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

net/publication/343433481

Comparative design and analysis of roll cage for automobiles

Article in Materials Today Proceedings · August 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.06.489

CITATIONS READS

9 672

5 authors, including:

S Dinesh M.R.Giri Dharan

Dhanalakshmi College of Engineering Saveetha University
10 PUBLICATIONS 47 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 9 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by M.R.Giri Dharan on 25 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

Comparative design and analysis of roll cage for automobiles

T. Safiuddeen ⇑, P. Balaji, S. Dinesh, B.Md. ShabeerHussain, M.R. Giridharan
Dhaanish Ahmed College of Engineering, Chennai 601301, India

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

Article history: This paper deals with the comparative analysis of the roll cage for the performance automobile. In a per-
Received 11 March 2020 formance automobile, the roll cage is one of the main components. It forms the structure which provides
Received in revised form 22 June 2020 additional protection and prevents the vehicle from crumbling. It must be of adequate strength to protect
Accepted 25 June 2020
the driver in the event of a rollover or impact. There are different organizations across the globe which
Available online 4 August 2020
provides car manufacturer a certificate of crash worthiness and structural strength of the cars during
the collision. Conducting the car crash test will take much time and cost so in order to solve these prob-
Keywords:
lems and Improvise the design of the Body in White part of the car (BIW) a finite element model of the car
Roll cage
Solid works
is developed and it is tested virtually over and over to ensure that the passengers are safe inside the car
Carbon fiber (ePA-CF) during an impact. The main thing about the simulation is the cost effectiveness and can be done in lesser
ASTM A36 amount of time than testing the actual model. Mainly there are three modes of crash testing which are
ANSYS performed in Insurance institute of Highway Safety such are Frontal Impact test, Side way Impact test
LS DYNA and Roll over test. Here a BIW part of the car is taken along with the roll cage designed by us with carbon
BIW (Body in white) fiber (ePA-CF) material properties and ASTM A36 steel properties (comparison) for the dynamic analysis
using ANSYS workbench and LS DYNA.
Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0) Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of ICAMMM 2020.

1. Introduction
Roll cage is a specially engineered and constructed frame built
in (sometimes around, in which case it is known as an Exo cage)
the passenger compartment of a vehicle to protect occupants from
being injured or killed in an accident, particularly in the event of
a roll over. Roll bars are also used historically on row crop tractors,
and roll cages are common as part of the cab on modern tractors.
Original crash test analysis involves crashing a real car with human
dummies in order to determine the physical damage; the crash test
is video graphed and the videos are analyzed for abnormalities,
impact time and force. This method is laborious, expensive and
time consuming which is less preferable when compared to finite
element analysis. Since the FEM analysis helps to design the vehi-
cle properly in the initial stage itself [2]. The process of using prac-
tical force to perform a crash test can be expensive and unsafe so it
can be dealt using dynamic analysis of multi body system [1].
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Safiuddeen.taj@gmail.com (T. Safiuddeen).
Finite element analysis unlike practical crash test provide valuable
data such as magnitude of impact forces amount of energy transfer
in the vehicle body causing the deformation [5]. In order to predict
the behavior of beam element in body in white recurrent artificial
neural network is used extract the input, output relation between
the crash dynamic characteristics [6,7]. During buckling, principle
component analysis is used which treats data bases globally by
considering physical effects at different parts of a model into one
combined mode this can be solved by different principle compo-
nent analysis which can identify physical effects at different loca-
tion [3].
Roll cages have changed a lot from what they were in beginning
due to the growing needs of the automotive industries hence
choosing a right material has become a great problem, it can be
rectified exploring the new manufacturing methods and material
properties for new materials [4]. For a clear picture about what
has happened during the crash analysis the parameters have been
used in the vehicle has to be reviewed so that the effects of such
crash parameters and the dynamic response of the automobile
component can be derived [8]. A car being crash worthy is not

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.06.489
2214-7853/Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0) Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the
scientific committee of ICAMMM 2020.
184 T. Safiuddeen et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200

Table 3.1 The main aim of this research is to explore the behavior and
Materials properties of ePA-CFRPA composite. characteristics of the material ePA – CFRPA (ePA-carbon fiber rein-
Property Values forced polyamide) when it is used in a roll cage during roll over,
Density (Kg/m )3
1810 side impact and front impact crash test analysis. The valuable
Heat deflections oC 160 information gathered from the study will enable us to use this
Tensile yield strength (MPa) 4319 material for fabricating roll cage in the future.
Impact strength (MPa) 11.5
Flam-retardant level V2
Flexural modulus (GPa) 8.5 2. Design and analysis tools
Elongation at break (%) 5
Flexural strength (MPa) 164
2.1. Solid works

