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

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 Materials Today: Proceedings 60 (2022) 2132–2140

10l8, AISI 1020, AISI 4130. The modeling of roll cage was conducted The current work emphases on the structural investigation, sen-
using solid-works 3D and structural analysis was conducted using sitivity examination of TATA-1612 truck chassis utilizing ANSYS
ANSYS [21]. Ketha Jaya Sandeep [22] have conducted FEA simula- programming. The goal of current study is to decrease weight uti-
tion on AISIS 4130 and AISI 1018 material with varying cross sec- lizing light weight Graphite Al GA 7-230 and Al6092/SiC/17.5p
tions. The chassis design was based on ergonomic consideration. MMC materials by Latin Hyper Cube (LHC) sampling RSM tech-
The strength of AISI 4130 material has shown better results as nique [30,31]. The Latin hypercube sampling conducted very less
compared to AISI 1018 [22]. Chaithanya Raam [23] have conducted iterations and is based on response probability stratification [32].
research on design of chassis frame using solidworks/creo design ‘‘Stratification divides the cumulative curve into equal intervals
software. The design of chassis is based on FOS, available manufac- on the cumulative probability scale (0 to 1.0).
turing techniques and toughness. The design philosophy of chassis Latin Hypercube also aids the analysis of situations where low
is oriented to achieve ergonomic and lightweight design. DFMEA probability outcomes are represented in input probability distribu-
was also conducted for chassis. Shripad Mane [24] have conducted tions. By forcing the sampling of the simulation to include the out-
FEA analysis on BAJA ATV chassis frame. The chassis was modeled lying events, Latin Hypercube sampling assures they are accurately
using AISI 4130 material. The outer diameter of chassis is 29.2 mm represented in simulation outputs” [32].
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 2. Methodology
designs are based on FEA simulation of frontal crash impact [24].
Tidke [25] showed FEA on Eicher E2 chassis using ANSYS and ASTM The FEA (Finite Element Analysis) of heavyweight motor vehicle
A710, 302 steel, 6063-T6 materials. The cross sections used for (HMV) truck chassis is initiated followed by design optimization
analysis are C type and rectangular box. The structural analysis using Latin Hyperbolic Sampling (LHS) scheme of (RSM) response
has shown that ‘‘Rectangular box section have additional strength surface method. The CAD model of frame is created in ANSYS plan
than C cross section and the Rectangular box sections have low modeler utilizing expel and sketch instrument [33]. The created
deflection, lowest stress, and deformation” [29]. CAD model is displayed in Fig. 1.
Molwane et al. [26] researched the use of Al MMC material for Resulting process includes defining variables i.e., cross member
ATV plate brakes in auto utilizing trial and mathematical proce- 1 (CM1), cross member 2 (CM2), and cross member 3 (CM3), each
dures. The conclusions revealed that circle brake produced using having length of 65 mm as appeared in Fig. 2 [34].
Al MMC have better HT qualities when contrasted with ordinary The chassis design is discretized using tetrahedral elements
one [26]. The material choice incorporate the essential of high with growth rate set to 1.2, The number of elements generated is
strength and great erosion opposition aluminum compounds for 20,080 and number of nodes generated is 42,840 [15]. The meshing
the composite materials [27]. The examination includes an under- is displayed in Fig. 3.
lying investigation that connects to the enhancement of a truck The side bar is made from ‘‘C” Channels with116mm x25mm x5
chassis utilizing MMC (s) which are light weight DRA MMC- mm made of St52E = 2.10  105 N/mm2 [11]with a total load of
Graphite Al GA 7-230 [15] and Al6092/SiC/17.5p [28,29]. 257022 N. loading and B.C. (boundary conditions) are presented
in Fig. 4.

Fig. 1. Modelled chassis.

Fig. 2. Variable assignment.

