TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS

B-075-BME–2075/2079
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF CHASSIS FRAME FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE
USING FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Submitted By:
Aarati Kunwar (075BME002)
Dikshit Guragai (075BME017)
Manisha Aryal (075BME026)

A PROJECT REPORT
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL AND
AEROSPACE ENGINEERING IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR IN MECHANICAL
ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL AND AEROSPACE ENGINEERING

LALITPUR, NEPAL

April, 2023
COPYRIGHT

The author has agreed that the library, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engi-
neering, Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering may make this project report freely
available for inspection. Moreover, the author has agreed that permission for extensive
copying of this project report for the scholarly purpose may be granted by the profes-
sor(s) who supervised the work recorded herein or, in their absence, by the Head of the
Department wherein the thesis was done. It is understood that recognition will be given
to the author of this project report and to the Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering for any use of the material of this project
report. Copying, publishing, or using this project report for financial gain without the
approval of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, Institute of
Engineering and the author’s written permission is prohibited.

Request for permission to copy or to make any other use of this project report in whole
or in part should be addressed to:

Head of Department
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Pulchowk campus, Institute of Engineering
Lalitpur, Nepal

ii
 TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL AND AEROSPACE ENGINEERING

The undersigned certify that they have read, and recommended to the Institute of En-
gineering for acceptance, a project report entitled ”DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF
CHASSIS FRAME FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE USING FINITE ELEMENT ANAL-
YSIS” submitted by Aarati Kunwar, Dikshit Guragai, and Manisha Aryal in partial ful-
filment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering.

Supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Rajesh Kaji Kayastha

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Pulchowk Campus

Supervisor,Assoc. Prof.Dr.Nawraj Bhattrai

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Pulchowk Campus

External Examiner, Er.Pradhumna Adhikari

Deputy Manager
CAAN

Head of Department
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Pulchowk Campus

Date

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, we would like to convey our deep gratitude to all of our teachers for
their consistent guidance and invaluable support. It would have been a challenging road
for us without their great supervision and advice. We would like to extend our deep
gratitude towards our supervisors Dr. Nawaraj Bhattrai, and Assoc. Prof. Rajesh
Kaji Kayastha, for believing in us, leading us, and inspiring us during the entire project.

Also, we would like to thank the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Institute of Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, for providing us with the opportunity to
participate in a collaborative project that has allowed us to apply the knowledge we
have gained over the years as a final year project for the final year, which has greatly
enhanced our knowledge and broadened our horizon. We’d also like to thank all of our
friends who have supported us with this project, both directly and indirectly.

Authors:
Aarati Kunwar
Dikshit Guragai
Manisha Aryal

iv
ABSTRACT

The increasing demand for the use of electric vehicles has created the need for the de-
sign of an electric vehicle chassis frame that could sufficiently bear the load of all the
components to be fitted into the electric vehicle. This paper presents the chassis frame
specially designed for electric vehicles. The Ashby chart is used to select the material,
and structural steel is selected after considering different selection criteria. The con-
cepts of solid mechanics are used to select the beam of suitable cross-sectional area.
Rectangular hollow section beam is selected over the beam of other cross-sections as it
has better performance on vertical bending, lateral bending, and torsional deformations.
Maximum bending moment calculation is performed to figure out the minimum sec-
tional modulus for the rectangular hollow section beam. A rectangular hollow section
beam with a sectional modulus value of 87.54 mm3 with dimension 120*80/8 is used for
the long side members of the frame, whereas a beam with a sectional modulus of 17.05
mm3 of dimension 80*40/4 is used for the cross members linking these side members.
An iterative method is used to figure out the minimum value of sectional modulus that
would effectively handle all the load applied to the chassis frame. The final chassis
frame has a factor of safety of 2.6 for failure by yielding criteria with maximum equiv-
alent stress of 93.58 N ∗ /m2 .
Modal analysis is performed on the frame to determine the natural frequencies of the
frame. It is observed from modal analysis that the natural frequencies don’t match with
the external excitation frequencies, which makes the frame safe to use. Finally, the value
of bending stiffness and torsional stiffness is determined. The bending stiffness is cal-
culated by applying the 1000N load at the centre of the frame in the negative Y-direction
and using the deformation obtained, which gives the value of 6.5197 ∗106 Nm2 . Simi-
larly, rear and front torsional stiffness are obtained by keeping the front and rear parts
fixed and applying loads on free ends. The front and rear torsional stiffness values for
the chassis frame are obtained to be 6.50407∗105 Nm/rad and 7.47384∗105 Nm/rad re-
spectively.
Hence, The chassis is successfully designed for static loading conditions and checked
for vibrations. Further dynamic loading tests could be performed to figure out the be-
haviour of the chassis frame.

v
Contents

TITLE PAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

COPYRIGHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

APPROVAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv

ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi

LIST OF SYMBOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.3 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.3.1 Major Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.3.2 Specific Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.4 Significance of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.5 Assumptions and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 4

vi
2.1 Chassis History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2 Chassis Design and Analysis Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.3 Overview of Chassis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.3.1 Ladder type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.3.2 Monocoque Chassis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.3.3 Backbone Chassis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.3.4 Tubular frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.3.5 Skateboard Chassis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.4 Chassis Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.5 Deformation modes of chassis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.5.1 Vertical bending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.5.2 Longitudinal torsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.5.3 Lateral bending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.6 Toyota HiAce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.7 Motor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.8 Battery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.9 Design of Prismatic beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.10 Finite Element Method (FEM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.10.1 ANSYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.10.2 Element Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.11 SOLIDWORKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

vii
 2.12 Ashby charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3 METHODOLOGY 26

3.1 Chassis type selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.2 Motor and Battery Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.3 Material Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.3.1 Performance Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.3.2 Material selection matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3.4 Chassis frame Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.5 Load intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.6 Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.7 Dimension of the chassis frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3.8 Geometry Preparation of the chassis frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4 MODELLING AND SIMULATION 48

4.1 Preprocessing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.1.1 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.1.2 Meshing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.1.3 Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.2 Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.3 Post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.4 Analysis of frame with cross-section 50*30 with different fixed support 53

viii
 4.5 Design iteration-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4.6 Design iteration 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.7 Final Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

5 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 64

5.1 Summary of all design iterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

5.2 Validation of Simulation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5.3 Modal Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

5.4 Bending stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

5.5 Torsional Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

5.5.1 Front Torsional Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

5.5.2 Rear Torsional Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 73

6.1 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

6.2 Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

ix
List of Figures

2.1 Ladder Chassis[1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.2 Monocoque Chassis [2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.3 Backbone Chassis[3] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.4 Tubular frame [4] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.5 Skateboard Chassis [5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.6 Vertical bending[6] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.7 Longitudinal torsion [6] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.8 Lithium-ion (Li-Ion) technology comparison. (a) LCO; (b) LMO; (c)
LFP; (d) NMC; (e) NCA; (f) LTO [7] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.9 Young’s modulus-Density Chart for different materials . . . . . . . . . 24

2.10 Strength-relative cost per unit volume chart for different materials . . . 25

3.1 Methodology Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.2 Circular Cross-section beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.3 Young’s Modulus-Density Chart depicting minimum mass design lines . 33

3.4 Strength-relative cost per unit volume chart depicting minimum cost lines 35

3.5 Free body diagram of an overhanging beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.6 Free body diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.7 Bending moment and Shear force diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.8 Weldment profile of beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

x
3.9 Preliminary model of chassis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.1 Default mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.2 Mesh with refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.3 Fixed support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.4 Load present on chassis frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.6 Equivalent stress plot showing stress singularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.5 Comparison of averaged and unaveraged equivalent stress. . . . . . . . 52

4.7 Fixed support new position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

4.8 Equivalent stress plot averaged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

4.9 Equivalent stress plot unaveraged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.10 convergence plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.11 Factor of safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4.12 Averaged equivalent von-mises stress iteration 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.13 Unaveraged equivalent von-mises stress iteration 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.14 Factor of safety iteration 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.15 Equivalent stress plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4.16 Unaveraged equivalent stress plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

4.17 Factor of safety plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

4.18 Weldment profile RHS 120*80*8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4.19 Meshing in final design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4.20 Mesh metric: Jacobian ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

xi
4.21 Mesh metic: Orthogonality ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4.22 Mesh metic: Skewness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4.23 Load application on final model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4.24 Equivalent stress averaged and unaveraged without mesh refinement . . 61

4.25 Averaged and Unaveraged equivalent von-mises stress with mesh re-
finement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4.26 Deformation in frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4.27 Maximum equivalent stress factor of safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4.28 Maximum shear stress factor of safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.29 Maximum tensile stress factor of safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

5.1 Final design of the chassis frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5.2 1st modal frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

5.3 2nd modal frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

5.4 Force application to calculate bending stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

5.5 Bending stiffness deformation simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

5.6 Load application to determine front torsional stiffness . . . . . . . . . 70

5.7 Deformation for front torsional stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

5.8 Load applicaiton to determine rear torsional stiffness . . . . . . . . . . 71

5.9 Deformation to determine rear torsional stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

6.1 line sketch of chassis frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

6.2 Weldment profile RHS 120*80*8 for two long side members . . . . . . 79

xii
6.3 Weldment profile RHS 80*40 /4 for middle cross-members . . . . . . . 80

6.4 Three standard views of chassis frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

6.5 3D view of the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

xiii
List of Tables

2.1 Basic dimension of chassis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.2 Weight on the chassis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.3 Chassis parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.4 Comparison of motors [8] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.1 Motor specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.2 Shortlisted materials using P2 and P2 performance indices . . . . . . . . 34

3.3 Shortlisted materials using P3 and P4 performance indices . . . . . . . . 35

3.4 Material Selection Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3.5 Properties of Structural steel A-36 [9] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.6 Loads and their loading patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.7 Chassis frame dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4.1 Mesh statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.2 Load applied over frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.3 Convergence results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4.4 Determination of required sectional modulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

5.1 Summary of design iterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

5.2 Natural frequency of the frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

xiv
ABBREVIATIONS

AC Alternating Current

AISI American Iron and Steel Institute

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BMS Battery Management System