The 3D models in solid works are all started by creating a base

2D sketch. This 2D sketch is created using the various tools found
Table 3.2 in the software which are capable of creating geometries such as
Materials properties of ASTM A36 structural steel. points, lines, arcs, conics and splines. The precise dimensions can
be incorporated and altered as desired based on the size and loca-
Properties Values
tion on the geometry. It also allows us to create parts separately
Tensile yield strength (MPa) 250
and then assemble than to make an object. Solid works has the
Young’s modulus (MPa) 2 x105
Poisson’s ratio 0.3
ability to co-relate dimensions and location to provide control
Density (Kg/m3) 7580 over parallelism, tangency, perpendicular and concentricity which
provides us a better dimensional preview before designing an
object.

the only criteria for safe automobile, if the vehicle structure is
more rigid it may pose threat to the pedestrians and this can only
be sort out by reinforcing the vehicle’s structurally weak region
according to NCAP regulations [9]. Body in white has to be crash
worthy when it comes to passenger cars, these cars tends to have
aluminum body hence their structural integrity has to be tested for
collision against a lightweight object [10]. The previously carried
out researches have stated the problem of stronger materials being
heavier and lighter materials being expensive.
2.2. ANSYS
Structural analysis has been an unimaginable feat before the
ANSYS software. This software enables us to define a 3D structure
in a platform where various data’s such as loads applied, degrees of
freedom, constrains. It allows us to choose the desired material
from the material library or feed the required material properties
of a customized material. This software helps us to study the
mechanics of a material such as strength, elasticity and deforma-
tion. LS DYNA is another application of ANSYS work bench which

Fig.3.3.a. Sketch of Roll cage geometry using Solid works.

T. Safiuddeen et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200 185

Fig. 3.3.b. Three Dimensional model of the Roll cage.

Fig. 3.4. Process flow diagram.

186 T. Safiuddeen et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200

Fig. 4.a. Finite element analysis of Meshed roll cage and monocoque.

Fig. 4.1.b. Meshed model monocoque.

Fig. 4.b. Mesh elements.

enables us to conduct dynamic analysis; in addition, this tool helps

us to carry out tests to define the behaviour of the body in white
structure of an automobile.

3. Material selection

3.1. Carbon fibre reinforced polyamide (Nylon) ePA-CFRPA composite

Fig. 4.1.c. Meshed roll cage.
filament

Carbon fibre is always known for being light and versatile. It has Table 4.2
many forms such as woven sheets and filament that can be 3D Vehicle weight.

Weight particulars Car with steel roll cage Car with carbon
fiber roll cage
Kerb weight (Kg) 1560 1560
Driver weight (Kg) 60 60
Roll cage weight (Kg) 130.07 29.99
Total weight (Kg) 1750.07 1649.99

Fig. 4.1.a. Mesh details for combined roll cage and monocoque model.
printed; but they are also known for being notoriously expensive
but their composite can pave a way for combining the strength
of carbon fibre with other polymers in order to create an economic
and an equally strong material (Table 3.1).
ePA-CF has a diameter of 1.75 mm which enables it to be com-
patible with most of the extruders in 3D printers it provides metal
finish and great flame resistance. The shrink rate of ePA-CF is lower
compared to nylon. It provides high strength and rigidity along
with ability to easily mould into the desired component or in our
case it is printed.
 T. Safiuddeen et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200 187

Fig. 4.2.a. Graphic properties of carbon fiber roll cage.

Fig. 4.2.b. Graphic properties of Steel roll cage.

Table 5
Impact time.

