC
the design of experiment values are displayed in Table 3.
For Al 6092/SiC MMC, most extreme and least values of O/P con-
straints are displayed in Table 4. The maximum ES attained from
analysis is 3522.2 MPa and lowest is 3217.4 MPa.

Fig. 5. Eq. stress using square section.

2134
A. Agarwal and L. Mthembu Materials Today: Proceedings 60 (2022) 2132–2140

Fig. 6. The maximum deformation plots for both MMCs.

Table 1
Design of Experiment values using Al GA 7-230 MMC.

# P5 - cross_member1 P6 - cross_member2 P7 - cross_member3 P3 - Equivalent Stress P4 -TD (Deformation) P8 - Solid Mass

DOE (mm) (mm) (mm) Maximum (MPa) Maximum (mm) (SM) (kg)
Name P5 P6 P7 P3 P4 P8
1 65.867 68.467 65.867 3459.616 78.075 68.170
2 68.467 65.000 66.733 3493.973 77.930 68.170
3 58.933 65.867 60.667 3512.160 79.549 64.826
4 67.600 58.933 70.200 3465.764 77.168 67.383
5 59.800 60.667 61.533 3391.495 79.310 64.039
6 71.067 59.800 59.800 3439.205 77.165 66.006
7 66.733 70.200 69.333 3441.637 77.305 69.547
8 70.200 67.600 68.467 3246.414 77.551 69.547
9 62.400 61.533 65.000 3267.069 78.412 65.613
10 61.533 66.733 71.067 3340.139 76.951 67.974
11 64.133 63.267 63.267 3277.091 78.754 66.006
12 60.667 69.333 62.400 3483.710 78.898 66.400
13 65.000 64.133 64.133 3486.335 78.530 66.597
14 69.333 71.067 58.933 3453.634 77.536 67.974
15 63.267 62.400 67.600 3331.449 77.907 66.597

should arise an occurrence of Al GA 7-230 MMC and Al 6092/SiC

MMC are displayed in Fig. 8a and b individually.
Table 2
For material, Al GA 7-230 MMC the plot shows max. ES in the
Maxima-minima values.
zone exemplified by red tone for which the CM 2-aspect fluctuates
1 A B C from 66 mm to 71 mm while CM 3 differs from 59 mm to 62 mm
Name Calculated Calculated
while for Al 6092/SiC MMC the plot demonstrates max. ES in the
Min Max
space described by red tone for which the CM 2-aspect goes from
2 P3 - Equivalent Stress Maximum 3217.4 3522.2
65 mm to 71 mm though CM 3 territories from 59 mm to
(MPa)
3 P4 - Total Deformation Maximum 76.222 78.432 61 mm. ES is least for area addressed in dim blue tone.ES versus
(mm) CM 1 in both cases are displayed in Fig. 9a and b separately
4 P8 - Solid Mass (kg) 62.564 71.416 The variation of ES vs CM in case of Al GA 7-230 MMC shows
that the ES initially rises up to CM 1 dimension of 65.5 mm and
then reduces linearly down and reaches to least amount at CM 1
of 71.5 mm. In case of Al 6092/SiC MMC ES originally rises and
Therefore, the chassis weight utilizing Al/SiC MMC is 71.502Kg reaches to highest value at CM 1 dimension of 65.5 mm. ES
while actual chassis mass with ST52 E is 214.64Kg as stated earlier. decreases thereafter and reaches to least value at CM 1 dimension
RS plot of ES vs CM 1 and CM 2 in case of Al GA 7-230 MMC and Al of 71.5 mm. ES vs CM 2 in case of Al GA 7-230 MMC and Al 6092/
6092/SiC MMC are shown in Fig. 7a and b individually. SiC MMC are indicated in Fig. 10a as well as Fig. 10b separately.
Fig. 7a shows 2 tops as addressed in red shaded zone. The ES In case of Al GA 7-230 MMC, graph shows that the ES originally
max. is obtained for CM 2 varying from 61 mm to 64 mm and declines up to 61.7 mm and then again rises linearly up to 64.5 mm
CM 1 extending from 62 mm to 66 mm. In case of Al 6092/SiC while in case of Al 6092/SiC MMC the ES originally declines up to
MMC, Fig. 7b shows 3 peaks and the maximum ES is obtained for 61.5 mm and then then rises steadily and extends to the highest
CM 2 ranging from 61 mm to 65 mm and CM 1 ranging from value at 64.5 mm. The variation of ES vs CM 3 in case of Al GA 7-
62 mm to 66 mm. ES is seen to be least for segments addressed 230 MMC and Al 6092/SiC MMC are indicated in Fig. 11a and b
in dim blue tone. RS plot of ES versus CM 2 and CM 3 if there respectively.