2133
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 (CM 3) dimensions. In case of Al GA 7-230 MMC each DP (design
point) are presented in Table 1 below.
The ES (equivalent stress) plot in of the chassis in Fig. 5 shows The most extreme (max.) and least values of these O/P parame-
that the equivalent stress observed 3277.6 MPa. ters/boundaries in case of Al GA 7-230 MMC are presented in
The maximum deformation plots are also obtained for both Table 2.
materials as shown in Fig. 6. In case of Al GA 7-230 MMC The maximum ES (equivalent stress) 3522.2 MPa and minimum
(Fig. 6a) the chassis has lower deformation of 78.334 mm due to ES (equivalent stress) 3217.4 MPa is acquired from optimization
high stiffness which increases resistance of lateral load while in while the (TD) deformation and SM appear less disparity. The
case of Al 6092/SiC MMC the chassis has deformation of actual chassis mass with ST52 E is 214.64Kg however using Gra-
694.83 mm as shown in Fig. 6b. phite Al GA 7-230 MMC is 62.564Kg. In case of Al 6092/SiC MMC
The DPs (design points) are generated using Latin Hypercube the design of experiment values are displayed in Table 3.
sampling using both MMCs Al GA 7-230 MMC and Al 6092/SiC For Al 6092/SiC MMC, most extreme and least values of O/P con-
MMC respectively along with different combinations of cross straints are displayed in Table 4. The maximum ES attained from
member 1 (CM 1), cross member 2 (CM 2) and cross member 3 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 Materials Today: Proceedings 60 (2022) 2132–2140

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 [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
SM. For ES; the CM 1 shows most extreme awareness rate which
Multicylinder High Pressure Fuel Injection Pump for the Movement of the
connotes that CM 1 has greatest impact on ES and CM 2 has least Injector Valve for the Diagnostic Device, in: Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Front. Educ.
impact. For absolute deformity, the CM 3 shows most extreme Technol., Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2018: pp.
responsiveness rate which connotes that CM 3 has greatest impact 157–160. https://doi.org/10.1145/3233347.3233363.
[6] G. Ginzburg, S. Evtiukov, I. Brylev, S. Volkov, Reconstruction of Road Accidents
on complete disfigurement. For strong mass, every one of the fac- Based on Braking Parameters of Category L3 Vehicles, Transp. Res. Procedia. 20
tors have comparable effect. (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,
4. Conclusion 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,
The static structural analysis and optimization is conducted https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2020.10.071.
using Latin hyper cube sampling scheme where the different [9] S. Peters, G. Lanza, J. Ni, J. Xiaoning, Y. Pei-Yun, M. Colledani, Automotive
manufacturing technologies -An international Viewpoint, Manuf. Rev. 1 (2014)
impact of every factor is concentrated on utilizing 2D linearized
1–12, https://doi.org/10.1051/mfreview/2014010.
diagrams and 3D RS plots. Results obtained from Latin hyper cube [10] M. Cavazzuti, L. Splendi, Structural Optimization of Automotive Chassis:
sampling scheme have shown that the using Al GA 7-230 MMC the 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
maximum ES obtained is 3522.2 MPa and minimum ES obtained
optimal space fill design using light weight Graphite Al GA 7–230 MMC, Mater.
from optimization is 3217.4 MPa while using Al 6092/SiC MMC Today Proc. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.053.
the maximum ES obtained from optimization is 3522.2 MPa and [12] G. Chiandussi, I. Gaviglio, A. Ibba, Topology optimisation of an automotive
minimum ES obtained from optimization is 3217.4 MPa. It is clear 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.
that, the chassis mass reduction gained from Latin hyper cube sam- [13] C.B.W. Pedersen, Crashworthiness design of transient frame structures using
pling scheme is nearly 70% and 66.68% respectively in both cases. topology optimization, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 193 (6-8) (2004)
Therefore, Graphite Al GA 7-230 MMC is preferred based on the 653–678.
[14] F. Duddeck, Multidisciplinary optimization of car bodies, Struct. Multidiscip.
findings presented here. Further analysis can be expanded to con- Optim. 35 (4) (2008) 375–389, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-007-0130-6.
sider other materials, design constraints analytically as well as [15] A. Agarwal, L. Mthembu, Modelling and FE Simulation of HVC Using Multi
using experimental testing. 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
Declaration of Competing Interest Prospects, New Trends Dev. Automot. Ind. (2011), https://doi.org/10.5772/
13286.
[17] H. Saidpour, Lightweight High Performance Materials for Car Body Structures,
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- in: NTI Technol. Conf. CEME, Ford Motor Company, 2004. http://roar.uel.ac.uk/
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared 1332/1/NTI Presentation.pdf.
[18] R. Narayanasamy, C.S. Narayanan, Forming, fracture and wrinkling limit
to influence the work reported in this paper.
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
References
sheet extrusion of interstitial-free (IF) steel: Microstructural evolution and
mechanical properties, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 528 (2011) 6573–6583, https://doi.
[1] N.R.H. Kumar, A Text Book on Automobile Chassis and Body Engineering, org/10.1016/j.msea.2011.05.014.
PALAMANER, Government Junior College, 2010. [20] N. Sinha, K. Kumar, Optimization of volumetric composition and cross-section
[2] P.V. Vijaykumar, R.I. Patel, Structural Analysis of Automotive Chassis Frame of carbon reinforced epoxy based polymeric composite tubes in spaceframe
and Design Modification for Weight Reduction, Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 1 chassis, Mater. Today Proc. 18 (2019) 3812–3820, https://doi.org/10.1016/
(2012), www.ijert.org. j.matpr.2019.07.319.
[3] V.V.K. Raju, B.D. Prasad, M. Balaramakrishna, Y. Srinivas, Modeling and [21] S. Krishna, A. Shetye, P. Mallapur, Design and Analysis of Chassis for SAE BAJA
Structural Analysis of Ladder Type Heavy Vehicle, Int. J. Mod. Eng. Res. 4 Vehicle Design and Analysis of Chassis for SAE BAJA Vehicle, IOSR J. Eng. (2019)
(2014) 26–42. www.ijmer.com. 51–57.
[4] K. Kumar Dubey, B. Pathak, B. Kumar Singh, P. Rathore, S. Raghav Singh Yadav, [22] K.J. Sandeep, Design and Simulation of Roll Cage of an All-Terrain Vehicle, Int.
Mechanical strength study of Off-Road vehicle chassis body materials, Mater. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 07 (2020) 450–457.
Today Proc. 46 (2021) 6682–6687. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.matpr.2021.04.147.

