110

CHAPTER 5
FATIGUE FAILURE ANALYSIS OF A CHASSIS

5.1

INTRODUCTION
A premature failure occurs prior to the expected load cycles during

the vertical fatigue tests of a 50 to 60 ton chassis. To determine the reason of

the failure, a detailed A CAD model of the chassis was developed using Pro-E
and imported to the ANSYS in the form of IGS file format. Mechanical
properties of the chassis material were taken from the material data, to
determine fatigue strength calculation and standard data. Using these data,
stress and fatigue life analyses were performed using finite element method.
Fatigue crack initiation locations and minimum number of load cycles before
failure initiation were determined. Results provided from tests were compared
with the analyses. Design enhancement solutions were proposed to increase
the fatigue life of the chassis.
5.2

CHASSIS FATIGUE LIFE ANALYSIS

Fatigue failure analysis is to obtain stress and strain time history

about every node of the chassis, because the chassis finite element model has
a number of elements. In addition, the fatigue crack propagation of the chassis
has been determined. Consequently, the quasi-static stress analysis method
used for analyzing frame fatigue life can effectively simplify the simulation.
The load time history of mainly forced locations can be got from
ADAMS simulation. Tire reaction loads applied on the suspension mounting

111

points. Based on the static condition, structure stress influence factor

corresponding to component load of endangered nodes can be got from the
simulation.
5.2.1

Fatigue Life Prediction

Since the chassis is actually loaded with dynamic forces during the

service, fatigue analysis was also performed. An estimation of the stress life
endurance limit is S'e = 0.504Su MPa.

S-N Curves for BWI

Figure 5.1 S - N curve for fatigue and weld

Estimated S-N curves for ASTM A 572 - Gram 50, Normalized
High Strength Low-Alloy Structural Steel Plates. This represents the fatigue
strength at minimum 1 million cycles and more. Fatigue life prediction of the
chassis are 106 cycle strength, .9Su - bending, and .75Su for axial, the SN
curve of the chassis material was estimated by means of a practical method 15
specimen tested.

112

113

This data has been obtained from the simple tensile tests from the
structural laboratory. S0e stands for the stress life endurance limit of ideal
laboratory samples. To predict the true fatigue strength Se for a chassis
material, S0e has to be multiplied by several modifying factors which
represent various design, manufacturing, and environmental influences on the
fatigue strength. Se is given as
Se = S'e*(ka*kb*kc*kd*ke*kf*k6)
where,

Se -

separate Fatigue strength (ksi)

S'e -

endurance Limit (ksi)

Ka -

surface Condition factor

Kb -

size Modification factor

Kc -

load Modification factor

Kd -

temperature modification factor

Ke -

reliability factor

Kf -

miscellaneous-effects modification factor

k6 -

stress concentration and notch sensitivity factor

114

115

116

5.2.2

Fatigue Strength Calculation

Use only for pure torsional fatigue loading.

When torsion is

combined with other stressed, such as bending, kc = 1 and the combined

loading is managed using the effective von Misses stress.
Table 5.3 Fatigue Strength Calculation
e = S'e*(ka*kb*kc*kd*ke*kf*k6)
ka = aSub
Surface Finish
Ground
Machined or cold
drawn
Hot-rolled
As-forged

Su, ksi
Su, MPa
1.34
1.58
2.7
4.51
14.4
39.9

57.7
272

Size factor, kb
bending and torsion .11< d < 2 in 0.879d-0.107
2 < d < 10 in 0.91d-0.157
axial loading

Loading factor, kc
bending
axial
torsion

1
0.85
0.59

ka, ksi ka, MPa

Calculated
-0.085
0.934
0.934
-0.265
0.876
0.877
-0.718
0.682
0.683
-0.995 0.58224 0.58126

0.808
0.634 0.9 - test results
1.000 for similar material
and size of part
indicate that 0.9 is
reasonable

117

Table 5.4 Temperature Factor and Reliability Calculation

Temperature factor, kd
1

temp < 400

F
Reliability factor, ke
ke = 1-0.08*za

Reliability, %

Transformation
variate, za
0

1.000

90
95
99
99.9
99.99

1.288
1.645
2.326
3.091
3.719

0.897
0.868
0.814
0.753
0.702

99.999
99.9999

4.265
4.753

0.659
0.620

50

ke

Torsional stresses reduce the fatigue life from that observed with
completely reversed loading. The Goodman diagram, originally proposed in
1890, is a graphical representation of this effect.
Sa
SFL

Smean
Su

(5.1)

118

Figure 5.2 Goodman graphical reprementation

The alternating stress is plotted on one axis and the mean stress on
the other. The allowable alternating stress with no mean stress is the fatigue
limit. The maximum mean stress, with zero alternating stress, is the ultimate
strength. A straight line is then drawn between the two points. Any
combination of mean and alternating stress on this line will have the same
fatigue life.
The safety factor has been determine the maximum strength of the
materials ensure a safe design. A single safety factor is applied to both the
stress amplitude and the mean stress.

