CAREER EPISODE 3
ANALYSIS OF THE CHASSIS STRUCTURE USING THREE DIFFERENT
MATERIALS UNDER FRONTAL IMPACT LOADING
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Project Chronology: insert
University: insert
Administering Institution: insert
Location: insert
Designation: Team - Leader
Type of Project: Academic
Subject / Code: insert
Supervised By: insert
3.2 OVERVIEW
3.2.1 BACKGROUND
Cars and other vehicles are made with strong frames called chassis which act like the skeleton of
the vehicle. It holds everything together including the engine, wheels and body. It is responsible
for bearing the weight and loads during driving and plays a big role in keeping the passengers
safe during accidents. Vehicle safety has become more important over the years, and engineers
now focus on the chassis behavior when a crash happens. A strong and well-designed chassis
ensures stability, durability and safety while the vehicle is on the road. It must also handle
various forces like acceleration, braking, cornering and road bumps. The chassis takes most of
the impact during accident so it must be strong and able to absorb energy to reduce injuries. The
design and material used in a chassis are very important. It should be rigid enough to handle
loads but flexible enough to absorb shocks specially during collisions.
The project focused on analyzing the crash performance of a vehicle chassis under frontal impact
using simulation tools. The work started with a detailed study of existing literature review where
important technical information from engineering books, research papers and online sources
were collected. Three different materials were considered for comparison: aluminum alloy, cast
iron and structural steel. These materials were selected based on their mechanical strength,
ductility and weight properties. The 3D model of a space frame chassis was made in SolidWorks
as it allowed precise modeling and easy export to simulation software, ANSYS. The simulation
helped compare how each material responded in terms of strain and deformation during the
impact. This comparison was useful to determine which material is suitable for lightweight yet
strong automotive structures.
3.2.2 OBJECTIVES
To analyze under frontal impact loading of various materials: aluminum alloy, cast iron and stru.
steel in a chassis body was the primary objective. Others were:
To identify failure zones and deformation patterns for both materials.
To recommend the most suitable material based on safety, performance and weight
considerations.
3.2.3 ORGANIZATION CHART
University
Department
Project Supervisor
Team Leader Team Members
Figure 1: Organization structure
3.2.4 DUTIES
To organize a review on chassis structure & understand the influence of material
properties.
To select various materials in chassis: aluminum(alloy), cast iron and steel (structural) for
evaluating the integral performance under frontal impact.
To design a model in 3D view of chassis using SolidWorks.
To simulate the structural behavior of the model using ANSYS.
To analyze and compare simulation results for strain and deformation to determine the
most suitable material.
3.3 PERSONAL ENGINEERING ACTIVITIES
3.3.1
I initiated the work by researching a literature review to understand the structural design of
chassis and crash behavior under impact loading. I focused on a review (literature) to collect
insights of the materials that are used for the construction of chassis and how they perform under
impact loading conditions. I played a very important role in selecting the components. I mainly
focused on two core areas: 3D designing of the chassis structure in SolidWorks and analysis via
Explicit Dynamics in ANSYS. I learnt sources including peer-reviewed journals, SAE papers,
and the manuals of automotive design to gain clear concept on the safety requirements and
simulation methods that are used in modern crash testing. I explored topics on energy absorption
zones, load paths and failure modes in both unibody and body-on-frame structures. I got a
foundational knowledge to perform Explicit Dynamics in ANSYS through this research.
Likewise, I got to know the rules of modeling the chassis structure precisely using SolidWorks. I
focused mainly on geometry creation, meshing, boundary condition setup, and simulation
analysis of crash scene.
3.3.2
After reviewing the research, I moved forward with designing a chassis segment optimized for
simulation. I carefully selected material specifications, fine-tuned geometric parameters, and
chose the right tools for modeling and analysis. I compared three materials commonly used in
automotive structures: aluminum alloy, cast iron and structural steel to evaluate the performance.
I started with aluminum alloy because of its strong energy absorption and corrosion resistance
which made it ideal for lightweight structure. I included structural steel for its high tensile
strength, ductility which made it a reliable choice for stable performance. While I opted cast iron
due to its excellent compressive strength and rigidity. I created the frame geometry in
SolidWorks with accurate scaling and structural member profiles. I simplified the geometry to
retain realism ensuring computational feasibility. For the material selection process, I learnt that
mechanical properties such as stress at which permanent deformation begins, elastic modulus,
ultimate tensile strength & density.