2139
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. [29] Reddy Chennakesava A, Metal Matrix Composites - Their Properties and
Eng. Tech. 5 (2019) 164–173. Applications, Hyderabad, 2018. https://jntuhceh.ac.in/web/tutorials/faculty/
[24] S. Mane, A Brief Study of Chassis of a BAJA ATV and its Analysis, Int. J. Innov. 1674_composites.pdf.
Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 7 (2018) 2924–2936. https://doi.org/10.15680/IJIRSET. [30] X. Wang, F. Tsung, W. Li, D. Xiang, C. Cheng, Optimal space-filling design for
2018.0703153. symmetrical global sensitivity analysis of complex black-box models, Appl.
[25] N. Tidke, D.H. Burande, Analysis of HCV Chassis using FEA, Int. Eng. Res. J. Math. Model. 100 (2021) 303–319, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2021.08.015.
(2017) 1–5. [31] M.T. Letsatsi, A. Agarwal, Optical analysis of T-shaped stiffened plate under
[26] A. A, M. O.b, L. M.t, EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION & ANALYSIS OF HEA compressive loading using central composite design scheme, IOP Conf. Ser.
TRANSFER CHARACTERISTICS IN AUTOMOTIVE MMC DISC BRAKE UNDER Mater. Sci. Eng. 992 (1) (2020) 012001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/
STEADY STATE AND DYNAMIC CONDITIONS, J. Eng. Res. (2021), https://doi. 992/1/012001.
org/10.36909/jer10.36909/jer.ICIPPSD10.36909/jer.ICIPPSD.15527. [32] Optimization process in ANSYS Workbench software, (n.d.). https://www.mr-
[27] S. Nandhakumar, S. Seenivasan, A.M. Saalih, M. Saifudheen, Weight cfd.com/services/design-of-experiments-doe/ (accessed February 20, 2020).
optimization and structural analysis of an electric bus chassis frame, Mater. [33] A. Agarwal, L. Mthembu, Numerical Modelling and Multi Objective
Today Proc. 37 (2020) 1824–1827, https://doi.org/10.1016/ Optimization Analysis of Heavy Vehicle Chassis, Processes. 9 (2021) 2028,
j.matpr.2020.07.404. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9112028.
[28] S.P. Rawal, Metal-matrix composites for space applications, JOM J. Miner. Met. [34] A. Agarwal, L. Mthembu, Structural Analysis and Optimization of Heavy
Mater. Soc.
. 53 (4) (2001) 14–17, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-001-0139- Vehicle Chassis Using Aluminium P100/6061 Al and Al GA 7–230 MMC,
z. Processes. 10 (2) (2022) 320, https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10020320.

2140