CAR NUMBER 89

TEAM DEMONS RACING

CAE REPORT
Abhishek Igave

(Department of Mechanical Engineering, Government

College of Engineering, Karad)

Methodology
Copyright @ 2021 SAE BAJAINDIA
Engineering data
ABSTRACT
While starting with the methodology, we initiated with study
The following report tries to summarize the steps taken in and research of elementary data of various materials used for
analysing the design and development process. The analyses. Initially, we inserted material properties required for
requirements of roll cage, front and rear suspension systems, respective analysis, properties like density, Young’s modulus,
steering, braking and drive train are considered here. The tensile strength, yield strength and other properties required
objective of the CAE team was to satisfy these functions while for different modes of analysis.
considering the safety of the occupant, material selection,
weight reduction, part life, thermal conditions, dynamic Geometry
conditions and resonance.
After designing roll cage in solid works, we imported roll cage
CAD file in Ansys workbench, by using Boolean command we
INTRODUCTION united all parts of chassis and generated a unite body.
This report describes the methodology followed by Team
Model
Demons to analyse, evaluate and optimise the design of an
all-terrain vehicle that will compete in SAE BAJA INDIA. The After generating a single unite body for getting accurate
purpose of this competition is to simulate a ‘real world’ results with less errors, we meshed roll cage by using various
engineering design project in which collegiate teams design element sizes and changing various parameters like
and manufacture a prototype of a ‘rugged, single seated off- smoothening, and by checking values of Jacobian ratio,
road recreational vehicle intended for sale to the non- aspect ratio and element quality and also by refining at the
professional week-end off road enthusiast’. The analysis of sensitive area using a greater number of elements for better
the vehicle is performed using various CAE softwares. results. After meshing we applied boundary conditions,
constraints and forces to get required results.
Objective
Modelling
The analysis mainly focuses on making the vehicle lighter and
more rigid, a more robust roll cage and suspension design. A roll cage was designed in such a way that it satisfied the
Also, reduction of the overall weight of the vehicle was rules mentioned in the rulebook of the SAE Baja. Also, the
considered. Similarly, optimal force distribution in part design requirements of the driver cockpit and driver safety was
were adopted in suspension, transmission and brakes system. considered. Depending on the wheelbase and trackwidth, the
The factor of safety, total deformation and stress distribution dimensions and size of the members of roll cage were
were aimed to be kept under safe limits. designed.

1.Roll cage analysis

Objective

The prime objective of the roll cage analysis is to achieve high

factor of safety, lower deformation, critical stress less than the
yield strength of the material, optimal load distribution,
improve roll cage life and keep the roll cage lighter and stiffer.
Meshing Constraints and Boundary conditions

Meshing is process in which the body which consist of infinite Constraints is also known as boundary conditions, the
number points is converted into finite number of points, each constraints are nothing but the supports we are providing for
point is known as node. In meshing various elements are used body and forces, velocity, acceleration is known as
which are formed by number of nodes, elements are of constraints. In
different types like tetrahedron, quadrilateral, triangular,
pyramidal. Types Force constraints
Front ALC member
Rear RLC member
Side SIM member
Rollover DLC member
static analysis we used various types of constraints which
are mentioned in below table: -

Type Constraints (Fixed support)

Front Rear suspension points
Rear Front suspension points
We used various elements sizes to get accurate results and Side Rear / front suspension
also, we controlled meshing by FE control panel. We used points
elements sizes of 8mm, 6mm, 4mm and 2mm for which we Rollover Suspension points
got various results. We got best result for 2mm element size
with number of nodes and elements 1961705, 1143743 G Force calculation-
respectively and also, we used program-controlled element G=F/F0 where,
type which are tetrahedron, pyramidal, quadrilateral due to F= m.a and F0 = (1/2mv2) / (v.t) or W/s
which we got maximum degree of freedom. In meshing Type Force (G)
control, we changed the smoothening from low to high. By Front 6.25G (14095)
doing all these we achieved required Jacobean ratio, aspect Rear 2.7G (6108)
Roll over 3.53G (7966)
ratio, element quality and number of nodes and elements.
Side 2.7G (6108)
The element size ranging from 0.12mm to 1 mm vs the
number of elements distribution graph is shown below.
Solver setting

In solver setting we have added forces and fixed supports and

also required constraints by using those constraints and
forces we get required results. We changed various types of
parameters like end time newton Raphson’s tool etc.