2135
A. Agarwal and L. Mthembu Materials Today: Proceedings 60 (2022) 2132–2140

Table 3
DOE table using Al 6092/SiC MMC.

# DP P5 – P6 – P7 – P3 – P4 – P8 –
cm1 Cm2 Cm3 ES Maximum TD Maximum (mm) SM
(mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (kg)
1 65.867 68.467 65.867 3459.616 692.528 77.909
2 68.467 65.000 66.733 3493.973 691.238 77.909
3 58.933 65.867 60.667 3512.160 705.603 74.087
4 67.600 58.933 70.200 3465.764 684.479 77.010
5 59.800 60.667 61.533 3391.495 703.481 73.188
6 71.067 59.800 59.800 3439.205 684.455 75.436
7 66.733 70.200 69.333 3441.637 685.698 79.483
8 70.200 67.600 68.467 3246.414 687.881 79.483
9 62.400 61.533 65.000 3267.069 695.512 74.986
10 61.533 66.733 71.067 3340.139 682.551 77.684
11 64.133 63.267 63.267 3277.091 698.545 75.436
12 60.667 69.333 62.400 3483.710 699.822 75.886
13 65.000 64.133 64.133 3486.335 696.560 76.110
14 69.333 71.067 58.933 3453.634 687.744 77.684
15 63.267 62.400 67.600 3331.449 691.032 76.110

from 59 mm to 64 mm. Fig. 12b shows outrageous deformity for

Table 4
CM 2 aspect fluctuating from 59 mm to 71 mm and CM 1 aspect
Maximum and minimum values using Al 6092/SiC MMC.
going from 59 mm to 63 mm. For different aspects the deformity
1 A B C shows least worth as addressed by blue shaded locale. RS plot of
Name Calculated Calculated
absolute deformity versus CM 2 and CM 3 in the event of Al GA
Min Max
7-230 MMC and Al 6092/SiC MMC are shown in Fig. 13a and b
2 P3 - Equivalent Stress Maximum 3217.4 3522.2
separately.
(MPa)
3 P4 - Total Deformation Maximum 676.09 695.69 Fig. 13a demonstrating the deformation is seen to be most
(mm) extreme for CM 3 aspect going from 59 mm to 64 mm and CM 2
4 P8 - Solid Mass (kg) 71.502 81.618 aspect going from 59 mm to 71 mm while Fig. 13b shows the
deformation is seen to be greatest for CM 3 aspect going from
59 mm to 63 mm and CM 2 aspect going from 59 mm to 71 mm.
Fig. 11a shows that the ES decreases linearly and reaches to RS plot of mass versus CM 1 and cross part 2 if there should arise
minimum value at 62 mm and then increases to reach maximum an occurrence of Al GA 7-230 MMC and Al 6092/SiC MMC are
value at 64.5 mm. The ES decreases parabolically thereafter. shown in Fig. 14.
Fig. 11b indicates that the ES is maximum initially at CM3 dimen- Fig. 14a shows greatest strong mass for CM 1 aspect shifting
sion of 58.5 mm and then decreases linearly and reaches to least from 67 mm to 71 mm and CM 2 aspect going from 66 mm and
value of 62 mm. RS plot of total deformation vs CM 1 and CM 2 71 mm. The mass is least for CM 1 and CM 2 aspect going from
in case of Al GA 7-230 MMC, Al 6092/SiC MMC are indicated in 59 mm to 64 mm. The plot 14 (b) shows greatest strong mass for
Fig. 12a as well as Fig. 12b respectively. CM 1 aspect shifting from 67 mm to 71 mm and CM 3 aspect going
The RS plot in Fig. 12a shows maximum cutoff distortion for CM from 67 mm and 71 mm. The mass is least for CM 1 and 2 aspects
2 aspect going from 59 mm to 71 mm and CM 1 aspect changing changing from 59 mm to 62 mm. The responsiveness (Sensitivity)

Fig. 7. RS plot of equivalent stress vs cross member 1 and cross member 2.

2136
A. Agarwal and L. Mthembu Materials Today: Proceedings 60 (2022) 2132–2140

Fig. 8. RS plot of equivalent stress vs cross member 2 and cross member 3.

Fig.9. ES vs CM 1 graph.

Fig. 10. ES vs CM 2 graph.

2137
A. Agarwal and L. Mthembu Materials Today: Proceedings 60 (2022) 2132–2140

Fig. 11. ES vs CM3 graph.

Fig. 12. RS plot of total deformation vs cross member 1 and cross member 2.

Fig. 13. RS plot of total deformation vs CM 2 and CM 3.