119

Table 5.5 Fatigue Stress Calculation

Miscellaneous-effects modification factor, kf
Residual stress
0.8
Corrosion
Electrolytic plating
0.5
Metal spraying
Cyclic frequency
Rottage corrosion

0.9
0.61

0.85
0.24

Fatigue stress concentration factor, Kf

Kf = 1 + q*(kt-1)
q
kt

0.9
k6 = 1/kf

1.84
0.543
0.84
Su = 90 ksi
2 r >.12 in
kt

1.5

kf
2.68

1.84

Estimated rotating-beam endurance limit,S'e

0.504Su, ksi or MPa Su <= 212 ksi (1460
MPa)
107, ksi
Su > 212 ksi
740, MPa
Su > 1460 Mpa

1.42

35.280
107
740

Hence R nominal was computed as 198 MPa. Kt _ Kf is found as

1.181 and ke = 0.846. The SN curve plotted regarding the modifying factors
was defined in the ANSYS_ Workbench V11.0 user interface. Stress-life
approach was used to determine the fatigue life of the chassis material.

120

Table 5.6 Emprical factor calculation

Ka=ax(Su)b
Surface Finish

Su, Psi

Su, MPa

Ground

1.34

1.58

-0.085

Machined or Cold
Drawn

2.7

4.51

-0.265

Hot Rolled

14.4

57.7

-0.718

As-Forged

39.9

27.2

-0.995

All fatigue analyses were performed according to infinite life

criteria (N = 4 million cycles). Von Misses stresses obtained from finite
element analyses are utilized in fatigue life calculations. Since the loading has
a sinusoidal fluctuating characteristic (mean stress, Rm > 0), modified

ksi (q)

Goodman approach was used.

Notch radius r (mm)

Figure 5.3 Notch sensitivity curve

121

Here, both R max corresponding to maximum 54500 kg and R min

matching a minimum 24500 kg of vertical load were obtained via FE analysis
and applied through body pad to the top of the rear rail structure. In the light
of the fatigue analysis results, it was estimated that crack initiation can occur
at the horse collar and rear rail structure region in the cycle time of 1,50,000
cycles, which is lower than the expected minimum fatigue life of 4,00,000
cycles. Here the obtained minimum value of n is 0.93. On the inner surface of
the shell, the minimum value of n was calculated as 0.767 at the region, where
the maximum stress concentration was observed. This means, at the region of
horse collar bottom and rear rail structure fatigue crack can initiate before 1.5
million load cycles, as observed in the vertical fatigue test.
5.3

FATIGUE LIFE ANALYSIS OF CHASSIS

A full scaled CAD model of chassis was prepared for the analysis

as shown in Figure 5.4. The chassis essentially consists of a bumper, front rail
structure, a horse collar, and a rear rail structure and rear axle. These parts are
welded properly two equivalent thin walled shells, which have a fabricated
box structure and casting. Box structure welded with a back up bar. Two rail
structures are connected with torque tube and horse collar assembly to
increase rigidity.
It consists of bumper which is at the front side of the truck. Front
rail structure is located at next to the bumper. Horse collar which is the
portion at the middle of the chassis, it carries engine and suspension system.
Rear torque tube structure is used to join left and right side of the rail
structure and also to withstand the load while vehicle is in torsion and
cornering cases. Body pad fitted on the chassis to sit the body and payload.
Finally, rear rail structure used to mount the rear axle and suspension of the
chassis.

122

Figure 5.4 Chassis model for Fatigue life analysis

The solid model of the chassis was composed via Pro-E Version5.
CAD model of the complete chassis was imported into ANSYS pre
processing environment to constitute the FE model required in the analyses.
The FE model used in stress and fatigue analyses is shown in Figure 5.5. To
build the finite element model, chassis was meshed using SOLID 45, tetra
element a higher order three-dimensional solid tetra element, which has a
quadratic displacement behavior and is well suited to model irregular meshes.
The element is defined by 10 nodes having three translational DOF at each
node. FE model consisted of 79,305 elements and 2, 87,354 nodes.

123

Figure 5.5 Chassis meshed Model

5.3.1

Fatigue Boundary Condition

Four different fatigue load cases have been evaluated as for the

maximum load cases. The vertical fatigue load case was found to be the most
severe and was also in the same area as before that is of interest, with loading
conditions as shown in Figure 5.6. We see that fatigue life range
perpendicular to the weld, located in the lower side of the horse collar portion.
It is in the order of 307 Mpa. For all fatigue load cases considered, this area is
the most critical.
Load applied to the FE model was chosen according to the loading
range used during the vertical fatigue test. For fatigue analysis, body weight
and payload can be applied on the top of the body pad and tire reaction load
can be applied on the suspension mounting points to Satisfy the equation of
equilibrium conditions.