Table 1: Mechanical Behavior of Selected Materials
Property Aluminum Structural Steel Iron (Cast)
Density (g/ cm3 ¿ 2.70 7.87 7.1
Tensile Modulus (GPa) 69 200 120
Peak Stress Capacity (MPa) 310 440 280
Yield Stress (MPa) 276 370 180
Impact Toughness (J) ~75 ~100 ~20
Hardness (Brinell HB) 95 126 220
3.3.3
After selecting the materials, I performed design calculations to estimate the forces and resulting
stress during crash scenario. I determined the magnitude of mechanical loads each material must
withstand before deformation or failure.
In this analysis, I assumed a crash velocity of 50km/hr. (13.89m/s) and a vehicle of mass 300kg
to simulate the effect during impact. Now, I calculate the kinetic energy of the vehicle just before
impact using the standard kinetic energy formula:
1 2
K.E = mv
2
Given:
m = 300 kg
v = 13.89 m/s
1
K.E = ×300 × (13.89)2 = 28,939.81 J
2
This energy is primarily absorbed by the front portion of the chassis upon impact. I assumed a
deformation length of 0.3 meters and calculate the average impact force as:
F = K.E / d
= 28939.81 / 0.3 ≈ 96,466 N
Now, I calculate the induced axial stress considering the front longitudinal members bear the
majority of the impact using:
σ=F/A
I assumed the hollow tube profile used in the chassis:
Outer diameter Do = 30 mm = 0.03 m
Wall thickness (t) = 2.5 mm = 0.0025 m
The cross-sectional area of the tube is:
A = π / 4 ( Do2−t 2 ¿
= π / 4 (0.032 −0.0252 ¿
= 2.16 × 10−4 m2
Substituting:
σ = 96,466 / 2.16 × 10−4 ≈ 446 MPa
This value represented the approximate axial stress experienced by the front members of the
chassis during impact. I guided my interpretation of simulation results and performance
evaluation in ANSYS.
3.3.4
After completing the necessary impact force calculations, I proceeded with the 3D modeling
phase of the chassis structure using SolidWorks. I started a new part file and created the layout of
a space frame chassis representative of the vehicle. I made the geometry of tubular elements
having external dimensions of 30 mm diameter with 2.5 mm thick walls. I took the overall
chassis length a 1000 mm with cross members and diagonal braces ranging between 300 mm and
60 mm in length depending on their position. I define the path of the tubular structure using 2D
line sketches and applied the sweep feature along a circular profile to generate the 3D geometry.
I applied trimming and mating features to ensure proper connectivity at each node., forming a
structurally continuous frame. Once the frame model was finalized, I made the rigid wall near
the contact of the front chassis portion to crash it under boundary conditions to simulate like it in
a real environment. I exported it in IGES format and imported it into ANSYS workbench for
simulation. I ensured the dimensions and orientations were preserved during transfer. I applied
and defined the material properties. I set the boundary conditions and generated a fine mesh to
ensure accurate results of simulation. I analyzed strain distribution and deformation under the
impact loading by refining the mesh regions.
Fig 2: Chassis Structure in 3D view
Fig 3: Meshing used on model
3.3.5
I conducted the crash simulation on chassis models made from three different materials using
ANSYS under frontal impact loading. For the aluminum alloy chassis, I observed the maximum
deformation of 32.306 mm and a maximum strain of 0.69338 mm/mm. In the case of cast iron, I
noticed a much lower deformation of 19.204 mm and strain of 0.4408 mm/mm, indicating that it
maintained its shape better under impact. Meanwhile, I noted down the structural steel chassis
had a deformation of 26.951 mm and a strain of 0.65603 mm/mm, showing a moderate response
between flexibility and stiffness. From these findings, I concluded that cast iron resisted
deformation the most and is beneficial for dimensional stability but its lower strain values
suggested that it does not absorb impact energy and prone to cracking. Also, I found aluminum
alloy absorbed the most energy but also deformed the most, which reduce structural safety.
Likewise, I got to know form simulation result that structural steel provided a good balance
between strength and flexibility, making it the most suitable choice for crash-resilient chassis
design. Therefore, considering all these factors I chose structural steel as the most suitable
material for crash-resilient chassis design, offering an optimal combination of flexibility and
strength to withstand impact without excessive deformation.