CAD Computer Aided Drafting

CAE Computer Aided Engineering

CAM Computer Aided Manufacturing

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics

CNC Computerized Numerical Control

DC Direct Current

EV Electric Vehicle

FEA Finite Element Analysis

FEM Finite Element Method

GIGO Garbage-in Garbage-out

HEV Hybrid Electric Vehicle

ICE Internal Combustion Engine

LCO Cobalt Oxide

LFP Lithium Iron Phosphate

LTO Lithium Titanate

LWB Long Wheelbase

NCA Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide

xv
NCM Nickel Cobalt Manganese Oxide

PDE Partial Differential Equation

PMSM Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor

SLWB Super Long Wheelbase

SNR Switched Reluctance Motor

SUV Sport Utility Vehicle

TVR Trevor Wilkinson

xvi
LIST OF SYMBOLS

τ Shear stress
σ Normal stress
M Moment
δ Deflection or Deformation
I Second moment of area
Q First moment of area
S Sectional modulus
V Shear Force
R Reaction Force
g Acceleration due to gravity
Cv,R Relative cost per unit volume
P Performance Indices
ρ Density of material
E Young’s Modulus of Elasticity

xvii
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Due to a gradual increase in fuel prices, growing environmental awareness, and the
need to minimize greenhouse gas emissions, electric vehicles have emerged as an ap-
pealing alternative to conventional automobiles. Since they are battery-powered, they
must be adequately optimized because they perform less well than conventional vehi-
cles. Worldwide businesses have been conducting research and development to create
electric automobiles. The weight of the vehicle, how long it takes to charge the power
source, as well as the car’s mileage is only a few of the variables that might affect the
development. Because of the power source weight and other components inside, an
electric automobile is heavier than a standard car. As a result, with various components
present in the automobile, one of the issues that will develop is the weight that the car’s
frame must hold.[7]. The chassis plays an important part in providing improved perfor-
mance. A car’s chassis is the supporting framework that provides structural support for
the design and operation of the object. The power train and suspension are just a couple
of the parts that are housed in the chassis. A vehicle chassis might occasionally be able
to resist loads, but it is not intended to be subjected to such loads for an extended period
of time, which could result in catastrophic failure. The structure contributes to a large
proportion of the development and manufacturing cost, and many different structural
choices are available. The best one must be chosen based on cost, volume, method of
production, product application, etc. while ensuring acceptable structural performance.
Performance evaluation of a vehicle’s structure is related to its strength and durability.
A design is aimed to achieve sufficient levels of these with as little mass as possible.
[10]

1.2 Problem Statement

Electric vehicles are an emerging technology for the achievement of sustainable trans-
portation. With the rise in the popularity of electric vehicles, the need of dedicated
chassis for electric vehicle has arisen. With this project, the preliminary step of the de-
sign for the Electric Vehicle chassis frame is going to be put forth for the HiAce vehicle

1
model which could be used in upcoming electric vehicles. To present an efficient de-
sign for the electric vehicle chassis considering every design condition and criteria are
defined and the design work is carried out.

1.3 Objectives

1.3.1 Major Objectives

• To design and analyze the electric vehicle chassis frame with the help of FEM.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

• To select the optimum material for the EV chassis out of available material in the
market.

• To select the best model based on the design criteria and modify the model if
needed.

• To perform the structural analysis and modal analysis on the chassis frame.

1.4 Significance of Project

This project would add significant value to the current market as it is inclining towards
the adoption of electric vehicles. The new design for the chassis frame is proposed in
this study, which could be used by manufacturers in the upcoming electric Hiace models.
In this project, static structural analysis of the chassis frame is done using finite element
analysis software, ANSYS. The factor of safety is reasonable, kept around two to give
some safety margin for dynamic analysis as well.

1.5 Assumptions and Limitations

In this project, tasks related to the structural analysis of the chassis frame of electric
vehicle are carried out. In doing so, several assumptions have been made which are
listed below:

1. To simplify the task of design of electric vehicle chassis frame, essential dimen-
sions are selected with reference to Toyota Hiace model.

2
 2. For analytical calculations, which were performed to figure out the value of the
sectional modulus of a rectangular hollow section beam, the total load is assumed
to be applied over the two long side members of the chassis frame only. This
assumption helped us in analyzing the frame as a statically indeterminate beam
and determine the minimum sectional modulus value.

3. The four ends of the chassis frame are applied to fixed load boundary conditions
in the simulation environment, whereas in reality the frame is lifted by the sus-
pension system and connected to the road using wheels. Fixed support ignored
the effect of the suspension system.

4. During simulation only, the effect of vertical loading is considered which is re-
sponsible for vertical bending. Thus, the frame is not tested for lateral loading
and horizontal lozenging.

5. Effects of impact loads and dynamic loads are not considered.

6. The final assembly of all the components is the chassis frame to give the idea
of the location of those components and no calculation is done to model it. It is
developed only for visuals.

Similarly, the limitations of the project are enlisted below:

• Due to the lack of resources, the physical construction of the chassis could not
possible and the only way of verification is through the comparison of simulation
results with the literature review.

3
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Chassis History

The history of the chassis is as old as the origin of the first vehicle itself. The first
chassis dates back to the late 1800s.[11] Back then, the frame of the vehicle used to
be made of a wooden frame. In 1921, the concept of making a floor structure that
would carry the weight of seats, body shells, and other weights was introduced. The
first actual spaceframe chassis was produced in the 1930s by Buckminster Fuller and
William Bushnell Stout.
The main function of the chassis is to support the weight of the vehicle. To do that there
is always the optimization between the weight of the chassis and the efficiency of the
vehicle. The increased weight decreases the efficiency of the vehicle and vice-versa.
Although some other factors affect vehicle performance, this relation between chassis
weight and the efficiency of the vehicle always holds. Hence, the design of the precise
chassis means the optimization between the safety level of the chassis and its size.[12]

2.2 Chassis Design and Analysis Reviews

In some studies, It has been found that a 10 percent reduction in vehicle weight could in-
crease the energy efficiency of an electric vehicle by 5 to 8 percent.[13] Also, to achieve
the optimum weight topology optimization could be applied using the ANSYS topology
optimization tool.
There are several differences between traditional IC engine vehicles and electric vehi-
cles. They differ in the components they contain, their operating principles, and the
number of services required for vehicle maintenance. From the study, It has been found
that the maintenance cost of the electric vehicle can be decreased by 25 percent, which
is quite an achievement. [14][15]
Several studies have been carried out to minimize the weight of the vehicle. One of
the ways of minimizing the weight of the vehicle is by the use of light material without
compromising the safety of the vehicle. The materials like structural steel, aluminium
alloy, and carbon fibre are mostly in use to make the chassis for any kind of vehicle. In
the study carried out by Nandhakumar et al., it has been found that the replacement of

4
steel frame with aluminium 6061-T6 and aluminium 7075-T6 the weight reduction of
65.61 percent and 64.33 percent respectively, without any compromise in safety.
The strength analysis of the chassis is done using the Finite Element Method. FEM
could be used to find out the critical stress point in the chassis, the maximum deflection
of the chassis, and so on. This helps us in figuring out whether the chassis is safe for
use or not which helps in reducing accidents at the initial level. FEM could be used to
compare the stress points, deflection, and factor of safety of several chassis and figure
out the best among them.[16]
T. Kristyadi et al carried out their study to compare the weight of two kinds of lad-
der chassis of an electric vehicle, which are solid plate beam chassis and perforated
plate beam chassis. By comparing the results, the maximum amount of stress for the
perforated frame was found to be increased by 25%, the maximum deflection was in-
creased by 20% and the safety factor was decreased by 20% for the solid frame. The
weight of the car was decreased by 22.5%, by the use of the perforated frame. Since
the safety factor was within safety range, the use of preformed plate beam chassis was
recommended.[17]
The chassis frame during vehicle movements experiences situations like lozenging,
bending, and torsion. Cross members are important in increasing the torsional stiffness
of the frame. Research done at Pune University analyzed cross members of 80 x80mm
square section and 80mm outer diameter tubular cross-section of thickness 4mm. The
comparison showed the tubular cross section as a better choice for improving torsional
stress since the deformation in the front and rear decreased significantly. While the C
-shaped members are important in increasing lateral stiffness.
During a case study, stress analysis of a Hyundai Cruz minibus was performed using
the finite element method. ABAQUS software was used for carrying out modelling and
simulation. Self-weight was considered for static analysis of the chassis frame and Ac-
celeration, Braking, and Road Roughness were considered for dynamic analysis. It was
observed that braking caused more stress on the chassis than acceleration.
The important aspects to be considered while designing a chassis are strength, stiffness,
ergonomics, weight, and space. Vehicles require a high volume of batteries so the bat-
teries should be evenly distributed and placed low to the ground. The torsional stiffness
of a chassis significantly affects the dynamic characteristics, so high torsional stiffness

5
is desired. The overall mass of the vehicle plays an important role in terms of vehicle
range, so the chassis should be lightweight without affecting the strength of the struc-
ture.
In one study, FEM stress analysis was used for fatigue life prediction. ABAQUS soft-
ware was used for simulation and analysis and ASTM Low Alloy steel A710 (C) was
taken for study. The primary objective of the study was to find the highly stressed area
where Fatigue Failure will start. It was found out the opening area having contact with
the bolt experiences high stress.
An experimental approach for the study of the material for the chassis of the electric
vehicle was done. The numerical studies were also performed for the chassis alongside
the modelling, testing and simulation. A square beam was used for the vehicle frame
and the maximum values of stress, deformation and strain were traced. [18] The next
study was performed for the electric bus where the analysis was done for the static as
well as the transient loading with different materials. It was stated that the steel material
channel section along with the stiffener had the best performance. [19]
Vijayan et al. performed a structural analysis of a chassis for different cross-sections and
different materials. On comparison between conventional steel and S glass epoxy com-
posite, they found that steel has superior strength to withstand high load and induced
low deformation and stress distribution. Widyanto et al. performed a finite element
analysis of an electric vehicle chassis for three materials with different thicknesses. The
materials used were Grey Cast Iron, AISI 4130 Alloy Steel and AISI A514 Grade B
Alloy Steel. On analyzing the simulation result of Von Misses stress and displacement
for all the materials, they concluded the model with AISI 4130 Alloy steel with 6 mm
in thickness is optimum due to the lowest stress and displacement among all materials
and thicknesses.[20]

2.3 Overview of Chassis

A car’s chassis is the supporting framework that provides structural support for the de-
sign and operation of the object. The power train and suspension are just a couple of the
parts that are housed in the chassis.[21] The following items must be chosen to establish
a suitable structure:

6
 • The structural type is appropriate for the planned use.