Analysis Time (t in seconds)

Front crash Analysis 0.231
Side crash Analysis 0.533
Roll over crash Analysis 0.231

3.2. ASTM A36 structural steel

Since the late 18000 s structural steel has been an integral part in
automobile, construction, marine, and weapon industry. Manufac-
turing pipes from structural steel involves melting the material
and creating a plastic mixture which then can be extruded to form
hollow cylindrical pipes (Table 3.2).
Fig. 5.1.1.a. Total Deformation (mm).
The traces of other element like Manganese, silicon, phospho-
rous and carbon provides the signature corrosion resistance and
the strength of structural steel. The rigidity, strength and versatil-
188 T. Safiuddeen et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200
Fig. 5.1.1.b. Equivalent stress test (MPa).
Fig. 5.1.1.c. Equivalent stress test in roll cage (MPa).
Fig. 5.1.1.d. Internal Energy in Steel roll cage (MJ).
ity of this material have enabled engineers to pioneer the automo-
bile industry.
3.3. Design geometry and structure
The design of a roll cage requires a base monocoque hence we
have chosen the monocoque of AUDI R8 car and used its interior
dimensions to develop a roll cage. The tubular elements of the roll
cage have the outer diameter of 60 mm and inner diameter of
50 mm; this choice of circular tubes instead of square tubes helps
us to improve rigidity and reduce the chance of buckling in the roll
cage. These tubes were designed by extruding two concentric cir-
cles or by using the sweep tool so that they have the angular cut
on the tubes. After drafting one side of the roll cage on the front
plane the opposite side is created using mirror feature. Then the
supports between the two sides are drafted using sweep tool.
The width of the roll cage from top, rear and front are
1140.74 mm, 1195.74 mm, 1140.74 mm respectively and has a
total high of 875.92 mm (Figs. 3.3.a and 3.3.b).
3.4. Design hypothesis
Designing a roll cage without a car would be difficult. So Audi
R8 was chosen as it is a widely known street legal sports car. The
car’s monocoque 3D model was already available as it is a well-
known one. Then sketch tool was used to construct the structural
members of the roll cage inside the monocoque. The roll cage
was constructed on the right side of the monocoque initially and
then mirror tool was used to cover the left side of the monocoque.
Finally, weldment option was used to transform the line structure
to a tubular structure of outer diameter 60 mm and inner diameter
5 mm. Then the gaps in the joints of the tubular structure was filled
using sweep tool creating patches that sealed the joints (Fig. 3.4).
 T. Safiuddeen et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200 189

Fig. 5.1.1.e. Kinetic Energy in Steel roll cage (MJ).

Fig. 5.1.1.f. Momentum Transfer in Steel roll cage (N-s).

Fig. 5.1.2.a. Total Deformation (mm). Fig. 5.1.2.b. Equivalent stress test (MPa).
190 T. Safiuddeen et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200

4. Finite element analysis

Finite element analysis is a theoretical way of analysis the ana-

lysing the behaviour and characteristics of a material or geometry.
Her life size models of an object are considered and then divided
into small elements based on the requirements. These elements
have similar geometrical features this is done so that even the min-
ute changes that occur on the material can be identified.
These elements have certain points which are located on the
boundaries of an element forms a polygon known as nodal equa-
tion which provides the basic information such as degrees of free-
dom, force applied and deformation. The results of these elements
are interpolated and combined together to find the effect of
applied force on the entire object; this process is known as
meshing.
Fig. 5.1.2.c. Equivalent stress test in roll cage (MPa). The meshed model is analysed by conducting structural and
dynamic analysis; all the previously mentioned process can be car-

Fig. 5.1.2.d. Internal Energy in carbon fibre roll cage (MJ).

Fig. 5.1.2.e. Kinetic Energy in carbon fibre roll cage (MJ).

 T. Safiuddeen et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200 191

Fig. 5.1.2.f. Momentum Transfer in carbon fibre roll cage (N-s).

Table 5.1.1
Front crash analysis - Steel and Carbon fiber results.

Results Steel Carbon fibre reinforced polymer

Min Max Min Max
Total Deformation (mm) 0.65944 21.816 0.65944 21.816
Equivalent stress in full body (MPa) 0.00033 4239.6 1.4182 x105 3522.8
Equivalent stress in roll cage (MPa) 0.06392 8.7941 0.045753 6.8857
Internal energy (MJ) 0 7.227X107 0 9.169X 107
Kinetic energy (MJ) 0 2.583X109 0 2.583X109
Momentum transfer (N- s) 0 50091 0 49644

Fig. 5.2.1.b. Equivalent stress test (MPa).

Fig. 5.2.1.a. Total Deformation (mm).