The following table represents the relation between element

size, Jacobian ratio and aspect ratio: -
Element size(mm) Aspect ratio(average)
2mm 2.2015
4mm 2.6446
6mm 2.9944
8mm 4.098
Element size(mm) Jacobian ratio(average)
2mm 1.08
4mm 0.8709
In some cases, the controls are set to default program
6mm 0.841
controlled.
8mm -0.4536
Results
Side Impact Analysis
Front Impact Analysis

The following graph shows the variation of deformation,

The following graph shows the variation of deformation, factor of safety and stress at different element size of 2mm,
factor of safety and stress at different element size of 2mm, 4mm, 6mm, 8mm respectively.
4mm, 6mm, 8mm respectively.
Rear Impact analysis Rollover Impact Analysis

The following graph shows the variation of deformation,

The following graph shows the variation of deformation,
factor of safety and stress at different element size of 2mm,
factor of safety and stress at different element size of 2mm,
4mm, 6mm, 8mm respectively.
4mm, 6mm, 8mm respectively.
Analysis Results Geometry

Type Deformation Stress Factor of After inserting properties in engineering data, we imported
(mm) (MPa) safety (FoS) parts file in geometry and generated it by doing required
process and we assigned the material.
Front Impact 2.78 315.07 1.46

Rear Impact 1.725 470 1 Model

Side Impact 0.9 179.69 2.56 After generating a unite body, for getting accurate results with
less errors, we meshed parts by using various element sizes
Rollover 1.45 314.17 1.464 and changing various parameters like smoothening, and by
checking values of Jacobian ratio, aspect ratio and element
quality and also by refining at the sensitive area using a
2.Modal Analysis greater number of elements for better results. After meshing
we applied boundary conditions, constraints and forces to get
A modal analysis calculates the undamped natural modes of required results.
a system, characterised by their modal frequency and mode
shape. It helps to determine vibrational characteristics of a Modelling
mechanical structure or component.
A part satisfying the objective that is to achieve the stiffer
Result and lighter parts and Also, the requirement of the driver
cockpit and driver safety was considered. Depending on the
wheelbase and trackwidth, the dimensions and size of the
parts were designed.

Meshing

Meshing is process in which the body which consist of infinite

number points is converted into finite number of points, each
point is known as node. In meshing various elements are used
which are formed by number of nodes, elements are of
different types like tetrahedron, quadrilateral, triangular,
pyramidal.

We checked results for various element sizes and from that

we used element size of less than 1 mm and we achieved
good results and less errors. We used program-controlled
element type which are tetrahedron, pyramidal, quadrilateral
due to which we got maximum degree of freedom. In meshing
control, we changed the smoothening from low to high. By
doing all these we achieved required Jacobean ratio, aspect
ratio, element quality and number of nodes and elements.

Hub
In meshing, we used 0.5mm elements size because we
achieved best results and for 0.5mm size we achieved number
of nodes 1345043 and number of elements 841470 and good
fatigue life.
3.Static analysis
Element size Aspect ratio Jacobian ratio
Objective 0.5 2.35 1.0087
1 2.46 1
The prime objective of the suspension, transmission, steering 1.5 2.82 1.01
2 2.64 0.98
and braking systems analyses is to achieve high factor of
safety, lower deformation, critical stress less than the yield
strength of the material, optimal load distribution, improve the Front Knuckle
life and keep the parts of all systems lighter and stiffer. In meshing, we used 0.5mm elements size because we
achieved best results and for 0.5mm size we achieved number
Methodology
of nodes 1057955 and number of elements 652177 and good
fatigue life.
Engineering data

In engineering data, we insert material properties for required Element size Aspect ratio Jacobian ratio
analysis type, properties like young’s modulus, strength, 0.5 2.13 1.014
density, etc. 1 2.14 1.039
1.5 2.18 1.04
2 2.17 1.06
Element Stress Deformation Factor of
size(mm) (MPa) (mm) safety
0.5 677 0.012 1.1
1 575 0.012 1.2
1.5 494 0.122 1.44
2 476 0.122 1.78

Element Stress Deformation Factor of

size(mm) (MPa) (mm) safety
0.5 124.05 0.105 3.70
1 117.45 0.105 3.91
1.5 106.77 0.105 4.3
2 108.38 0.104 4.24
Rear knuckle

In meshing, we used 0.1mm elements size because we

achieved best results. For 0.1mm size we achieved number of
nodes 6669414 and number of elements 4126993 and good
fatigue life.

Element size Aspect ratio Jacobian ratio

0.1 2.21 1.004
0.4 2.196 1.013

Element Stress Deformation Factor of

size(mm) (MPa) (mm) safety
0.1 133.59 0.22 1.87
0.4 107.59 0.022 2.32
Transmission analysis

Engine mounting

In meshing, we used 0.5mm elements size because we

achieved best results and for 0.5mm size we achieved number
of nodes 983499 and number of elements 553458 and good
fatigue life.

The average aspect ratio and Jacobian ratio for 0.5mm

element size is 2.23 and 1.04 respectively.

For element size 0.5mm for engine mounting we achieved

following results.