2138
A. Agarwal and L. Mthembu
Fig. 14. RS plot of mass vs CM 1 and CM 2.
deviation is produced all the three o/p boundaries i.e., ES, TD, and
SM. For ES; the CM 1 shows most extreme awareness rate which
connotes that CM 1 has greatest impact on ES and CM 2 has least
impact. For absolute deformity, the CM 3 shows most extreme
responsiveness rate which connotes that CM 3 has greatest impact
on complete disfigurement. For strong mass, every one of the fac-
tors have comparable effect.
4. Conclusion
The static structural analysis and optimization is conducted
using Latin hyper cube sampling scheme where the different
impact of every factor is concentrated on utilizing 2D linearized
diagrams and 3D RS plots. Results obtained from Latin hyper cube
sampling scheme have shown that the using Al GA 7-230 MMC the
maximum ES obtained is 3522.2 MPa and minimum ES obtained
from optimization is 3217.4 MPa while using Al 6092/SiC MMC
the maximum ES obtained from optimization is 3522.2 MPa and
minimum ES obtained from optimization is 3217.4 MPa. It is clear
that, the chassis mass reduction gained from Latin hyper cube sam-
pling scheme is nearly 70% and 66.68% respectively in both cases.
Therefore, Graphite Al GA 7-230 MMC is preferred based on the
findings presented here. Further analysis can be expanded to con-
sider other materials, design constraints analytically as well as
using experimental testing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] N.R.H. Kumar, A Text Book on Automobile Chassis and Body Engineering,
PALAMANER, Government Junior College, 2010.
[2] P.V. Vijaykumar, R.I. Patel, Structural Analysis of Automotive Chassis Frame
and Design Modification for Weight Reduction, Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 1
(2012), www.ijert.org.
[3] V.V.K. Raju, B.D. Prasad, M. Balaramakrishna, Y. Srinivas, Modeling and
Structural Analysis of Ladder Type Heavy Vehicle, Int. J. Mod. Eng. Res. 4
(2014) 26–42. www.ijmer.com.
[4] K. Kumar Dubey, B. Pathak, B. Kumar Singh, P. Rathore, S. Raghav Singh Yadav,
Mechanical strength study of Off-Road vehicle chassis body materials, Mater.
Today Proc. 46 (2021) 6682–6687. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.matpr.2021.04.147.
2139
Materials Today: Proceedings 60 (2022) 2132–2140
[5] D.I. Kevorkovich, M.A. Vyacheslavovich, M.A. Vyacheslavovich, D.S. Igorevich,
A.I. Stanislavovna, Diagnosis of the Fuel Equipment of Diesel Engines with
Multicylinder High Pressure Fuel Injection Pump for the Movement of the
Injector Valve for the Diagnostic Device, in: Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Front. Educ.
Technol., Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2018: pp.
157–160. https://doi.org/10.1145/3233347.3233363.
[6] G. Ginzburg, S. Evtiukov, I. Brylev, S. Volkov, Reconstruction of Road Accidents
Based on Braking Parameters of Category L3 Vehicles, Transp. Res. Procedia. 20
(2017) 212–218, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.01.054.
[7] I. Brylev, S. Evtiukov, S. Evtiukov, Problems of calculating the speed of two-
wheeled motor vehicles in an accident, Transp. Res. Procedia. 36 (2018) 84–89,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.12.047.
[8] V. Saplinova, I. Novikov, S. Glagolev, Design and specifications of racing car
chassis as passive safety feature, Transp. Res. Procedia. 50 (2020) 591–607,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2020.10.071.
[9] S. Peters, G. Lanza, J. Ni, J. Xiaoning, Y. Pei-Yun, M. Colledani, Automotive
manufacturing technologies -An international Viewpoint, Manuf. Rev. 1 (2014)
1–12, https://doi.org/10.1051/mfreview/2014010.
[10] M. Cavazzuti, L. Splendi, Structural Optimization of Automotive Chassis:
Theory, Set Up, Design, Italy Univ. Degli Stud, Di Modena e Reggio Emila, 2011.
[11] A. Agarwal, L. Mthembu, Weight optimization of heavy-duty truck chassis by
optimal space fill design using light weight Graphite Al GA 7–230 MMC, Mater.
Today Proc. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.053.
[12] G. Chiandussi, I. Gaviglio, A. Ibba, Topology optimisation of an automotive
component without final volume constraint specification, Adv. Eng. Softw. 35
(10-11) (2004) 609–617, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2003.07.002.
[13] C.B.W. Pedersen, Crashworthiness design of transient frame structures using
topology optimization, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 193 (6-8) (2004)
653–678.
[14] F. Duddeck, Multidisciplinary optimization of car bodies, Struct. Multidiscip.
Optim. 35 (4) (2008) 375–389, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-007-0130-6.
[15] A. Agarwal, L. Mthembu, Modelling and FE Simulation of HVC Using Multi
Objective Response Surface Optimization Techniques, Rev. Des Compos. Des
Matériaux Avancés. 31 (6) (2021) 307–315.
[16] E. Ghassemieh, Materials in Automotive Application, State of the Art and
Prospects, New Trends Dev. Automot. Ind. (2011), https://doi.org/10.5772/
13286.
[17] H. Saidpour, Lightweight High Performance Materials for Car Body Structures,
in: NTI Technol. Conf. CEME, Ford Motor Company, 2004. http://roar.uel.ac.uk/
1332/1/NTI Presentation.pdf.
[18] R. Narayanasamy, C.S. Narayanan, Forming, fracture and wrinkling limit
diagram for if steel sheets of different thickness, Mater. Des. 29 (7) (2008)
1467–1475, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2006.09.017.
[19] O. Saray, G. Purcek, I. Karaman, T. Neindorf, H.J. Maier, Equal-channel angular
sheet extrusion of interstitial-free (IF) steel: Microstructural evolution and
mechanical properties, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 528 (2011) 6573–6583, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.msea.2011.05.014.
[20] N. Sinha, K. Kumar, Optimization of volumetric composition and cross-section
of carbon reinforced epoxy based polymeric composite tubes in spaceframe
chassis, Mater. Today Proc. 18 (2019) 3812–3820, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.matpr.2019.07.319.
[21] S. Krishna, A. Shetye, P. Mallapur, Design and Analysis of Chassis for SAE BAJA
Vehicle Design and Analysis of Chassis for SAE BAJA Vehicle, IOSR J. Eng. (2019)
51–57.
[22] K.J. Sandeep, Design and Simulation of Roll Cage of an All-Terrain Vehicle, Int.
Res. J. Eng. Technol. 07 (2020) 450–457.
A. Agarwal and L. Mthembu Materials Today: Proceedings 60 (2022) 2132–2140