• Correct organization of structural parts to guarantee appropriate load pathways

across the vehicle structure with no gaps.

• Appropriate panel and section dimensions, as well as acceptable joint detail de-
sign.

Functions of the Chassis frame

• To transport all stationary loads, as well as passenger and freight loads.

• To be able to tolerate torsional vibration generated by vehicle movement.

• To sustain the centrifugal force generated by the vehicle’s cornering.

• To resist bending stresses caused by the front axles and rear axles rising and
falling.

2.3.1 Ladder type

It is one of the oldest chassis and is called so because the base structure resembles a
ladder. It has two heavy and long beams which are supported by two short beams. The
ladder chassis’ principal advantage was its ease of fabrication and the car assembly.
The ladder chassis is fairly substantial, and its strong bending rigidity makes it ideal for
transporting heavy items. It’s easier to put together because parts can be simply inserted.
It does, however, have low torsional stiffness, making it unsuitable for cornering.
Used in: SUVs like Fortuner, Endeavor,etc.

7
 Figure 2.1: Ladder Chassis[1]

2.3.2 Monocoque Chassis

A monocoque chassis is a construction that joins the body and chassis to form an inte-
grated structure in which the vehicle’s motion-induced stress is spread throughout the
structure rather than forming localized tension. It’s made up of multiple sections that
have been welded together. In a stream production line, robot arms spot weld the floor
pan which is the largest part, and other sections together. After that, extras such as
doors, bonnets, side panels, and roofs are added. Because the entire structure is an out-
side shell, there are no massive high door sills, transmission tunnels, or large roll-over
bars, which makes it particularly appealing to mass-market vehicles. It is a low-cost
material for mass manufacture. It comes with excellent crash protection and torsional
rigidity.
Nearly all mass-production cars adopt this system.

8
 Figure 2.2: Monocoque Chassis [2]

2.3.3 Backbone Chassis

It is a rectangular-section cylindrical tube that joins the front and rear axles and pro-
vides practically all of the mechanical strength in the chassis. The body is built on the
backbone which is usually made of glass fiber. This type of design is desired when
low-volume production is desired.
This type of construction allows for a better connection of the axles to the ground. Be-
cause the driveshaft is protected by the chassis, it is far more likely to sustain off-roading,
and its high torsional rigidity allows it to withstand more twists. However, it is not suit-
able for mass production.
Used in: Lotus Esprit, Marcos, TVR, etc.

9
 Figure 2.3: Backbone Chassis[3]

2.3.4 Tubular frame

To give mechanical strength against the force applied, this form of chassis uses sev-
eral numbers of circular cross-section tubes (or square cross-section tubes) in various
directions. Welding is done on the tubes to create a complicated structure. Tubular
space frame chassis typically feature a robust framework under both doors for the higher
strength that is needed by sports vehicles with high performance, resulting in an abnor-
mally high door sill and restricted access to the interior. Tubular chassis are used in race
cars due to the superior safety they give. When compared to comparable chassis of the
same weight, it is stiffer.
However, because the structure is extremely intricate, expensive, and time-consuming
to construct, it cannot be mass-produced.
Used in: All Ferrari before the 360M, Lamborghini Diablo, Jaguar XJ220, TVR, etc.

10
 Figure 2.4: Tubular frame [4]

2.3.5 Skateboard Chassis

Automotive platforms for battery electric vehicles are built on a skateboard chassis.
The batteries, electric motors, as well as other electronic parts are housed in the base
construction. With all components integrated into it, this sort of chassis lowers the cost
and simplifies the manufacturing and production complexities. The skateboard’s layout
can be easily varied by changing the position of the motor. Also depending on the
application, the performance can be increased by adding motors to all four wheels.

11
 Figure 2.5: Skateboard Chassis [5]

2.4 Chassis Load

The chassis frame can be considered as a rigid frame as the members have welded con-
nections. The chassis is subjected to different types of loading during stationary and
moving conditions of the vehicle. The types of loads on the vehicle chassis can be clas-
sified as follows:

• Static Loads: These loads are constant and include the weight of the vehicle, the
battery, and the powertrain, as well as the weight of the occupants and any cargo.

• Dynamic Loads: These loads vary with time and include forces caused by the
vehicle’s motion, such as acceleration, braking, and cornering. Dynamic loads
also include the effect of road irregularities and wind resistance.

• Thermal loads: The batteries and powertrain components of an EV generate heat

during operation. The chassis must be designed to dissipate this heat and to ensure
that the components do not overheat. They give rise to thermal deflection. The
chassis of an EV is exposed to thermal loads as a result of the heat generated by
the batteries and powertrain components. The chassis can deflect or bend as a
result of thermal expansion caused by these loads

12
 • Impact loads: These loads are caused by collisions or accidents and include the
forces generated by an impact. The chassis must be designed to protect the oc-
cupants and other components in the event of an impact. Transverse deflection
occurs when the chassis is subjected to loads that act perpendicular to its length,
such as those caused by the forces generated during impact. The chassis can de-
flect or bend under these loads, causing a deflection in the direction of the chassis.

• Fatigue loads: These loads are caused by the repetitive nature of the loads and the
material properties of the chassis. The chassis must be designed to withstand these
loads without failing over time. Fatigue deflection could be defined as deflection
that occurs when the chassis is subjected to repetitive loads over time. The chassis
can suffer from fatigue failure and can deflect or break under these loads.

• Corrosion loads: The chassis of an EV is exposed to different environmental con-

ditions, such as humidity and salt spray, which can cause corrosion. The chassis
must be designed to resist corrosion in order to prolong its life.

2.5 Deformation modes of chassis

These loads cause different kinds of deformations on the different members of the frame
of the chassis. There are four major modes of deformation of the chassis[22].

• Vertical bending

• Longitudinal torsion

• Lateral bending

• Horizontal lozenging

2.5.1 Vertical bending

Vertical bending is caused during both static and dynamic conditions of the vehicle. This
type of deformation is seen in the chassis mostly due to payloads, motor load, battery
load, and weight of the vehicle body. The chassis is connected to the wheel through the
suspension system which acts as the support. Thus, to prevent the chassis from vertical

13
bending, the chassis frame must have high bending resistance. High bending resistance
of the chassis frame is ensured by the type of structural component used, material proper-
ties of the material from which it is made and the transverse load acting on that structure.

Figure 2.6: Vertical bending[6]

2.5.2 Longitudinal torsion

Longitudinal torsion is the kind of deformation seen on the chassis during the motion
of the vehicle on a bumpy road. This is caused when the reaction force of the ground is
unequal on the two front wheels or two rear wheels or both. This torsional load affects
the vehicle handling and the performance of the vehicle. Thus, the structural members
must be strong and stiff enough to handle torsional loading.

Figure 2.7: Longitudinal torsion [6]

14
2.5.3 Lateral bending

Lateral bending occurs during the cornering of the vehicle. Load in the lateral direction
along with load in the vertical direction causes unsymmetrical bending in the chassis
frame. This might cause serious damage to the frame if the frame lacks proper stiffness.

2.6 Toyota HiAce

Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese company that handles the production, sales
and export of Toyota vehicles.[23] Four different types of HiAce are manufactured by
Toyota motor corporation.[24] They are listed below.

• Commuter Widebody (SLWB, High roof)

• Commuter Standard body (LWB, Standard roof)

• Van Standard body (LWB, standard roof)

• Van Widebody (SLWB, high roof)

For this paper, we are designing the chassis for an electric commuter standard body
(LWB, standard roof) HiAce. The specifications of the automotive commuter standard
body Haice are listed below.

15
 Table 2.1: Basic dimension of chassis

Parameters Dimension (mm)

Overall length 4695
Overall height 1980
Overall width 1695
Wheelbase 2570
Tread - Front 1470
Tread - Rear 1465
Interior length 3460 (4-row seating)
Interior width 1545
Interior Height 1335
Overhang Front 1050
Overhang Rear 1075

Table 2.2: Weight on the chassis

Parameters Weight
Curb Weight(kg) 1735-1830
Gross Vehicle Weight (kg) 2750-2950

Table 2.3: Chassis parameters

Parameters Specifications
Brakes Front Discs
Brakes Rear Drums
Suspension Front Double Wishbone
Suspension Rear Leaf springs
Steering gear type Rack and Pinion
Tyres 195R15C

These specifications are used in the current design of the chassis to determine the basic
size of the chassis frame.

16
2.7 Motor

An electric motor is the main component of an EV. Several types of electric motors can
now be employed in electric vehicles thanks to the quickly evolving fields of electronics
and control systems. High power density, high starting torque, good efficiency, etc., are
desirable qualities in electric motors used in automotive applications. Several types of
electric motors are used in electric vehicles. They are listed as:

1. DC Series motor

2. Brushless DC motor

3. Permanent Magnet Synchronous motor(PMSM)

4. Three Phase AC induction motors

5. Switched Reluctance motor (SNR)

Comparison of Motors

Table 2.4: Comparison of motors [8]

Parameters DC series DC Brush- PMSM 3-phase AC SNR

motor less motor induction
motor
Peak Effi- 85-90 >95 >92 >90 <95
ciency (%)
Efficiency 80-85 70-80 80-85 >90 >90
at 10% load
(%)

Several market trends are also studied while looking at different types of electric motors
used in electric vehicles nowadays. Here, the trend of using the PMSM was popularized.
It has become the 1st choice for different electric vehicle manufacturers as it provides
high torque as well as high power density which is due to the high-energy density per-
manent magnets used. It had the best mileage performance whereas it has a high cost

17
compared to motors having the same power. It is hence suitable for high-performance
electric vehicles where cost is not a sensitive topic. [25]

2.8 Battery

In an electric vehicle, the battery is one of the most important components which is
required to power and propel the electric vehicles. There are several types of batteries
for electric vehicles available in the market today. Some of them are listed below:

1. Lithium-ion Batteries

Electric vehicle lithium-ion batteries are the best. If money were no object, a
lithium-ion battery would be chosen. Because lithium has the highest electro-
chemical potential and specific energy of any metal, pound for pound, most lithium
batteries, regardless of the cathode material, can be cycled well over a thousand
times. Many Lithium-ion battery chemistries were created expressly to be charged
by a straightforward controller. Another benefit of adopting lithium-ion batter-
ies is that they require very little maintenance and only a basic battery manage-
ment system (BMS) to guarantee battery safety and longevity. Lithium-ion bat-
teries come in a variety of forms, so selecting the right one was the first step in
analyzing lithium ions. Cobalt Oxide (LCO), Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide
(NCA), Nickel Cobalt Manganese Oxide (NCM), Manganese Oxide (LMO), Ti-
tanate (LTO), and Iron Phosphate are the six most widely used varieties of lithium-
ion batteries (LFP). Lithium-ion batteries get their name from the cathodes, the
active components that give the battery its distinct properties. The advantages of
each of these several cathode materials for the battery vary.