124

Figure 5.6 Bending load condition

5.3.2

Total Deformation of the Chassis

Figure 5.7 shows the total deformation of the chassis and it

indicates clearly that the deformation is maximum at the rear end of the
chassis. The numerical value of the chassis is 18 mm. Colour distribution of
the plot gradually was found to be decreased from rear rail to the front,
maximum level to the minimum level throughout the chassis. gradient
distribution in the direction of axial and lateral.

125

Figure 5.7 Total deformation of bending

5.3.3

Von-misses Stress Distribution on the Chassis

Figure 5.8 shows the Von-misses stress in the behaviour which can

be obtained for the lateral and longitudinal direction in the both bending and
torsion cases. Bending stresses indicates for both front wheels and rear wheel
gets move upward direction. Stress distribution on the rear rail structure
179.3 MPa, with in the recommended value, maximum shear stress of the
chassis as shown in Figure 5.9.

Figure 5.7a S-N Curve Average Value

126

Figure 5.8 Von-misses stress of the chassis

Figure 5.9 Maximum shear stress of bending

Figure 5.10 Fatigue life of bending load

127

Maximum Fatigue life of the chassis was obtained as 31025 at the

critical region. This means, that the use of the additional plates and gusset
structure decreases stress concentration. By increasing the thickness of the
plate, it is possible to obtain enhanced rigidity.

Figure 5.11 Safety factors of the chassis

The static and fatigue analyses were composed according to this
change in the plate sized shape. However, analyses pointed out that this
increase on its own enhances the fatigue life of the chassis to a certain extent,
which is not sufficient enough to obtain the desired load cycles of 3.5 million
cycles. Therefore, plate thickness increase may be applied together with the
redesign of the chassis geometry as shown in Figure 5.10.
Safety factor of bending and torsion load is greater than 1 as shown
in Figure 5.11.
5.3.4

Fatigue Life of the Torsion Analysis

Additional stiffeners in the transition area, results in a better

distribution of the stresses. The magnitudes of the stresses are reduced. The

128

stresses are reduced and distributed more evenly and are now in the order of
31025 fatigue life. More work and innovative solutions most likely to bring in
further improvements of this critical area.

Figure 5.12a Torsion left ramp loading

Figure 5.12b Torsion right ramp loading

This Figures 5.12(a), 5.12(b) clearly shows that the torsion
deformation and torsion stress on the modified chassis got greater than the
bending. Also, it can be seen that the maximum torsion stress of the two case
studies occurs near horse collar and rear rail structure of the chassis.

129

Figure 5.13a Torsional deformation of left ramping

Figure 5.13b Torsional deformation of right ramping

Maximum Torsional deformation for both lamp and right ramp
cases. deformation on both the ramps are 13 mm at the rear suspension
mounting point on the chassis. Figures 5.13(a), 5.13(b) shows the
displacements in the X and Y direction for the both left ramp and right ramp
loading conditions. A similar behaviour can be obtained for the displacement
in the both left ramp and right ramp cases.

130

Figure 5.14a Von-misses Stress of Bending Load

Figure 5.14b Von-misses Stress of Torsion Load

Figures 5.14(a), 5.14(b) shows the Von-misses stress in the
behaviour can be obtained for the lateral and longitudinal direction in the both
bending and torsion cases. Indicates torsional stresses for both left and right
ramp conditions move cross wise up and downward directions alternatively.
Stress distribution on the rear rail structure 224.2 MPa.

131

Figure 5.15a Fatigue Life of the Chassis (Bending load)

Figure 5.15b Fatigue Life of the Chassis (Torsion load)

By means of FE analysis, Figures 5.15(a), 5.15(b) shows the fatigue
life of the chassis torsion load was observed that there are stress concentrated
regions on rear rail and horse collar portion areas; In addition to the
modifying factors mentioned, a fatigue strength modifying factor ke must be
taken into account by means of the static stress concentration factor Kt that is
related to fatigue stress concentration factor Kf. Hence ke is calculated as ke
= 1 Kf. For safety reasons, Kf can be assumed as to be equal to Kt, because of
the dimensions and shape complexity of the chassis Kt cannot be derived from
data in the standard literature. On the other hand Kt is defined as Kt r peak
R nominal stress where R peak is the peak stress and at the root of the notch
and R nominal the nominal stress which would be present. To calculate R

132

nominal, the rear rail structure was assumed as a simple box section form
which has a varying cross-section of critical region along the axis parallel to
the neutral axis. Longitudinal axis Z direction is pure bending. Nominal stress
was computed as shown in figure as R nominal M Z where M is bending
moment and Z is the section modulus of the critical cross-section. The
maximum principal stress about X - axis has been cleared in Figures 5.16(a),
5.16(b) for the both cases of ramping conditions. While the behaviour of the
maximum principal stress is approximately same for the both bending and
torsion cases.