Deformation 0.09mm
stress 99.79MPa
Factor of safety 4.6

Gearbox
In meshing, we used 0.4mm elements size because we
achieved best results and for 0.4mm size we achieved number
of nodes 4195293 and number of elements 2449716 and good
fatigue life.
Element size Jacobian ratio Aspect ratio
0.4 1.024 2.27
1 1.11 2.27
 Deformation 0.156
Stress 133.46
Factor of safety 1.87

H-arm

In meshing, we used 0.5mm elements size because we

achieved best results and for 0.5mm size we achieved number
Suspension analysis of nodes 402187 and number of elements 202913 and good
fatigue life. The Jacobian and aspect ratio for 0.5mm element
A-arm
size as follows
In meshing, we used 0.5mm elements size because we
achieved best results and for 0.5mm size we achieved number
Jacobian ratio Aspect ratio
of nodes 593894 and number of elements 296139 and good 1.08 2.078
fatigue life. The Jacobian and aspect ratio for 0.5mm element
size as follows
Jacobian ratio Aspect ratio
1.089 2.287
 Deformation 0.075
Deformation 0.466
Stress 96.76
Stress 90.46
Factor of safety 2.58
Factor of safety 2.76

Braking analysis

Pedal
4. Dynamic Analysis
In meshing, we used 0.7mm elements size because we
achieved best results and for 0.7mm size we achieved number The analysis is performed considering the impact of the
of nodes 105735 and number of elements 58379 and good vehicle on a rigid body at maximum velocity of 16.66 m/s.
fatigue life. The Jacobian and aspect ratio for 0.7mm element
size as follow Roll cage

Jacobian ratio Aspect ratio In meshing, we used 6mm elements size because we
1.047 2.26 achieved best results and for 6mm size we achieved number
of nodes 168713 and number of elements 79857 and good
fatigue life.

Jacobian ratio Aspect ratio

0.841 2.99
5. Torsional and bending Analysis
Deformation 4.8
The analysis is performed by considering couple generated on
Stress 146,31
vehicle due to bump.
Factor of safety 3.14

Roll cage

In meshing, we used 6mm elements size because we

achieved best results and for 6mm size we achieved number
UV joint
of nodes 168713 and number of elements 79857 and good
fatigue life In meshing, we used 1.6mm elements size because we
achieved best results and for 1.6mm size we achieved number
Jacobian ratio Aspect ratio
of nodes 82668 and number of elements 46735 and good
0.841 2.99
fatigue life. And element quality 0.99 i.e. 1.
 number of nodes 37125 and number of elements 18729 and
good fatigue life.

Temperature

Heat flux

7.Fatigue Analysis
The analysis is performed by considering forces applied on
vehicle to achieve maximum life of vehicle and its part.

Roll cage

6. Thermal Analysis
The analysis is performed by considering heat generated by
friction during extreme braking.

In meshing we used default elements size because we

achieved best results and for default size, we achieved
Front Impact
 Type Minimum life

Front 56546

Rear 16895

Side 37985

Torsional 80684

Rollover 57040.7

Rear Impact

HUB

Side Impact

Front knuckle

Torsional

Rear knuckle

Type Minimum life

Hub 2521.7
Front knuckle 1.4709e5
Rollover Rear Knuckle 1.121e5
Engine Mounting elements and nodes generated are 118069 and 96847
respectively. The mesh quality is generated by adopting
proximity and curvature function.

H-arm Boundary condition

Parameter Value
Inlet velocity of air 5 m/s
Heat flux generated in 43000 W/m2
inside CVT casing
Pressure outlet 1 atm
Inlet temp. of air 290C
Surrounding temp. 220C
Viscous model k-ε model

Result
A-arm

Type Minimum life

Engine mounting 4.3044e5
H-arm 5.1054e5
A-arm 1.1294e5

8. CFD Analysis
CVT casing

Objective: -

The CFD analysis of CVT casing is performed, mainly to

improve heat dissipation inside the CVT casing.

Meshing

Meshing is generated ushing fluent controller. Type of

meshing is used is polyhedron of size 2mm. The number of
Conclusion

The CAE analysis demonstrated the structural superiority

while maintaining a lower weight to strength ratio. Safety is of
utmost concern in every respect; for the driver, crew &
environment. The analysis was helpful in finding out the
maximum deformation, Von Mises stress and the factor of
safety. The design of the vehicle is kept very simple keeping
in view its manufacturability. The design, development and
fabrication of the roll cage is carried out successfully .

References

[1] BAJA SAE INDIA Rulebook, 2021.

[2] Automobile Engineering, Kirpal Singh.
[3] Popov, “Engineering Mechanics of solid”, Pearson.
[4] Shrigley’s, “Mechanical Engineering Design”.
[5] Practical finite Element Analysis, Nitin S Gokhale.