Table 2: Results Obtained under crash simulation
Materials Maximum Deformation Maximum Strain (mm/mm)
(mm)
Aluminum Alloy 32.306 0.6938
Cast Iron 19.204 0.4408
Structural Steel 26.951 0.65603
Fig 4: Def Profile – Aluminum
Fig 5: Strain Profile – Aluminum
Fig 6: Cast Iron’s Deformation
Fig 7: Cast Iron’s Strain
Fig 8: Showing Profile of deformation in Steel (Structural)
Fig 9: Showing Profile of Strain in Steel (Structural)
3.4 TECHNICAL PROBLEMS AND SOLUTION
During the project, I encountered several technical challenges mainly during the modeling and
simulation phases. One of the primary issues I faced was the frame members failed to properly
align at node junctions, resulting in open geometries and disconnected parts. I resolved this by
revisiting the 2D sketches and applying geometric constraints like collinear to ensure each tube
segment connected accurately. I then used trim and weld features to merge intersecting members
precisely. Another major challenge I faced in Explicit Dynamics while defining boundary
conditions. I initially applied the impact velocity incorrectly across the full chassis which led to
an unrealistic deformation profile with uniform displacement. Upon reviewing, I recognized that
in a real crash scenario, only the front portion experience the impact directly and based on that I
revised the setup to apply 30m/s velocity to the front nodes, thereby simulating a realistic frontal
crash condition. After all these considerations, I was confident enough to compare the selected
materials under impact loading.
3.5 CREATIVE WORKS
In the course of completing this project, I demonstrated creativity in optimizing the modeling
and simulation of the space frame chassis to reflect real world crash conditions. I used parametric
design features in SolidWorks to easily adjust frame dimensions and quickly generate alternative
design configurations without rebuilding the entire geometry. I also enhanced the design
flexibility and improved the simulation cycle time. I carefully defined contact interactions
between the chassis and rigid wall to simulate energy absorption and realistic force transmission.
Additionally, I documented each modification and ran step-by-step comparisons to evaluate
performance differences. I broaden the understanding in the relationship between design,
simulation, and real-world mechanical behavior.
3.6 TEAM MANAGEMENT
Leading the project team, I took the responsibility of managing and coordinating the team to
ensure timely completion of the chassis crash analysis with desired technical quality. I assigned
roles based on each team member’s expertise and interests keeping the work balanced and
efficient. I implemented a structured progress tracking system to monitor milestones, ensuring
adherence to timelines. I assigned clear roles and deadlines to each team member, fostering
accountability. I conducted weekly meetings to facilitate collaborative problem-solving and
alignment on objectives. I maintained open communication with the project supervisor,
integrating feedback to address technical and interpersonal challenges. I encouraged innovative
thinking and diverse perspectives during simulation analysis by creating a supportive
environment. I maintained detailed documentation of iterations, decisions, and outcomes
throughout the process. I enabled to refine methodologies efficiently and deliver a polished,
well-structured final report that met all project goals combining rigorous planning, teamwork,
and adaptability.
3.7 CODES AND ETHICS
I followed the ASTM A36 for structural steel and ASTM B209 for aluminum alloys, to validate
the material properties used during simulation. I followed ISO 16231-3 guidelines related to
structural performance analysis and ISO 9001 standards for maintaining quality management
throughout the project phases. I adhered ISO 14001 to follow the environmental management
principles. I also followed to ANSYS Fluent’s best practice guidelines like ensuring mesh
independence, and properly defining boundary conditions. Throughout the project, I upheld the
integrity of the engineering process and promoted responsible and sustainable design practices. I
maintained professional behavior and shared responsibilities equally within the team, and
respectful collaboration as guided by the university’s policy along with engineering code of
ethics.
3.8 SUMMARY
The project met all targets by demonstrating the crash behavior of a frame chassis using three
various materials: Aluminum Alloy, Cast Iron & Structural Steel under frontal impact conditions
through simulation analysis. At the beginning of the project, the literature review helped to
identify the critical factors influencing material performance in crash scenarios, focusing on
deformation and strain as key indicators. These references guided the design and material
selection criteria, ensuring a relevant and practical comparison. The 3D chassis model was
designed in SolidWorks and exported to ANSYS Explicit Dynamics for crash simulation under
controlled impact conditions. The simulation results showed clear differences in material
responses, where cast iron showed the least deformation and strain, indicating higher
dimensional stability, while aluminum alloy absorbed the most energy but deformed excessively.
Structural steel displayed a balanced performance between deformation and strain, offering both
strength and energy absorption. This made structural steel the most suitable material for crash-
resilient chassis design.
Through this project, I leveled up CAD modeling skills in SolidWorks and gave me hands on
experience with simulation analysis in ANSYS. I gained a solid and depth understanding of how
the selection of material and settings of simulation impact real-world mechanical performance.
Most importantly, I boosted problem-solving and communication skills which were very crucial
in moving the project forward and getting it across the finish line.