Roll Cage: Table 1: Material Specifications

ROLL CAGE
The design process involved the selection of material, a new design, finite element analysis followed by
repeated iterations in design and further analysis to obtain a final design.
1. Material Selection: The first step of the process was the selection of material, satisfying the norms
mentioned in the rulebook, which was done after thorough market research, along with contacting outside
suppliers for material, with the objective to find the right combination of cost, weight, accessibility,
availability, weld ability and fabrication time. For the different materials available, the challenge was to find
the correct dimensions so as to have an optimal weight and fulfil the required strength characteristics.
Different materials were bought and their chemical composition and mechanical properties were tested as
per ASTM-E1086 and ASTM A370 respectively. Shown below are some of the materials and dimensions that
would have given us promising results.
Material density(g/cc) Modulus of Elongation Yield strength Ultimate Tensile

Elasticity: (%) (MPa) Strength
E (Gpa) (Mpa)
AISI 1018 7.9 205 27 365 440
AISI 4130 7.85 210 21.5 460 560
SS 205 7.85 207 37 714 823
Table 1 : Material specifications
Cross
Thickness Sb= Sy*I/r sectional Weight/
MATERIAL (d) O.D r=OD/2 I E Kb= E*I Sy (Nm) area Density m (kg/m)
AISI 1018 1.6 32 16 17708.29 205 3630.200 365 403.97 152.869 7.9 1.207
AISI 4130 1.6 33 16.5 19510.56 210 4097.22 460 543.93 157.897 7.85 1.239
SS 205 1.6 32 16 17708.29 207 3665.62 714 790.23 152.869 7.85 1.200
Table 2 : Optimised Primary Tube dimensions corresponding to different materials.
The Material properties of AISI 4130 and SS 205 were much better than that of AISI 1018. Based on cost and
availability SS 205 was chosen as the material for our roll cage.
SS 205 Primary Secondary
Outer Diameter (in mm) 32 25.4
Thickness (in mm) 1.6 1
Table 3 : Selected tube dimension corresponding to SS 205.
2. Manufacturing: Manual bending of the tubes was done.Weld tests as per ASTM A370 were carried out in
a Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) approved laboratory to compare the strength of ‘T’ joint samples of
chosen primary member, welded using TIG (Tungsten Inert Gas) and Arc welding. Both the welding methods
delivered satisfactory results and in both cases the material failure occurs before weld failure. TIG welding,
although 0 0 0 0
operates at higher temperature (3200C-3400C) than Arc welding (2400C-2700C), produces a uniform heat
affected zone instead of concentrated and uneven heat zones as in the case of Arc welding. Also, TIG welding
does not create spatters, thus resulting in a smooth weld. Owing to the better weld quality obtained, TIG
welding was chosen.
3. Finite Element Analysis (FEA): FEA was inevitably necessary to support and validate our theories and
design. Different impact tests were simulated using ANSYS APDL 15.0 software and the results were used
for further design changes until satisfactory results were obtained. For correct analysis, the boundary values
required for solving the problem were to be given correctly. For understanding the boundary conditions,
reference from literatures [4] and [5] were taken and the analysis was done in the following way:
Beam method was used for the analysis against shell method as the major failure in the rollcage is due to
bending. Thus the beam method would give quite correct results much quicker. Mesh independence study
was carried out on various mesh sizes from 2mm to 25 mm, for front impact and rollover tests, to find the
best mesh with minimum computational time. As the mesh size was reduced to below 10mm, the results
showed minimal variation in output data (stresses and deflections). Thus 10mm was chosen as the size for
an optimal combination of time and accuracy.
Parameter Front Impact Side Impact Rear Impact Rollover
Initial Velocity 50 kmph 45 kmph 45 kmph 27.84 kmph
Final Velocity 0 kmph 0 kmph 0 kmph 0 kmph
Impact Time 0.13s 0.3s 0.3s 0.13s
Table 4 : Input parameters for calculations for numerical solution on software
Case Force (in N)

Front Impact 14750
Side Impact 5500
Rear Impact 8000
Rollover 5500
Table 5 : Calculated Forces in different cases of impact
FEA results:
Case Front Impact Side Impact Rollover Rear Impact
Max Stress (in Mpa) 188.6 484 269 356
Max Deflection (in mm) 0.943 2.014 1.294 1.668
Factor of Safety 3.49 1.77 2.47 1.87
(Constraints Front Y dof = 0 ALL dof = 0 ALL dof = 0 ALL dof = 0
Suspension Rear ALL dof = 0 ALL dof = 0 ALL dof = 0 Y dof = 0
points)
Table 6 : Results of analysis and boundary conditions used.
The minimum factor of safety obtained was 1.77 and max deformation is less than 5% of minimum clearance
between driver and roll cage. Thus, it was concluded that the roll cage design is safe for driver in case of
various possible accidents.
The impact time of 0.13s is used when the impact occurs with a rigid body and 0.3s with a deformable
body. In rollover, the speed of 27.84 kmph corresponds to vertical drop from a height of 10ft.
The forces were calculated using the work-energy theorem

Roll Cage: Table 1: Material Specifications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roll Cage: Table 1: Material Specifications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roll Cage: Table 1: Material Specifications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROLL CAGE

Material density(g/cc) Modulus of Elongation Yield strength Ultimate Tensile

Table 2 : Optimised Primary Tube dimensions corresponding to different materials.

Case Force (in N)

You might also like