2. Lead-Acid Batteries

Lead acid batteries are a popular and reasonably priced form of battery. There
are specific lead acid battery types that are best suited for use in electric vehicles;
nevertheless, not just any lead acid battery would be practical. For instance, a
battery used to start an engine in the majority of gasoline-powered cars could
not be used in an electric vehicle. Starting batteries can only produce one short

18
 burst of energy before needing to be recharged by the alternator while the vehicle
is in motion. A deep-cycle battery is a sort that must be used for every electric
car. Deep cycle batteries are created specifically to deliver dependable power for
longer periods. The ability of a deep cycle battery to be repeatedly discharged
from full capacity to empty is its most significant feature. A deep cycle battery
can be entirely emptied several hundred times before the same result is obtained,
in contrast to a standard starter battery, which can only be depleted about ten times
before losing its capacity to hold a charge. The choice of a deep-cycle lead acid
battery can be seen as a workable alternative given that lead acid batteries can
power the car.

3. Nickel-Metal Hydride Batteries

Nickel-metal hydride batteries, which are frequently used in computers and med-
ical equipment, offer sufficient specific energy and specific power capacities.
While safer and more resilient to misuse, nickel-metal hydride batteries have a
significantly shorter lifespan than lead-acid batteries. These batteries have been
utilized a lot by HEVs. Nickel-metal hydride batteries’ high cost, high self-
discharge, large heat production at extreme temperatures, and need to control
hydrogen loss are its greatest drawbacks.

Comparison of different Lithium-ion batteries

19
Figure 2.8: Lithium-ion (Li-Ion) technology comparison. (a) LCO; (b) LMO; (c) LFP;
(d) NMC; (e) NCA; (f) LTO [7]

LFP battery was developed in 1997 which was able to reduce the cost of the Li-ion
batteries which helped in the application in the large-scale commercial. It also offered
thermal and cycling stability, improved safety as well as environmental resilience which
made it one of the popular choices for electric vehicles battery. [26]

2.9 Design of Prismatic beam

The design procedure of the prismatic beam is as follows:[9]

1. After selecting the material for the beam, list down the values of allowable normal

20
 stress (σall ) and shear stress (τall ). These values could be obtained by dividing
ultimate tensile strength and shear strength by the suitable factor of safety.

2. Draw the shear force and bending moment diagram to find out the maximum
absolute value of |V |max and |M |max .

3. Select the minimum value of section modulus for the obtained |M |max value us-
ing the following relation.

|M |max
Smin = σall

4. Among the available beam section, select the one with section modulus,

S > Smin .

5. Now, check for the resistance of the selected beam to the shear stress using the
formula given below:

|V |max ∗Q
τm = It

6. If τm > τall , then a stronger beam is selected with a section modulus greater than
we previously selected. Otherwise, the beam considered in step 4 is selected.

2.10 Finite Element Method (FEM)

A numerical method for resolving partial differential equations (PDEs) which appear in
a variety of engineering and physics applications is the finite element method (FEM).
It is an effective tool for modelling the behaviour of intricate structures and systems
under various circumstances. The finite element method’s fundamental principle is to
divide a complex domain into a finite quantity of simpler, smaller subdomains or el-
ements for approximation of the solution to PDE over that domain. At certain loca-
tions known as nodes, these subdomains are joined to create a mesh. A collection of
polynomial basis functions are then used to estimate the solution over each element,

21
and the results are merged to produce an overall approximation of the solution over the
whole domain. Many engineering and science issues, including fluid dynamics, struc-
tural analysis, electromagnetic fields, heat transport, and many others, can be solved
using the finite element approach. For issues that are too time-consuming or complex
to be resolved analytically or with other numerical techniques, it offers precise and ef-
fective solutions.
The following matrix equation denotes the Finite Element equation:

[K]{u}={F}

where
[K]=Global Stiffness Matrix
{u}= Nodal Displacement
{F}= Nodal force

2.10.1 ANSYS

John Swanson started ANSYS in 1970, and it is reported that the company was sold to
venture capitalists in 1993. High scalability and extensive Multiphysics product mod-
elling solutions are offered by ANSYS. The analysis is carried out by Ansys using the
finite element method. To accomplish the solutions based on various numbers of nodes
as requested by the analyzer or designer, FEM was developed. FEM uses many sorts of
matrices to represent the required item under study’s geometry, load, material proper-
ties, temperature, stiffness, etc. The number of nodes chosen for analysis and the order
of the matrix utilized in FEM equations are the same. As a result, FEM is an approxi-
mation of the same analysis that was produced from the mathematical model; however,
in this instance, the parameters are set in accordance with the elastic analogy of the
material matrix, which illustrates the same characteristics as anticipated in the mathe-
matical model. ANSYS is renowned for its adaptability. As ANSYS already includes
CAD modelling tools, importing a model from another CAD program is also suitable
for analysis. In particular, ANSYS provides an analysis platform for structural analysis,
thermal analysis, and CFD issues.

22
2.10.2 Element Quality

The quality of the mesh is an essential factor in determining whether the results gen-
erated are trustworthy or not. There are several metrics to check mesh quality such as
Jacobian ratio, orthogonality and skewness. The Jacobian ratio of elements lies between
0 and 1 and the more it is to 1, the better the mesh is considered. Similarly, orthogo-
nality also lies between 0 and 1 and similar to the Jacobian ratio good quality mesh has
orthogonality near to 1. Mesh is considered better if it has maximum skewness of less
than 0.95 and an average below 0.33.[27]

2.11 SOLIDWORKS

Dassault Systems created SOLIDWORKS with the primary goal of solid modelling with
CAD and CAE-based designs. Despite the fact that no information is provided by devel-
opers regarding the operating system of software, SOLIDWORKS is primarily run on
Windows. Because of its user-friendly interfaces for building reliable models, SOLID-
WORKS is most frequently used to execute the CAD modelling of complex compo-
nents. The model built in SOLIDWORKS can be exported to simulation software such
as ANSYS, CATIA, and many more; or it can be made directly by loading the file on
CNC manufacturing CAM software such as Creo. SOLIDWORKS’ popularity is a re-
sult of how simple it is to create 3D models with it and how easily components can be
put together quickly.

2.12 Ashby charts

There are several materials, and each one has numerous characteristics. It requires a
suitable method to present and contrast them. Plotting these parameters as Material
Property Plots, also known as bubble/ Ashby charts, including 1 property on 1 axis and
then another characteristic on the other, is an effective way to accomplish this. Depend-
ing on the precise composition, heat treatment, grade, supplier, etc., every material has
a variety of values for every property. The value range of the attributes determines the
width and height of the ellipses or bubbles that depict the materials on the chart. The
axes range on the charts is selected to cover all materials, from light as well as flexible
polymer foams to dense, stiff, and strong metals like tungsten. The use of logarithmic

23
scales, where each significant step on the axes reflects a factor of 10, allows for the cov-
erage of this vast range. There are numerous applications for these charts. They may be
employed to choose materials for new models or to replace materials in a product that
is already in demand. They can be applied to data comparison and estimation. Addi-
tionally, they can be used to visually discover trends in characteristics, including how
processing impacts properties and the connections between them. Some of the examples
of the Ashby chart are young’s modulus VS Density chart, Strength VS Density chart,
Strength VS Relative cost per unit volume chart and so on. The modulus density chart
by Ashby is shown below which shows us several materials comparisons for Young’s
modulus and density. This chart helps us to determine the modulus of different engi-
neering materials and compare them with the density to get the required yield strength
in the material.

Figure 2.9: Young’s modulus-Density Chart for different materials

[28]

The above chart shows the contrast between the strength and density of different en-
gineering materials. This chart can be used to determine the required properties of the

24
material. The Strength-relative cost per unit volume chart by Ashby is shown below
which shows us several materials comparisons for the strength and relative cost per unit
volume chart. This chart helps us to determine the strength of different engineering ma-
terials and compare them with the cost to get the balance between the required strength
and cost.

Figure 2.10: Strength-relative cost per unit volume chart for different materials
[28]

The above chart shows the chart for the strength-relative cost per unit volume chart by
Ashby.

25
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY

The following methodology is followed in this project.

Figure 3.1: Methodology Chart

The project started with a Literature review to figure out the research gap and the task of
Literature review continued throughout the project. Design selection criteria are done
with the help of a Literature review. Load calculation is done with reference to the
Toyota Hiace vehicle and on the basis of this load calculation, material and component
selection is done.

The battery and motor selection process, material selection process, CAD modelling of
the chassis frame and simulation process all are explained below in detail.

26
3.1 Chassis type selection

Different types of chassis for vehicles were explored and it was found that the chassis
that was suitable for the chosen HiAce (minibus) was the ladder chassis. The frame
for the ladder chassis used 2 side members which were joined with different series of
cross members that were placed at high-stress points. It helped in the minimization of
deflection as well as the mass of the chassis frame. Hence, the ladder chassis was chosen
for the design of the electric HiAce. [29]

3.2 Motor and Battery Selection

With the study of the present trends of the motors used in different electric minibuses, it
is assumed that the 90kW motor is sufficient for our desired design of the chassis for the
Toyota HiAce. The following motor is chosen for the load consideration in our design.
For battery as well, as the battery rating available nowadays ranged from 40kWh to
100kWh, it is assumed that the battery rating is 79kWh for our vehicle.

Table 3.1: Motor specifications

Particulars Values/Specifications
Manufacturer Rawsun Power Co. Limited
Motor type Permanent magnet synchronous motor
Peak Power 130kW
Rated Power 90kW
Peak torque 500Nm
Rated torque 285Nm
Peak speed 4500rpm
Rated speed 3000rpm
Peak current 300A
Rated current 170A
Mass 87kg

Battery weight calculation:

Energy density=140Wh/kg [30]

27
Battery rating of 79kWh is assumed,
Mass=79000/140=564.28 kg

3.3 Material Selection

Material selection is the key step in the mechanical design process. This is a crucial step
as it affects the overall weight, size, and ability to withstand the load of the mechanical
components. Several parameters are considered before selecting the material for the
project. The selection criterion of material is different for a different project. Mate-
rial to fabricate the chassis is selected based on the physical and mechanical properties
of the material, reliability, durability, cost, weight, recyclability, yield resistance, and
corrosion.