Figure 5.16a Maximum Principal Stress of Fatigue Analysis (Bending)

Figure 5.16b Maximum Principal Stress of Fatigue Analysis (Torsion)

133

The maximum safety factor shows that above the unity value.
Difference in the displacements and stresses about the neutral axis of the
chassis, It gets higher Y-axis for the two case studies. Higher rotational
displacement is obtained when of both rear wheels gets over the ramp. The
maximum Ry is occur near horse collar for the case of both rear wheels over
the ramp, while the maximum Ry is occur near rear rail structure at the end for
the case of one rear wheel get over the ramp. The results of the displacement
an stress about the Z - axis were expressed in Figures 5.17(a) and 5.17(b).

Figure 5.17a Safety Factors of the Chassis (Bending load)

Figure 5.17b Safety Factors of the Chassis (Torsion load)

134

The maximum Rz is occur between horse collar and the end of the
rear rail structure. The results of the dynamic simulation are expressed from
Figures 5.17(a) 5.17(b). The dynamic behaviour for the torsion stress in the
case of both bending and torsion rear wheels gets on the ramp

Figure 5.18a Stress Ratio of the

Figure 5.18b Stress Ratio of the

chassis (bending)

(torsion)

In Figures 5.18(a), 5.18(b) the behaviour of the torsion stress ratio

can be compared with the behaviour of the torsion stress of the chassis and its
behaviour shows good compatibility with the behaviour of reference.
5.4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

FE analyses showed that the regions, where fatigue failure was

initiated during vertical fatigue tests, are subjected to stress concentration,

which can cause a premature failure before the predicted 4 million cycles. The
results are in agreement with the results of vertical fatigue tests. Enhancement
of the fatigue life of the chassis is dependent on the decrease of the stress
concentration. The simplest way to reduce the stress concentration and
improve the fatigue life is to increase the thickness of the chassis box
structure. However, except regions front rail structure to satisfy the fatigue

135

life criteria. Due to increase the plate thickness of front rail structure causes
slightly increase the weight of the chassis. The transition geometry may be
redesigned. Smoother transition geometry may offer an enhanced fatigue life
without any weight increase. In addition, shape of the reinforcement plate also
affects the stress concentration. As per the study of design, conclude that the
thickness of the plate were between 6mm to 25mm.
Premature fatigue failure of a truck chassis prototype was
investigated by using finite element analysis. Stress concentrated regions were
predicted at the rear rail structure of the chassis. The regions in which the
fatigue cracks originated were well-matched with the results of the analyses.
By using FE analysis the location of the failure can be predicted. Critical
regions determined are subjected to a combined steady and cyclic tensile
stress. The crack causing fracture is initiated at the stress concentrated regions
of the chassis. Although the chassis prototype satisfies the static endurance
condition for the maximum vertical load, analyses showed that premature
fatigue failure can occur prior to the predicted less than 3.5 million cycles
limit, if this load is applied in a cyclic manner. FE analyses also enable to
provide an estimation of the number of cycles before fatigue failure initiation.
To increasing the thickness of the rear rail structure plate similarly to maintain
the power to weight ratio of the total vehicle. An application including both
redesigning of the chassis area and increasing the thickness of the plate to
obtain a longer fatigue life, which can satisfy minimum design criteria.
5.5

CONCLUSION
Finite element analysis and tests can effectively solve the fatigue

life analysis of chassis. Actually, it is necessary to get some data based on

practical mine road surface so that there is some evidence to ensure the
accuracy of results. The multi body dynamic analysis provides effective load
conditions for static stress analysis and fatigue life analysis of chassis.

136

According to the comparison of simulated stress and tested stress, the validity
of finite element model is completely ensured. Based on the quasi-static stress
analysis method, the fatigue life of the whole frame is obtained areas of horse
collar and rear rail structure are mainly low fatigue life.1.03e6 cycles, which
is located at the chassis suspension joint of front and rear rail structure. The
implementation of extra high strength structural steel offers big advantages in
terms of improved pay load and reduce manufacturing cost. From FE-analysis
it is shown that most of the chassis rear rail structure, torque tube and horse
collar portion. It is recommended that modification and redesigns are made in
order to improve the fatigue performances and efficiency.