4.1. Mesh details

ried out in ANSYS 19.2 which runs simulation to provide us real time
data of the deformations and rate of convergence for the tested
structure and material. Non-linear dynamic analysis is done with
the help of finite element model to simulate the contact and defor-
mation during impact for conducting non-linear dynamic analysis.
The roll cage is constrained to the points at which it is in contact to
the monocoque and then it is meshed for analysis (Figs. 4.a and 4.b).
The combined meshed model of the roll cage and the monoco-
que has 94701elements with 68590 nodes (Fig. 4.1a).
The meshed model of the monocoque alone has 36615 elements
with 39358 nodes (Fig. 4.1b).
The meshed model of the roll cage alone has 43461elements
with14336nodes (Fig. 4.1c, Table 4.2).
192 T. Safiuddeen et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200

4.2 Graphic Properties of Meshed Roll Cage

The following figures illustrates the volumes, masses, centroids

from each plane and the moment of inertia for the carbon fibre and
steel roll cage separately (Figs. 4.2.a and 4.2.b).

5. Results and discussion

The main aim of the work is to determine the feasibility and

effects of using ePA-CF (carbon fibre reinforced polyamide) to
construct a roll cage; the roll cage made from ePA-CF is analysed
structurally using ANSYS 19.2 and then dynamic analysis is done
Fig. 5.2.1.c. Equivalent stress test in roll cage (MPa). with the help of LS DYNA. The results of these tests are compared

Fig. 5.2.1.d. Internal Energy in Steel roll cage (MJ).

Fig. 5.2.1.e. Kinetic Energy in Steel roll cage (MJ).

 T. Safiuddeen et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200 193

Fig. 5.2.1.f. Momentum Transfer in Steel roll cage (MJ).

Fig. 5.2.2.a. Total Deformation (mm).

Fig. 5.2.2.c. Equivalent stress test in roll cage (MPa).

to similar roll cage with steel material properties which is analysed

by feeding the same input loads and constrains (Table 5).

5.1. Front crash analysis

5.1.1. Front crash analysis of steel

Fig. 5.2.2.b. Equivalent stress test (MPa).
The above results in Figs. 5.1.1.a–5.1.1.c show us the total defor-
mation, equivalent stress for the roll cage with monocoque and
without the monocoque. These results help us to localize and iden-
tify the various intensities of stress at each region based on the col-
our that is present in the region with respect to the corresponding
values which are obtained from the front crash test of the steel roll
cage.
The graphs represented in Figs. 5.1.1.d–5.1.1.f depicts the vari-
ations observed in the internal energy, kinetic energy, momentum
transfer over time period in which the effect of the front crash test
persists in the steel roll cage.
194 T. Safiuddeen et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200

Fig. 5.2.2.d. Internal Energy in carbon fibre roll cage (MJ).

Fig. 5.2.2.e. Kinetic Energy in carbon fibre roll cage (MJ).

5.1.2. Front crash analysis of carbon fibre
The above results shown in Figs. 5.1.2.a–5.1.2.c represents the
total Deformation, Equivalent stress for the roll cage with monoco-
que and without the monocoque. These results help us to localize
and identify the various intensities of stress at each region based
on the colour that is present in the region with respect to the cor-
responding values which are obtained from the front crash, test of
the carbon fibre roll cage.
The graphs depicted in Figs. 5.1.2.d–5.1.2.f describes the varia-
tions observed in the internal energy, kinetic energy, momentum
transfer over time period in which the effect of the front crash test
persists in the carbon fibre roll cage (Table 5.1.1).
5.2. Side crash analysis
5.2.1. Side crash analysis of steel
The above results shown in Figs. 5.2.1.a–5.2.1.c depicts the total
deformation, equivalent stress for the roll cage with monocoque
and without the monocoque. These results help us to localize
and identify the various intensities of stress at each region based
on the colour that is present in the region with respect to the cor-
responding values which are obtained from the side crash, test of
the steel roll cage.
The graphs depicted in Figs. 5.2.1.d–5.2.1.f describes the varia-
tions observed in the internal energy, kinetic energy, momentum
 T. Safiuddeen et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200 195

Fig. 5.2.2.f. Momentum Transfer in carbon fibre roll cage (MJ).

Table 5.2.1
Side crash analysis - Steel and Carbon fiber results.