3.3.1 Performance Index

A performance index is a constant that is defined for selecting the best-performing ma-
terial for a particular case. In this study, four performance indices are defined for the
minimization of the mass and cost as well as to choose the best material for the chassis
elements.

Here,

1
Performance index(P)α m
(Mass Minimization)
1
Performance index(P)α Cv ,R
(Cost Minimization)

Let us consider 2 cases:

1. Beam undergoing bending:

28
 Figure 3.2: Circular Cross-section beam

W L3
Deflection(d) = (3.1)
48EI

Here,

d= Deflection

L= Length of beam frame

I= Second moment of Area around the Neutral axis

W= Weight in frame

E= Young’s Modulus

For circular beams,

We have, mass(m) = π r2 Lρ

Here,

R=Radius of cross-section

ρ=Density of the beam material

√
m
r= (3.2)
πLρ

And
πr4
I= (3.3)
4

29
 Solving (5.1) and (5.3)

W L3
d= 4
48E( πr4 )
5 2
Or,d = W12Em
L πρ
2
( 5 )1/2 ( )
Or,m = W12dL π √ρ
E

( Wpi )1/2
Here, the first term of the equation i.e. 12d
is the properties of the the beam
that is dependent upon the loading parameter and the geometry.
( )
The second term for the equation i.e. √ρE is dependent on the material proper-
ties and also can be called material index.

For the performance index,

P1 can be defined as the first performance index which is the reciprocal of the
material index.

Here, √
E
P1 ∝ (3.4)
ρ

2. Beam undergoing axial loading:

W L2
Def lection(d) = (3.5)
AE

Here,

d= Deflection

L= Length of beam frame

A= Area of cross-section

W= Weight in frame

E= Young’s Modulus

For circular beams,

We have, mass(m) = ALρ

Where,

30
 ρ=Density of the beam material

m
A= (3.6)
Lρ

Solving (5.5) and (5.6),

W L2
d= m
Lρ
∗E

W L3
d= E
ρ
∗m

W L3 ρ
m= ∗
d E
W L3
Here, the first term of the equation i.e. d
is the properties of the beam that is
dependent upon the loading parameter and the geometry.
ρ
The second term for the equation i.e. E
is dependent on the material properties
and also can be called material index.

For the performance index,

P2 can be defined as the first performance index which is the reciprocal of the
material index.

Here,
E
P2 ∝ (3.7)
ρ

From the definition of the performance indices P1 and P2 , We have,

√
E
P1 ∝
ρ

√
Or, P1 = ρ
E
∗ C1

Where C1 is the proportionality constant,

Taking logs on both sides,

31
 1
log (P1 ) = log (E) − log (ρ) + log (C1 )
2

Or,

log (E)= 2 log (ρ) + 2{log (P1 ) − log(C1 )} (3.8)

Also,

E
P2 ∝
ρ

And P2 = E
ρ
∗ C2

Taking logs on both sides and solving,

log (E)= log (ρ) + {log (P2 ) − log(C2 )} (3.9)

As the obtained equations (3.8) and (3.9) are in form of a linear equation i.e., in the
form of y=mx+C, two linear lines can be traced in the modulus versus density plot
while taking the significant value of the performance index as shown below. Plotting
the equations (3.8) and (3.9) in the Ashby chart of Young’s modulus-Density, we get,

32
 Figure 3.3: Young’s Modulus-Density Chart depicting minimum mass design lines
[28]

Here, two lines can be observed intersecting and the materials included by both lines
and remaining on the upper zone are required for the electric chassis material. From the
above graph, the following materials are enlisted as the first choices of material.

33
 Table 3.2: Shortlisted materials using P2 and P2 performance indices
√
E E
SN List of Ma- Young’s Density (ρ) ρ ρ

terials Modulus in kg/m3

(E) in GPa
1. Aluminium 80 2500 0.032 0.0038
Alloy
2. CFRP 110 1600 0.069 0.0066
3. Steels 220 8000 0.028 0.0015
4. Titanium 110 4200 0.026 0.0025
alloy
5. Magnesium 40 1900 0.021 0.0033
Alloys
6. Cast Iron 95 7130 0.0133 0.0013

Let us define two different performance indices for the optimization of the cost as well.
√
σ
Performance index(P3 )= C v,R
(for bending load)
σ
Performance index(P4 )= C v,R
(for axial load)
Plotting the respective plots from the above equation in the Ashby chart of Strength-
Relative cost,

34
Figure 3.4: Strength-relative cost per unit volume chart depicting minimum cost lines
[28]

Here, the enlisted materials using performance indices P3 and P4 are as follows:

Table 3.3: Shortlisted materials using P3 and P4 performance indices

√
σ σ
SN List of Ma- Strength Relative C v,R C v,R

terials Cost per

unit vol-
ume (Cv,R )
1. Aluminium 200 1.2 166.667 11.785
Alloy
2. Cast iron 350 0.9 388.889 20.78
3. Carbon 550 1 550 23.452
Steels

35
3.3.2 Material selection matrix

After shortlisting and filtering out material using both Ashby’s charts, the selection of
the material is done with the material selection matrix. Here, weightage is assigned to
different parameters of material qualities and points are assigned to the material on the
basis of those parameters. the weightage is summed up to a total of ”1” and the point
that could be assigned to the materials were in the range of 100 to 400 respectively.

Table 3.4: Material Selection Matrix

Material Qualities Carbon Steel Cast Iron Aluminium Alloy

Parameters Weightage Point Total Point Total Point Total
Durability .25 100 25 300 75 200 50
Availability .25 400 100 300 75 200 50
Manufacturability .25 400 100 200 50 300 75
Flexibility .2 400 80 200 40 300 60
Aesthetics .5 100 5 300 15 200 10
Total 1 310 255 245

Here, it can be seen that carbon steel had the highest point which made it the optimum
choice of material considering different parameters. It is decided to use structural steel
in general as it is one of the popular and sustainable materials of choice for different
engineers. ASTM A-36 structural steel has low cost and several applications in the
construction of heavy equipment, automotive and so on. Hence, it is chosen to design
the chassis of the electric vehicle. [31] Also, it was understood that the ASTM A36 was
one of the popular materials used for the chassis building due to its material properties
such as temperature resistance, duration along with improvement in lightness, strength
and stiffness. [32]Here, the properties of the structural steel ASTM A-36 is listed below:

36
 Table 3.5: Properties of Structural steel A-36 [9]

Properties Value Unit

Ultimate Strength (Tension) 400 MPa
Yield Strength (Tension) 250 MPa
Modulus of Elasticity 200 GPa
Modulus of Rigidity 77 GPa
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 11.7 10−6 /0 C
Ductility Percent Elongation in 50mm 23 %

3.4 Chassis frame Section

Different types of frame sections are available in the market such as I-section, circular
section and so on. The properties of all the cross-sections are studied and finally, the
rectangular hollow section is selected as it is good for both torsion bending conditions.
For all the chassis frame section options, the rectangular box section can offer maximum
bending stiffness relative to its weight and also the rectangular box section has one of
the best torsional resistance, making it a suitable choice for the chassis frame section.
[33]Also, to back that up, from the evaluation of different cross-sections in a paper
review that included a C-section, I-section and box section, it was seen that the box
section had the least stress and deformation development in the same chassis design
models. [34]

3.5 Load intensity

The loads that act on the frame include battery packs, electric motor, frame weight, pas-
senger loads, cab and different systems. The weight of the chassis is applied vertically
downwards along the y-axis with g = 9.8m/s2 . According to the study conducted by
Baral, et al., the weight of the average Nepalese citizen is 57 kg [35]. The passenger
loading at full capacity along with the payload is 11400N for 20 passengers. The pas-
senger load, battery packs, cab and different systems are applied as uniform load along
the negative y-axis. Similarly, the weight of the electric motor and the electronic control
system is taken as a point load along the Y-axis. The mass of the vehicle body is taken

37
as 315 kg, and the electronic control system is 80 kg.[15]

The different loads and the loading patterns are tabulated below:

Table 3.6: Loads and their loading patterns

Load type Weight (N) Loading

Frame weight Not considered at this part Gravity field
Battery 5643 Uniform load
Electric Motor 870 Point load
Electronic Control System 800 Point load
Passenger load 11400 Uniform load
Vehicle body weight 3150 Uniform load
Others 4000 Uniform load

3.6 Calculation

The chassis frame is a complex structure as it involves beam members of different cross-
sections which are connected using bolts, rivets or welds. It can be a tedious task to
analyze the whole frame at once. Under full-load bending conditions, each member of
the frame undergoes bending due to the applied transverse loading. In this situation,
each member of the frame can be treated as the beam member undergoing bending. The
maximum load-bearing members in this situation are the long side members and the total
load uniform acted upon the frame could be distributed between the two side beams and
the maximum bending moment in each beam could be obtained easily.[15] The loading
condition on each side member is shown in the figure below.