[23] V.C. Raam, Procedural Layout of Designing a SAE Baja Roll Cage Abstract : Int, J.
Eng. Tech. 5 (2019) 164–173.
[24] S. Mane, A Brief Study of Chassis of a BAJA ATV and its Analysis, Int. J. Innov.
Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 7 (2018) 2924–2936. https://doi.org/10.15680/IJIRSET.
2018.0703153.
[25] N. Tidke, D.H. Burande, Analysis of HCV Chassis using FEA, Int. Eng. Res. J.
(2017) 1–5.
[26] A. A, M. O.b, L. M.t, EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION & ANALYSIS OF HEA
TRANSFER CHARACTERISTICS IN AUTOMOTIVE MMC DISC BRAKE UNDER
STEADY STATE AND DYNAMIC CONDITIONS, J. Eng. Res. (2021), https://doi.
org/10.36909/jer10.36909/jer.ICIPPSD10.36909/jer.ICIPPSD.15527.
[27] S. Nandhakumar, S. Seenivasan, A.M. Saalih, M. Saifudheen, Weight
optimization and structural analysis of an electric bus chassis frame, Mater.
Today Proc. 37 (2020) 1824–1827, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.matpr.2020.07.404.
[28] S.P. Rawal, Metal-matrix composites for space applications, JOM J. Miner. Met.
Mater. Soc.
. 53 (4) (2001) 14–17, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-001-0139-
z.
[29] Reddy Chennakesava A, Metal Matrix Composites - Their Properties and
Applications, Hyderabad, 2018. https://jntuhceh.ac.in/web/tutorials/faculty/
1674_composites.pdf.
[30] X. Wang, F. Tsung, W. Li, D. Xiang, C. Cheng, Optimal space-filling design for
symmetrical global sensitivity analysis of complex black-box models, Appl.
Math. Model. 100 (2021) 303–319, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2021.08.015.
[31] M.T. Letsatsi, A. Agarwal, Optical analysis of T-shaped stiffened plate under
compressive loading using central composite design scheme, IOP Conf. Ser.
Mater. Sci. Eng. 992 (1) (2020) 012001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/
992/1/012001.
[32] Optimization process in ANSYS Workbench software, (n.d.). https://www.mr-
cfd.com/services/design-of-experiments-doe/ (accessed February 20, 2020).
[33] A. Agarwal, L. Mthembu, Numerical Modelling and Multi Objective
Optimization Analysis of Heavy Vehicle Chassis, Processes. 9 (2021) 2028,
https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9112028.
[34] A. Agarwal, L. Mthembu, Structural Analysis and Optimization of Heavy
Vehicle Chassis Using Aluminium P100/6061 Al and Al GA 7–230 MMC,
Processes. 10 (2) (2022) 320, https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10020320.

2140