Results Steel Carbon fibre reinforced polymer

Min Max Min Max
Total Deformation (mm) 1.1807 3987.6 1.1807 3987.6
Equivalent stress in full body (MPa) 0 1.203 X 105 0 5856.4
Equivalent stress in roll cage (MPa) 0.13865 12,794 0.341 553.89
Internal energy (MJ) 0 1.097X107 0 4.026X109
Kinetic energy (MJ) 0 6.458X108 0 3.627X109
Momentum transfer (N-s) 0 +25836 0 +5193

Fig. 5.3.1.a. Total Deformation (mm). Fig. 5.3.1.c. Equivalent stress test in roll cage (MPa).

transfer over time period in which the effect of the side crash test
persists in the steel roll cage.

5.2.2. Side crash analysis of carbon fibre

Fig. 5.3.1.b. Equivalent stress test (MPa).
The above results in Figs. 5.2.2.a–5.2.2.c represents the total
deformation, equivalent stress for the roll cage with monocoque
and without the monocoque. These results help us to localize
and identify the various intensities of stress at each region based
on the colour that is present in the region with respect to the cor-
responding values which are obtained from the side crash test of
the carbon fibre roll cage.
196 T. Safiuddeen et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200

Fig. 5.3.1.d. Internal Energy (MJ).

Fig. 5.3.1.e. Kinetic Energy (MJ).

The graphs represented in Figs. 5.2.2.d.–5.2.2.f describe the vari-
ations observed in the internal energy, kinetic energy, momentum
transfer over time period in which the effect of the side crash test
persists in the carbon fibre roll cage (Table 5.2.1).
5.3. Roll over crash analysis
responding values which are obtained from the roll over analysis,
test of the steel roll cage.
The graphs presented in Figs. 5.3.1.d–5.3.1.f describes the vari-
ations observed in the internal energy, kinetic energy, momentum
transfer over time period in which the effect of the roll over anal-
ysis persists in the steel roll cage.

5.3.1. Roll over crash analysis of steel
The results represented in Fig. 5.3.1.a–5.3.1.c depicts the total
deformation, equivalent stress for the roll cage with monocoque
and without the monocoque. These results help us to localize
and identify the various intensities of stress at each region based
on the colour that is present in the region with respect to the cor-
5.3.2. Roll over analysis of carbon fibre
The above results shown in Figs. 5.3.2.a–5.3.2.c represents the
Total Deformation, equivalent stress for the roll cage with monoco-
que and without the monocoque. These results help us to localize
and identify the various intensities of stress at each region based
on the colour that is present in the region with respect to the cor-
 T. Safiuddeen et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200
Fig. 5.3.1.f. Momentum Transfer (N-s).
Fig. 5.3.2.a. Total Deformation (mm).
Fig. 5.3.2.b. Equivalent stress test (MPa).
responding values which are obtained from the roll over analysis,
test of the carbon fibre roll cage.
The graphs depicted in Figs. 5.3.2.d–5.3.2.f describes the varia-
tions observed in the internal energy, kinetic energy, momentum
transfer over time period in which the effect of the roll over anal-
ysis persists in the carbon fibre roll cage (Table 5.3.1).
Table 5.4 represents the variation in values of Impact force, FOS
and Maximum stress for the steel and carbon fiber roll cage. Impact
force values obtained for car with carbon fiber roll cage is lower
197
Fig. 5.3.2.c. Equivalent stress test in roll cage (MPa).
than the values for car with steel roll cage in all the three crash test
analysis, considering both the cars travel at the same speed of
80Km/hr. The Difference in Impact force creates a considerable
variation in Maximum stress experienced by the steel and carbon
fiber roll cage. The Maximum stress values of steel roll cage is more
than the yield strength of steel leading to lower Factor of safety in
side and roll over crash test analysis. The value of FOS is less than 1
in side and roll over crash test analysis, which proves steel roll cage
fails structurally. The Maximum stress developed in the carbon
fiber roll cage in all the three crash analysis reveals that the Max-
imum stress is lower than the yield strength of the material; Due to
the aforementioned reason the FOS of the carbon fiber roll cage is
greater than 1 in all the three cases, which confirm that the carbon
fiber roll cage is capable of surviving the crash analysis. Testing and
improving the structured strength of the car using practical tests
are laborious and expensive [1–5]. Hence the drafted 3D model is
analyzed for similar impact forces and constraints, while designing
an automobile the body in white is designed with caution to make
it crash worthy and structurally sound at the same time, certain
regulations such as NCAP regulations state that the vehicles must
have to be safer in case of collision with pedestrians for this the
vehicle must crumble at certain location to prevent the pedestrian
from being injured [9,10]. This work proposes a light weight inte-
rior roll cage so that the vehicle can be sturdy to protect the pas-
sengers as well as have the required number of crumble zones to
absorb energy during impact and keep pedestrians safe. While
198 T. Safiuddeen et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200

Fig. 5.3.2.d. Internal Energy (MJ).