38
 Figure 3.5: Free body diagram of an overhanging beam

Calculation for Reaction force

Here,

RA +RB =400+400+1559×1.810+1975.5×4.695=12896.76N

At A,

−400 × 0.25 + 400 × 0.1 + 1559 × 1.810 × 1.285 + 1976 × 4.695 × 1.2725 = RB × 2.570

15371.38
∵ RB = = 5981.08N
2.570

Then,

RA = 6915.67N

39
Calculation for shear force diagram,

VC = 0

VCD = −1976x VDleft = −1630.2 VDright = −2030.2

VDA = −1976(x − 0.825) − 2030.2 VAleft = −2524.2 VAright = 4391.4x

VAE = 4391.47 − 1976(x − 1.075) VEleft = 4193.87 VEright = 3793.87

VEF = 3793.87 − 1976(x − 1.175) VFleft = VFright = 3240.59

VFG = 3240.59 − (1976 + 1558.83)(x − 1.455) = −3157.76 VGleft = VGright

VGB = −3157.76 − 1976(x − 3.265) VBleft = −3908.64 VBright = 2072.44

VBH = 2871.85 − 1976 × (x − 3.645) VHleft = 0 VHright = 0

Calculation for Bending moment

2
MCD = −1976 x2 MD = − 1976
2
× 0.8252 = −672.46

2
MDA = −1976 x2 − 400(x − 0.825) MA = −1241.75

x2
MAE = −1976 − 400(x − 0.825) + 6915.67(x − 1.075); ME = −812.49
2

MEF = −988x2 − 400(x − 0.825) + 6915.67(x − 1.075) − 400(x − 1.175); MF =

171.93 ≈ 172.33

1559
MFG = −988x2 −400(x−0.825)+6915.67(x−1.075)−400(x−1.175)− ×(x−1.455)2
2

MG = 247.29

40
 MGB = −988x2 − 400(x − 0.825) + 6915.67(x − 1.075) − 400(x − 1.175)

−1559 × 1.810 × ( 1.810

2
+ x − 3.265)

MB = −1095.32

MBH = −988x2 − 400(x − 0.825) + 6915.67(x − 1.075) − 400(x − 1.175)

1.810
−1559 × 1.810 × ( + x − 2.360) + 5981.08 × (x − 3.645)
2

MH = 0

Using Matlab code for finding out the bending moment and shear force diagram [36],
we have

41
42
Figure 3.6: Free body diagram
43
Figure 3.7: Bending moment and Shear force diagram
Now,

Mmax = 1660N m

|V |max = 4391

|V |Q
τall =
It

where, Q=first moment of area

For structural stress,

τall = 145M P a

σall = 250M P a

Smin = 1660
250×106
= 6.64 × 103 mm3
Hence, the selected beam is of sectional modulus,

Smin = 7.486 × 103 mm3

Iy = 0.1871 × 106 mm4

3.7 Dimension of the chassis frame

The fundamental dimensions for the current chassis frame are taken with reference to
the dimensions of the Toyota LWB, standard roof Hiace. The length of the frame is
taken the same as the overall length of the vehicle but the width is taken smaller than
the overall width of the vehicle. The width is taken by allowing space for the tyres and
suspension system. Since the section width of the chassis is 195mm. [37]

Distance between the inner side of the front or rear tyres = 1695 − 195 ∗ 2 = 1305
Gap between the frame and the inner side of tyre = 152mm
Width of chassis = 1305 − 305 = 1000mm

44
The final dimensions of the length and width of the vehile are:

Table 3.7: Chassis frame dimensions

Parameters Dimension (mm)

Length 4695
width 1000

3.8 Geometry Preparation of the chassis frame

The chassis frame is modelled in Solidworks utilizing the above dimensions. From the
calculation, it is obtained that the rectangular hollow section of dimensions 50mm*30mm
having a thickness of 5mm could be used for the above-mentioned loading condition.
Since the total load is assumed to be divided between the two side beams, each beam is
applied with half of the total load to be applied excluding the self-weight of the beam.

45
 Figure 3.8: Weldment profile of beam

While modelling, only the frame is modelled but not the supporting parts as the sup-
porting parts are to be represented using the boundary condition in the simulation envi-
ronment. A weldment tool is used to create the frame as the members of the frame will
be attached using the welded connection in real life as well. Members of the frame are
touched at the surface but due to the presence of fillet on the weldment profile, there
was a gap between the side members and the cross members. The cross members are
extended to touch the side member using the trim command under the weldment tab. To
apply for the fixed support, the rectangular split of 15*60 is created on the bottom face
of the side beam. This split will only split the bottom layer of the side beam to make a
face where fixed support could be applied while applying boundary conditions.

46
Figure 3.9: Preliminary model of chassis

47
Chapter 4: MODELLING AND SIMULATION

Ansys is used to perform the finite element analysis on the chassis frame. FEM includes
the following steps.

1. Preprocessing

2. Solution

3. Post-processing

4.1 Preprocessing

4.1.1 Geometry

The CAD model of the frame is prepared in SolidWorks and the geometry cleanup is
performed using the tools available in it. The model is saved in .step format and imported
to the Ansys static structural inside geometry. The model has a total weight of 75.183kg.
The same model as shown in the geometry prepration section is used for analysis.

4.1.2 Meshing

Ansys Mechanical is started, and the mesh is generated. For the initial simulation, mesh-
ing is set to default coarse meshing and the connection between the parts is checked.
Bonded connection is applied between the contact and target faces and the behaviour is
set to program controlled which is auto-asymmetric by default. Auto asymmetric allows
the program to evaluate the contact region and select the surface to mesh with contact
elements and target elements. After running the solver for coarser mesh, refinement is
added and then the solver is run again.

48
 Figure 4.1: Default mesh

Figure 4.2: Mesh with refinement

Table 4.1: Mesh statistics

Statistics
Nodes 51151
Elements 27473

4.1.3 Boundary conditions

Applying the right boundary conditions is an essential part of getting good simulation
results. Since the connection of the chassis frame with the tyre of the vehicle through
the suspension system is not modelled in geometry, it should be represented carefully

49
using the right type of support. For the support, the split geometry is used, and fixed
support is applied at the split face. Such four faces are created where the suspension
system touches the chassis frame. This is shown in the figure below.

Figure 4.3: Fixed support

Load is applied on the frame as stated earlier in the chassis load intensity section.

Table 4.2: Load applied over frame

Load type Load Intensity(N)

Battery load on mid-section 5644
Distributed load throughout the frame 1855
Motor concentrated load 800
Controller concentrated load 800
Self-weight due to gravity 751.8
Total load 26550.8

50
 Figure 4.4: Load present on chassis frame

4.2 Solution

This step is done by ANSYS mechanical. It considers all the input provided to it in
the form of material assignment, connections between the parts, elements to be used for
simulation, the total number of nodes and elements, loading and constraints. Consid-
ering all these things, Ansys mechanical perform finite element analysis. The results
would be reliable if the given input is correct as it follows the concept of GIGO. Thus
the solutions obtained from the simulation must be validated and verified. This is the
last step of FEA.

4.3 Post-processing

The solution obtained from the analysis could be viewed using several contour plots or
graphs. The equivalent stress plot is generated and the averaged equivalent stress and
unaveraged equivalent stress plots are viewed. In this case, the two values are quite
different, which shows that the solution obtained is not the mesh-independent solution.
Thus, we need to refine the mesh further. Further mesh refinement is done on the re-
gion of maximum stress and on the solution the maximum equivalent stress value kept
increasing, also the difference between averaged value and the unaveraged value. The
stress singularity is obtained in the region shown below.

51
 Figure 4.6: Equivalent stress plot showing stress singularity

Figure 4.5: Comparison of averaged and unaveraged equivalent stress.

Since the value of maximum equivalent stress did not converge with mesh refinement,
thus the solution is not the mesh-independent solution. Without a mesh-independent
solution, we cannot validate whether the solution is correct or not. Thus we need to
remove the stress singularity from the simulation solution. Stress singularity is observed
at the zone of fixed support, thus the way fixed support is applied to the model needs to
be changed.

52
4.4 Analysis of frame with cross-section 50*30 with different fixed
support

The split feature applied on the frame is removed as it caused stress singularity. Now, the
four ends of the chassis frame are applied fixed support and steps similar to the previous
simulation are followed.

Figure 4.7: Fixed support new position

Figure 4.8: Equivalent stress plot averaged

53
Figure 4.9: Equivalent stress plot unaveraged

Figure 4.10: convergence plot

54
 Table 4.3: Convergence results

Equivalent Stress (Pa) Change (%) Nodes Elements

1 7.3792e+008 22460 9516
2 6.6935e+008 -9.7448 104839 59785
3 7.37e+008 9.6207 350669 217355
4 7.6289e+008 3.4523 1099327 725400

Figure 4.11: Factor of safety

The convergence plot and convergence table show that the convergence occurred and
the maximum equivalent stress is obtained to be 762.89 MPa which is more than three
times larger than the allowable stress for the structural steel. Due to this, the factor of
safety is obtained to be 0.327. Also from the equivalent stress plot it can be seen that
maximum stress occurs on the side members of the beam, so we need to select the beam
with a sectional modulus value larger than 7.486 ∗ 103 mm3 .

4.5 Design iteration-1

Since the previously selected member yield, we now need to select the frame with a
higher sectional modulus than the old one. Let’s build the new frame with the rectangu-
lar hollow section beam whose sectional modulus value is 10.94 ∗ 103 mm3 .

The chassis frame is designed with the member of higher sectional value and simulation

55
is performed. The results obtained from the simulation are displayed here.

Figure 4.12: Averaged equivalent von-mises stress iteration 1

Figure 4.13: Unaveraged equivalent von-mises stress iteration 1

56
 Figure 4.14: Factor of safety iteration 1

In this simulation, the mesh is not refined as the value of maximum equivalent stress is
obtained to be larger than the allowable stress, so we can conclude that the frame would
yield. This information is enough to reject this frame as well.

4.6 Design iteration 2

The rectangular hollow section with section modulus 10.94 ∗ 103 mm3 is also rejected as
it undergoes yielding under applied loading. From the above two simulations, we know
the value of maximum equivalent stress for the given value of the sectional modulus of
the beam.

Table 4.4: Determination of required sectional modulus

Sectional modulus(∗103 mm3 ) Equivalent Stress(MPa)

7.486 762.89
10.94 514.84
x 200

Using interpolation, we get

y2 −y1 y−y1
x2 −x1
= x−x1

514.84−762.89 200−762.89
or, 10.94−7.486
= x−7.486

57
 −248.05 −562.89
or, 3.454
= x−7.486

or, x − 7.486 = 7.8380

.: x = 15.324

From the above calculation, It is obtained that the rectangular hollow section with the
sectional modulus 15.324 ∗103 mm3 is suitable and gives the maximum equivalent stress
to be 200 MPa.

The available rectangular hollow section is RHS 80*40/4 with a sectional modulus of
17.05 ∗103 mm3 . The simulation results are presented here.

Figure 4.15: Equivalent stress plot

58
 Figure 4.16: Unaveraged equivalent stress plot

Figure 4.17: Factor of safety plot

The value of maximum equivalent stress came to be 332.14 N/mm2 which doesn’t come
under the acceptable range.

4.7 Final Design

Similar iterations are performed to figure out the most suitable one. The main of these
iterations is to find out the beam section with a factor of safety around 2.5 for maximum
equivalent stress, as it would provide us with a safety margin of 1.5. After the number of

59
simulations, we finally selected the beam with the sectional modulus of 87.54 ∗103 mm3 .

Figure 4.18: Weldment profile RHS 120*80*8

Figure 4.19: Meshing in final design

Figure 4.20: Mesh metric: Jacobian ratio

60
 Figure 4.21: Mesh metic: Orthogonality ratio

Figure 4.22: Mesh metic: Skewness

Figure 4.23: Load application on final model

Figure 4.24: Equivalent stress averaged and unaveraged without mesh refinement

61
Figure 4.25: Averaged and Unaveraged equivalent von-mises stress with mesh refine-
ment

Figure 4.26: Deformation in frame

Figure 4.27: Maximum equivalent stress factor of safety

62
 Figure 4.28: Maximum shear stress factor of safety

Figure 4.29: Maximum tensile stress factor of safety

The maximum equivalent stress is obtained to be 93.58 N/m2 , maximum deformation

of 4.1737 mm. The factor of safety is 2.6715 for maximum equivalent stress, 2.4753
for maximum shear stress and 2.0057 for maximum tensile stress.

63
Chapter 5: RESULT AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Summary of all design iterations

This table summarizes the data obtained from all the design iterations.

Table 5.1: Summary of design iterations

S.N. Profile Elastic Section Maximum Equiv- Mass (kg) Factor of

modulus(∗103 alent Stress Safety
mm3 ) (MPa)
0 RHS 50x30 /5 7.486 762.89 75.183 0.3277
1 RHS 60x40 /4 10.94 514.48 85.465 0.4855
2 RHS 80x40 /4 17.05 323.02 104.49 0.77396
3 RHS 100x60 /5 37.82 237.55 174.17 1.0524
4 RHS 120x80 /8 87.54 93.58 242.4 2.6715

The final design of the chassis frame is used and the components of electric vehicles are
assembled using SOLIDWORKS to provide the visual display of the location of several
components.

64
 Figure 5.1: Final design of the chassis frame

5.2 Validation of Simulation results

The results obtained from the simulation need to be validated before those results could
be trusted and used in inferring anything. The numerical accuracy is ensured by generat-
ing a mesh-independent solution. In the first simulation, we inserted a convergence tool
to converge the results with a 5% relative error. This ensured the mesh-independent so-
lution. But this process turned out to be computationally expensive, so instead of using
an iterative solver, we tried refining mesh manually with the use of different mesh-
ing features such as face meshing and sizing and obtained refined mesh. Then to check,
whether the refinement is enough or not we compared the averaged and unaverage max-
imum equivalent stress values. When these values were near to each other, we obtained
a mesh-independent solution. In this way, The simulation results are validated.

l
The allowable value of deformation for a beam under bending is given by 300
[38]. In
this case, the value of l is 4695mm. Hence, the allowable deformation is 15.65mm.
From the simulation, the deformation is obtained to be 4.17mm. Thus, the deformation
is within the elastic limit.

65
5.3 Modal Analysis

Modal analysis is performed to study the behaviour of the frame in response to vibra-
tion and dynamic loading. To study the dynamic behaviour, the natural frequencies and
mode shapes of the frame are determined. Modal analysis is of two types: free-free or
constrained. In a free-free analysis, the natural frequencies and mode shapes are calcu-
lated without applying any boundary condition. In a constrained analysis, the analysis
is done by applying boundary conditions to imitate the actual working condition of the
vehicle. We use ANSYS to perform the modal analysis.
The following table shows the first ten-order natural frequencies

Table 5.2: Natural frequency of the frame

S.N. Natural Maximum Description

Frequency Deforma-
tion
1 26.444Hz 3.1518mm The frame is subjected to vertical bending
2 31.097Hz 3.2373mm The frame is subjected to vertical bending
3 43.03Hz 3.5422mm The frame is subjected to torsion
4 62.499Hz 2.963mm The front of the frame is bent vertically
5 81.272Hz 3.1985mm The rear of the frame is bent vertically
6 99.439Hz 3.2584mm The frame is subjected to bending and torsion
7 119.13Hz 3.073mm The frame is subjected to bending and torsion
8 154.4Hz 3.9362mm The frame is bent vertically
9 179.15Hz 3.2067mm The frame is subjected to bending and torsion
10 208.21Hz 3.0482mm The frame is subjected to lateral bending

Frame modal analysis result:

The frequency of some excitation forces that may resonate with the frame are given
below:[39]
Excitation frequency of roads -3Hz.
Reducer and transmission excitation frequency - 8.5Hz.
Wheel unbalance excitation- 9Hz

66
Drive shaft vibration- 46Hz

Table 9.1 shows the natural frequency in the range of 26.44 to 208.44Hz. The frame
avoids the above-mentioned excitation frequencies. So, the resonance is avoided which
may cause undesirable distortion of the frame.

The first two mode shapes are shown in figure:

Figure 5.2: 1st modal frequency

67
 Figure 5.3: 2nd modal frequency

The beam with the sectional modulus of 17.05 is selected to model the cross-members
and the one with a sectional modulus of 87.54 is selected for the two side members.

5.4 Bending stiffness

Bending stiffness is the property of the vehicle and it is independent of the load applied
to it. So, the bending stiffness of the chassis frame is calculated by an applied load of
1000N at the centre of the frame with a fixed support on the four ends. The deformation
value is noted and the following formula is used to find out the bending stiffness.

a3 ∗F
Bending stiffness, (EI) = 48∗δ
, where

a = distance between front and rear restraining points = 4695mm,

F= Force applied on the frame
δ = Deformation obtained.

68
 Figure 5.4: Force application to calculate bending stiffness

Figure 5.5: Bending stiffness deformation simulation

Simulation results showed that the deformation obtained to be 0.33mm Hence sub-
stituting the values in the bending stiffness equation, we get Bending stiffness to be
6.5197∗106 Nm2 .

5.5 Torsional Stiffness

Torsional stiffness is also independent of the load applied to the chassis frame. To de-
termine the torsional stiffness of the vehicle, we apply a load of 1000N on both sides of
the frame with a fixed support at the rear for front torsional stiffness and the opposite
for rear torsional stiffness. The formula used to determine the torsional stiffness is:[15]

Torsional Stiffness, (KT )= Tθ , where

69
θ=arctan Lδ
L= distance between two lateral points of load application.
T=F*d =1000*1 = 1000 Nm

5.5.1 Front Torsional Stiffness

Front torsional stiffness is obtained by applying for fixed support on the rear ends and
applying a couple on the front part. The deformation is noted and using the value of
applied load and deformation in the torsional stiffness calculation formula, torsional
stiffness is determined.

Figure 5.6: Load application to determine front torsional stiffness

Figure 5.7: Deformation for front torsional stiffness

From the simulation results, δ is obtained to be 1.5375 mm for front torsional stiffness.
Applying the value in the torsional stiffness formula, we get the value of front torsional

70
stiffness to be 6.50407∗105 Nm/rad.

5.5.2 Rear Torsional Stiffness

Rear torsional stiffness is obtained by applying a couple on the rear side of the frame
while keeping the front ends of the frame fixed. A similar formula is used to calculate
rear torsional stiffness as per the front torsional stiffness.

Figure 5.8: Load applicaiton to determine rear torsional stiffness

Figure 5.9: Deformation to determine rear torsional stiffness

The value of deformation is obtained to be 1.338 mm for the rear torsional stiffness test.
Applying the value in the torsional stiffness formula, we get rear torsional stiffness to
be 7.47384∗105 Nm/rad.

From the literature review, the safe values for bending stiffness, front torsional stiffness
and rear torsional stiffness need to be in the range of 4.62 ∗106 Nm2 , 5.44∗104 Nm/rad

71
and 5.49∗104 Nm/rad [15]. The values obtained for the chassis frame designed here are
larger than the value obtained from the literature review, so we can conclude that the
frame is safe to use.

72
Chapter 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Conclusion

From the material selection portion using the Ashby chart, the carbon steel family is se-
lected as the suitable material for the fabrication of chassis frame. Among the members
of the carbon steel family, ASTM A 36 Structural Steel is chosen. The final model is
selected after performing finite element analysis on the chassis frames of different cross-
sections with varying sectional modulus values. The total load of 28223N including the
self weight of the chassis frame is applied to the final model. A rectangular hollow sec-
tion beam of sectional modulus 87.54 mm3 with dimensions 120*80/8 is selected for
side members whereas the rectangular hollow beam of sectional modulus 17.05 mm3
with the dimension of 80*40/4 is selected for cross-links. The mass of the final model
is obtained to be 242.4 kg.

The bending stiffness of the chassis frame is obtained to be 6.5197∗106 Nm2 and the
front and rear torsional stiffness of the chassis frame are obtained to be 6.50407∗105
Nm/rad and 7.47384∗105 Nm/rad respectively. Hence, the chassis frame is safe for ver-
tical bending with Maximum equivalent stress of 93.58 N/m2 , maximum deformation
of 4.1737mm The factor of safety is 2.6715 for maximum equivalent stress, 2.4753 for
maximum shear stress and 2.0057 for maximum tensile stress. Thus, we can say that
the chassis is safely designed for these three failure criteria.
Also, From Modal Analysis, It is observed that the natural frequency of the frame came
to be far from the external excitation frequency. Hence, the frame won’t break down
due to resonance.

6.2 Recommendation

We have limited our study to the design and static analysis of the electric vehicle chassis
frame. In future, the following works could be done to further improve the design and
performance of the electric vehicle chassis.

1. The effect of the suspension system is ignored while performing the static analysis
of the vehicle, so one could incorporate the effective suspension system.

73
2. The frame is only analyzed for static conditions, so analysis could be done to
ensure vehicle safety in moving conditions as well.

3. Analysis for failure is not done in this study, so possible modes of failure analysis
could be done and current design could be modified on that basis.

74
Bibliography

[1] M. Kimberley, “Here’s why a ladder chassis is so right for off-roaders,” Nov 2018.

[2] “Body: Lighter and stiffer.”

[3] “Unit 1 types of automobiles notes automobile engineering - aryabhatta knowledge

university bihar-mechanical engineering-engineering sem-1 (2022): Goseeko.”

[4] K. Rangam, “Types of car chassis explained: From ladder to monocoque!,” Dec
2022.

[5] C. Hammerschmidt, “Hyundai challenges vw with bev platform,” Dec 2020.

[6] H. Hazimi, Ubaidillah, A. E. P. Setiyawan, H. C. Ramdhani, M. Z. Saputra, and

F. Imaduddin, “Vertical bending strength and torsional rigidity analysis of formula
student car chassis,” in AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1931, p. 030050, AIP
Publishing LLC, 2018.