Fig. 5.3.2.e. Kinetic Energy (MJ).

comparing to traditional materials such as steel and aluminum our
roll cage made of ePA-CF (Carbon fiber reinforced polyamide) is
more flexible and flame proof.
6. Conclusion
In an effort to explore the capabilities of a roll cage designed to
fit inside an automobile, the study was conducted on roll cages
made of two different materials ASTM, A36 Steel and epoxy poly-
amide carbon fiber (ePA-CF). Initial design of the roll cage was
developed using SOLID WORKS 2020 and then the analysis part
was completed using ANSYS 19.2 with the respective parameters
of both the materials separately. The results of the analysis reveals
that the internal energy of the roll cage increases in the crash test
due to the effect of the impact force on the roll cage material at the
molecular level. Change in internal energy causes variation in the
Maximum stress experienced by the roll cage. The Maximum stress
developed plays a major role in determining the FOS of the roll
cage material. The structural integrity of the roll cage is deter-
mined using the FOS. The fall of momentum in the graph indicates
the loss of momentum from the vehicle to the object with which it
collides. The impact force and FOS derived from the analysis results
emphasizes that ePA-CF has better performance than ASTM, A36
Steel roll cage.
 T. Safiuddeen et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200 199

Fig. 5.3.2.f. Momentum Transfer (N-s).

Table 5.3.1
Roll over crash analysis - Steel and Carbon fiber results.

Results Steel Carbon fibre reinforced polymer

Min Max Min Max
Total Deformation (mm) 0 1373.7 0 947.21
Equivalent stress in full body (MPa) 0 19,227 0 13,665
Equivalent stress in roll cage (MPa) 0 1796 0.79566 1292.4
Internal energy (MJ) 0 4.135X109 0 4500.3
Kinetic energy (MJ) 0 4.312X109 0 312,598
Momentum transfer (N-s) 0 25,596 2.33X10-5 0

Table 5.4
Comparative analysis for steel and carbon fiber roll cage. References
Analysis Results Steel roll Carbon fiber roll [1] J.A.C. Ambrosio, P.E. Nikravesh, M.S. Pereira, Crashworthiness analysis of a
cage cage truck, Math1 Comput. Modelling. 14 (1990) 959–964.
Front crash Analysis Impact force (N) 84231.38 79881.57 [2] N.A. Rose, S.J. Fenton, G. Beauchamp, Analysis of Vehicle-to-ground impacts
during a rollover with an impulse-momentum impact model, SAE Int. J.
Maximum stress 8.7941 6.8857
Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. 1 (1) (2008) 105–123.
(Mpa)
[3] C.-A. Thole, L. Nikitina, I. Nikitin, T. Clees, Advanced mode analysis for crash
Factor of Safety 28.43 627.24
simulation results, Mater. Today:. Proc. 10 (2019) 193–200.
Side crash Analysis Impact force(N) 36,495 34,408 [4] A. Schiffl, I. Schiffl, M. Hartmann, S. Brotz, J. Osterreicher, W. Kuhlein, Analysis
Maximum stress 12,794 553.89 of impact factors on crash performance of high strength 6082 alloys consider
(Mpa) extrudability and small modifications of the profile geometry, Mater. Today:.
Factor of Safety 0.019 7.791 Proc. 10 (2019) 193–200.
Roll over crash Impact force(N) 55389.71 52222.18 [5] A. Yehia, Abdel-Nasser, Frontal crash simulation of vehicles against lighting
Analysis Maximum stress 1796 1292 columns using FEM, Alexandria Eng. J. 52 (2013) 295–299.
(Mpa) [6] Y.i. Dai, C. Duan, Beam element modelling of vehicle body-in-white applying
Factor of Safety 0.13 3.34 Artificial neural network, Appl. Math. Model. 33 (2009) 2808–2817.
[7] T. Omar, A. Eskandarian, N. Bedewi, Vehicle crash modelling using recurrent
neural networks, Maths. Comput. Modelling. 28 (9) (1998) 31–42.
[8] S. Yadava, S.K. Pradhan, Investigations into dynamic response of automobile
Credit authorship contribution statement components during crash simulation, Procedia Eng. 97 (2014) 1254–1264.
[9] G.R. Srinivas, A. Deb, R. Sanketh, N.K. Gupta, An Enhanced methodology for
light weighting a vehicle design considering front crashworthiness and
T. Safiuddeen: Methodology, Writing - original draft, Conceptu- pedestrian impact safety requirement, Procedia Eng. 173 (2017) 623–630.
alization, Visualization, Analysis. P. Balaji: Data curation, Visual- [10] L.i. Shengqin, F. Xinyuan, Study of structural optimization design on a certain
vehicle body-in-white based on static performance and modal analysis, Mech.
ization. S. Dinesh: Investigation, Supervision. B.Md. Syst. Sig. Process. 135 (2020) 1–10.
ShabeerHussain: Data curation, Writing - original draft. M.R.
Giridharan: Writing - original draft.
Further Reading