[7] G. Saldaña, J. I. San Martín, I. Zamora, F. J. Asensio, and O. Oñederra, “Analysis

of the current electric battery models for electric vehicle simulation,” Energies,
vol. 12, no. 14, p. 2750, 2019.

[8] S. R. Jape and A. Thosar, “Comparison of electric motors for electric vehicle appli-
cation,” international Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, vol. 6,
no. 09, pp. 12–17, 2017.

[9] F. P. Beer, E. R. Johnston, J. T. DeWolf, and D. F. Mazurek, Statics and mechanics

of materials. McGraw-Hill Education, 2021.

[10] R. Y. Garud and A. Pandey, “Structural analysis of automotive chassis, design

modification and optimization,” Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 9887–
9892, 2018.

[11] A. Robinson and A. Livesey, The repair of vehicle bodies. Routledge, 2013.

[12] D. Prasetiyo et al., “Strenght analysis chassis of um electric cars using finite ele-
ment method,” in MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 204, p. 07017, EDP Sciences,
2018.

75
[13] M. S. bin Ab Razak, M. H. bin Hasim, and N. A. bin Ngatiman, “Design of electric
vehicle racing car chassis using topology optimization method,” in MATEC Web
of Conferences, vol. 97, p. 01117, EDP Sciences, 2017.

[14] S. Nandhakumar, S. Seenivasan, A. M. Saalih, and M. Saifudheen, “Weight opti-

mization and structural analysis of an electric bus chassis frame,” Materials Today:
Proceedings, vol. 37, pp. 1824–1827, 2021.

[15] H. Zhang, G. Huang, and D. Yu, “Numerical modeling for the frame struc-
ture of light van-type electric truck,” Science Progress, vol. 103, no. 2,
p. 0036850420927204, 2020.

[16] R. Rajappan and M. Vivekanandhan, “Static and modal analysis of chassis by using
fea,” International Journal of Engineering and Science, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 63–73,
2013.

[17] T. Kristyadi, T. Shantika, L. Hartawan, et al., “Stress analysis of a cross over

electric car chassis,” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-
JMCE), vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 13–28, 2017.

[18] S. Durgam, V. M. Deshmukh, A. P. Jagtap, M. J. Sable, and N. M. Gawai, “Ex-

perimental and numerical studies on materials for electric vehicle chassis,” in IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 1126, p. 012073, IOP
Publishing, 2021.

[19] A. H. Kishan and P. Kondalarao, “Transient structural analysis of electric bus

chassis frame,” in IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering,
vol. 1185, p. 012038, IOP Publishing, 2021.

[20] S. Widyanto, O. Kurdi, G. Haryadi, I. Haryanto, and M. Rokhim, “Stress anal-

ysis of electric bus chassis using finite element method,” in Journal of Physics:
Conference Series, vol. 1321, p. 022014, IOP Publishing, 2019.

[21] R. Diary Ali, “Design and development of a chassis concept for an autonomous
airport shuttle,” 2020.

[22] W. B. Riley and A. R. George, “Design, analysis and testing of a formula sae car
chassis,” tech. rep., SAE Technical Paper, 2002.

76
[23] T. M. Corporation., “Overview: Profile: Company.”

[24] “Tmc hiace quality built for the world.”

[25] Z. Wang, T. W. Ching, S. Huang, H. Wang, and T. Xu, “Challenges faced by electric
vehicle motors and their solutions,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 5228–5249, 2020.

[26] X. Hu, C. Zou, C. Zhang, and Y. Li, “Technological developments in batteries: a

survey of principal roles, types, and management needs,” IEEE Power and Energy
Magazine, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 20–31, 2017.

[27] B. Coovert, Research and Development of Electric Micro-Bus Vehicle Chassis.

PhD thesis, Purdue University Graduate School, 2023.

[28] M. F. Ashby and D. Cebon, “Materials selection in mechanical design,” MRS Bull,
vol. 30, no. 12, p. 995, 2005.

[29] W. when how, “Chassis frame design (automobile).”

[30] L. e media, “Welcome to sajha yatayat: Public transportation in nepal.”

[31] Btiernay, “Grade guide: A36 steel,” Mar 2021.

[32] R. G. O. Nandan, S. Shashank, and D. Irwin, “A journal on “design and optimiza-

tion of vehicle chassis for harsh road conditions”,” 2022.

[33] W. when how, “Chassis frame sections (automobile).”

[34] A. Sharma, P. Kumar, A. Jabbar, and M. M. Khan, “Structural analysis of a heavy

vehicle chassis made of different alloys by different cross sections,” International
Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 1778–
1785, 2014.

[35] P. Baral, R. Shrestha, R. N. Shrestha, D. Banstola, and R. Prajapati, “A study of

height, weight and body mass index in nepalese,” Journal of Gandaki Medical
College-Nepal, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 88–92, 2021.

[36] L. A. Kareem, “Shear force bending moment.”

[37] “Tyre speed rating - tyre tips - finixx tyre,” Feb 2016.

77
[38] S. Bhavikatti, Design of Steel Structures (By Limit State Method As Per Is: 800
2007). IK International Pvt Ltd, 2009.

[39] J. Zhang and W. Ran, “Lightweight optimization design of a light electric com-
mercial vehicle frame,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1939,
p. 012038, IOP Publishing, 2021.

78
APPENDIX A

Figure 6.1: line sketch of chassis frame

Figure 6.2: Weldment profile RHS 120*80*8 for two long side members

79
Figure 6.3: Weldment profile RHS 80*40 /4 for middle cross-members

80
81
Figure 6.4: Three standard views of chassis frame
82
Figure 6.5: 3D view of the model
APPENDIX B

Table of design properties for rectangular steel profiles-Rectangular Hollow Sections

Profile Depth Width Wall Outer Inner Second Radius Elastic Plastic
thick- round- round- mo- of gy- sec- sec-
ness ing ing ment ration tion tion
ra- ra- of mod- mod-
dius dius area ulus ulus
h b t ro ri Iy iy Wel,y Wpl,y
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [×106 [mm] [×103 [×103
mm4 ] mm3 ] mm3 ]

RHS 50x30 / 2.6 50 30 2.6 3.9 2.6 0.1218 17.9 4.873 6.118
RHS 50x30 / 3.2 50 30 3.2 4.8 3.2 0.1421 17.6 5.683 7.246
RHS 50x30 / 4 50 30 4 6 4 0.1649 17.2 6.596 8.593
RHS 50x30 / 5 50 30 5 7.5 5 0.1871 16.7 7.486 10.03
RHS 60x40 / 2.6 60 40 2.6 3.9 2.6 0.2358 22 7.862 9.649
RHS 60x40 / 3.2 60 40 3.2 4.8 3.2 0.2782 21.8 9.275 11.52
RHS 60x40 / 4 60 40 4 6 4 0.3283 21.4 10.94 13.83
RHS 60x40 / 5 60 40 5 7.5 5 0.3809 20.9 12.7 16.39
RHS 60x40 / 6.3 60 40 6.3 9.4 6.3 0.4339 20.2 14.46 19.23
RHS 80x40 / 3.2 80 40 3.2 4.8 3.2 0.5718 28.3 14.3 18.04
RHS 80x40 / 4 80 40 4 6 4 0.682 27.9 17.05 21.82
RHS 80x40 / 5 80 40 5 7.5 5 0.8028 27.4 20.07 26.13
RHS 80x40 / 6.3 80 40 6.3 9.4 6.3 0.9328 26.7 23.32 31.08
RHS 80x40 / 8 80 40 8 12 8 1.06 25.8 26.5 36.47
RHS 90x50 / 3.2 90 50 3.2 4.8 3.2 0.8913 32.5 19.81 24.56
RHS 90x50 / 4 90 50 4 6 4 1.071 32.1 23.8 29.85
RHS 90x50 / 5 90 50 5 7.5 5 1.273 31.6 28.28 35.99
RHS 90x50 / 6.3 90 50 6.3 9.4 6.3 1.499 31 33.3 43.22
RHS 90x50 / 8 90 50 8 12 8 1.736 30.1 38.57 51.41

83
RHS 100x50 / 3.2 100 50 3.2 4.8 3.2 1.159 35.7 23.17 28.94
RHS 100x50 / 4 100 50 4 6 4 1.396 35.3 27.92 35.24
RHS 100x50 / 5 100 50 5 7.5 5 1.665 34.8 33.3 42.61
RHS 100x50 / 6.3 100 50 6.3 9.4 6.3 1.971 34.2 39.42 51.35
RHS 100x50 / 8 100 50 8 12 8 2.299 33.3 45.98 61.38
RHS 100x60 / 3.2 100 60 3.2 4.8 3.2 1.309 36.7 26.17 32.04
RHS 100x60 / 4 100 60 4 6 4 1.58 36.3 31.61 39.08
RHS 100x60 / 5 100 60 5 7.5 5 1.891 35.8 37.82 47.36
RHS 100x60 / 6.3 100 60 6.3 9.4 6.3 2.248 35.2 44.96 57.25
RHS 100x60 / 8 100 60 8 12 8 2.638 34.4 52.77 68.74
RHS 120x60 / 4 120 60 4 6 4 2.487 42.8 41.46 51.87
RHS 120x60 / 5 120 60 5 7.5 5 2.992 42.3 49.87 63.09
RHS 120x60 / 6.3 120 60 6.3 9.4 6.3 3.583 41.6 59.71 76.66
RHS 120x60 / 8 120 60 8 12 8 4.247 40.8 70.79 92.7
RHS 120x60 / 10 120 60 10 15 10 4.881 39.7 81.36 109.2
RHS 120x80 / 4 120 80 4 6 4 3.026 44.6 50.43 61.15
RHS 120x80 / 5 120 80 5 7.5 5 3.654 44.2 60.9 74.59
RHS 120x80 / 6.3 120 80 6.3 9.4 6.3 4.398 43.6 73.3 90.98
RHS 120x80 / 8 120 80 8 12 8 5.253 42.7 87.54 110.6
RHS 120x80 / 10 120 80 10 15 10 6.095 41.8 101.6 131.2
RHS 140x80 / 4 140 80 4 6 4 4.406 51.2 62.94 77.14
RHS 140x80 / 5 140 80 5 7.5 5 5.34 50.8 76.28 94.32

84