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.
[1] P. Gaspar, Istvan Szaszi, Jozsef Boker, The Design of a combined control
structure to prevent the rollover of heavy vehicles, Eur. J. Control. 10 (2004)
148–162.
[2] Van-Tan Vu, Oliver Sename, Luc Dugard and Peter Gaspar, H1 Active antiroll
bar control to prevent rollover of heavy vehicles :a robustness analysis. IFAC -
papers online 49-9(2016)099-104.
200 T. Safiuddeen et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 39 (2021) 183–200
[3] K.-T. Kang, H.-J. Chun, J.-C. Park, W.-J. Na, Hyoung-Taek Hong and In-Han
Hwang, Design of a composite roll bar for the improvement of bus rollover
crashworthiness, Compos. B 43 (2012) 1705–1713.
[4] M. Kurhe Nikhil, Dheeraj Hari Daspute, Dynamic Analysis of Anti Roll Bar,
Mater. Today:. Proc. 5 (2018) 12490–12498.
[5] Y. Mahajan, N. Pagare, R. Awate, N. Phalke and Prof. V. Shinde, Design and
Dynamic Analysis of Roll Cage for The Off-Road Vehicle,International Journal
for Science and Advance Research in Technology. 3(6) (2017) 25-29.
[6] Denish S. Mevawala, Mahesh P. Sharma, Devendra A. Patel, Darshan A. Kapadia,
Stress Analysis of Roll Cage for an All-terrain vehicle, IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng.
(2014) 49–53.
[7] H.M. Mahindra, B.S. Praveen Kumar, S. Puttaswamaiah, Design and crash
analysis of a roll cage for formula SAE race car, Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 3 (7)
(2014) 126–130.
[8] Bharat Kumar Sati, Prashi Upreti, Anirudh Tripathi, Shankar Batra, Static and
dynamic analysis of the roll cage for an all-terrain vehicle, imperial journal of
interdisciplinary, Research 2 (6) (2016) 43–51.
View publication stats
[9] Pruthviraj Vitthal Wable, Design and Analysis of FSAE Roll cage, Int. J.
Innovative Res. Sci., Eng. Technol. 6 (2) (2017) 2141–2151.
[10] Harshit Raj, Design and analysis of the roll cage of an ATV, Int. J. Eng. Res.
Technol. 6 (9) (2017) 1–5.
[11] Deepak Raina, Rahul Dev Gupta, Rakesh Kumar, Design and Development for
Roll Cage of All-Terrain Vehicle, Int. J. Technol. Res. Eng. 2 (6) (2016) 1092–
1099.
[12] Shivam Mishra, Static Analysis of the Roll Cage of an All-Terrain Vehicle (SAE
BAJA), Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 4 (9) (2017) 884–889.
[13] A.V.S Abhinav, Simulation of Roll cage of an All-Terrain Vehicle considering
inertia, using Transient Multi-body analysis, IOSRJMCE 11 (5) (2014) 23–26,
https://doi.org/10.9790/168410.9790/1684-115310.9790/1684-11532326.
[14] Saurabh Bhand, Sumesh Pillai, Vikas Shinde, Shubham Baviskar, G. L.
Allampallwar Martand Pandagale, Static Analysis of ATV Roll Cage,
International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology.Special Issue-6
(2016)258 -261.