Search...

Log In

Analysis of Front Suspension Lower Control Arm of an

Automobile Vehicle

Sign Up

InternationalJournalofScienceandResearch(IJSR)
ISSN(Online):23197064

Figure 5:Control Arm Sections

5.2 FE Model
Figure 7: Boundary Condition for Stress and Buckling Case

Import the IGS file to Hypermesh and clean up the

geometry. In meshing trias at straight pillets are avoided and
even at the critical location such as notches, holes, slots and
sudden geometric changes. Here shell meshing is made at
control arm and reinforcement material. In shell meshing
triangular and quadrilateral elements are used. At ball joint,
front and rear bushing solid meshing are made. At ball joint
RB2 element and at front and rear bushing RB3 element are
used. While meshing 20000 elements are used in shell
meshing. Two RB3 elements and one RB2 elements are used
in front and back bushing and ball joint respectively.

For stress and buckling analysis boundary conditions at the

front and rear bushing is grounded condition [one end of the
bushing is grounded and other end connected the RBE3
element}
5.4 Original Equipment Manufacturer Constraints

Mass: 2.2 kg
Stiffness X: 3 KN/mm
Stiffness Y: 25 KN/mm
Permanent set: 1 mm
Bucking Load : 28 KN

5.3 Boundary Condition

6. Analysis
6.1 Stress Analysis

Fig 7 shows the stress distribution in forward case. The

maximum stress is 126 MPa and minimum stress in the
component is 10 MPa.

Figure 6:Boundary Condition for Stiffness

Each link has 6 degrees of freedom. 3 translation motion and

3 rotation motion, for stiffness analysis front bushing
translation motion in x, y and z direction are fixed. Whereas
in rear bush, translation motion in y and z direction are
fixed. At ball joint z direction motion is fixed. For other
analysis like stress, buckling and permanent set all six
motion in front and rear bushing are fixed and at ball joint
translation motion in z direction is fixed.

Figure 8:Stress Analysis Forward case

Fig 8 shows the stress distribution in backward loading. The

maximum stress is 365 MPa and minimum stress in the
component is 29 MPa.

Paper ID: 01101302

Volume 2 Issue 10, October 2013

www.ijsr.net

53

InternationalJournalofScienceandResearch(IJSR)
ISSN(Online):23197064

6.2 Stiffness Analysis

Stiffness boundary condition is shown in fig. 5. Stiffness is

calculated for longitudinal and lateral case. 1000 N Load is
applied in ball joint for both longitudinal and lateral case. In
Hyperview magnitude of displacement is noted. Stiffness is
calculated by
X-stiffness= x-load/x-displacement
Y-stiffness= y-load/y-displacement

Figure 9:Stress Analysis Rearward case

Fig 9 shows the stress distribution for inward loading. The

maximum stress is 187 MPa and minimum stress in the
component is 24 MPa.

Table 2:Shows the Stiffness Of Control Arm

EAR-rein-1.8 mm EAR-rein-2 mm
Stiffness
KN/mm
KN/mm
Longitudinal
6.9
7.1
Lateral
35.5
36.5

Initially for 1.8 mm thickness stiffness is calculated. As 1.8

mm thickness is not reach the buckling target. So,
commercially available sheet metal of thickness 2 mm was
chosen and result of analysis for both the cases are tabulated
in table 2.
6.3 Buckling Analysis

For buckling, displacement control approach is adopted to

find the buckling load. In this approach displacement is
given at the ball joint for check the load. When increasing
the displacement, load increases.

Figure 10: Stress analysis inward case

Fig 10 shows the stress distribution for outward loading. The

maximum stress is 45 MPa and minimum stress in the
component is 5 MPa.

Figure 12: Buckling analysis

Figure 11: Stress analysis outward case

The yield stress of the JSH 590B is 440MPa. By the stress

analysis results it is clear that all the stresses exerted are
within the yield stress. Maximum stress exerted in forward
case is 126MPa. In backward case is 365MPa. Maximum
stress exerted in inward case is 187MPa. Maximum stress
exerted in outward case is 45MPa. It is very clear that
material satisfies all stress condition.

Paper ID: 01101302

Figure 13: Force vs. displacement to find the buckling load

Graph is plotted for displacement vs. load. Buckling analysis

is to find the maximum buckling load. From fig 11 for 29

Volume 2 Issue 10, October 2013

www.ijsr.net

54

InternationalJournalofScienceandResearch(IJSR)
ISSN(Online):23197064

mm displacement component buckles. From the fig 42

maximum buckling loads that control arm can take is 30
KN.

7. Results and Discussion

6.4 Permanent Set Analysis

Stress analysis is made for various load cases. For forward

This is a nonlinear analysis. Force control approach is

to know the permanent displacement at the ball
top 2% 1,426 Info
Ijsrnet
Editorial
joint.
It is assumed that 25 KN is the maximum elasto plastic
load. 27 kN load is applied and sudden unloaded to know the
permanent deformation.
Uploaded
by
adopted

7.1 Stress Results

case
2650 N case
is applied.
And
forfor
backward
case 7660
N and
for outward
1700 N
and
inward 7070
N load
are
applied on the basis of OEM constrains.
Download
Table 3:Stress Analysis Results
Particular Load applied In N Maximum stress exerted In MPa

Forward
Backward
Inward
Outward

2650
7660
7070
1700

126
365
187
45

It is revealed from the numerical stress analysis data shown

in table 2 that the front suspension lower control arm will
meet the specification of OEM constraints in all the 4
different loading condition. By reference, yield stress of JSH
590B is 440 MPa. In the present analysis stresses with
respect to forward, backward, inward and outward stresses
are well within the yield stress of the material and it is also
found that stress is more in backward load condition and
least in outward loading condition.
Figure 14:Load Applied In Elasto Plastic Region

7.2 Stiffness Results

Table 4:Stiffness Analysis Result
EAR-rein- AR-rein-2
OEM
1.8 mm
mm
Constraints
3 KN/mm
KN/mm
KN/mm
3 KN/mm
Longitudinal (X-Stiffness)
6.9
7.1
Lateral (Y-Stiffness)
35.5
36.5
25 KN/mm
Stiffness

It is been found by the stiffness analysis results shown in the

Figure 15: Load Removed From Elasto Plastic Region

Load Vs Displacement is plotted to find the permanent set.

Fig 15 shows the permanent deformation in the ball joint,

table 3 that
specified
material
for front
suspension
lower
control
armthewill
satisfies
the OEM
constraints;
that
is,
stiffness in the lateral direction greater than or equal to 25
KN/mm and in longitudinal direction greater than or equal 3
KN/mm at a minimum reinforcement thickness of 1.8 mm.
But at this particular thickness, buckling load constraints are
not satisfied. Hence the material with 2 mm thickness
prepared as it satisfies non linear cases.

PDF

that is 0.8 mm.

The comparison between specified material and
commercially used materials like FB 560 and FB 590 has
shown that all the above material will meet the OEM target
for leaner analysis at 3 mm thickness. But only JSH 590B
will sustain non linear cases.
7.3 Buckling Results

The displacement Vs force plot clearly illustrates the

buckling load for the different material with regards to OEM
constraints. At 3 mm thickness JSH 590B is having the
maximum buckling load of 30 KN whereas FB 560 and FB
590 materials will buckle at fewer loads as shown in the fig
16. However FB 590 material closely approaches the target
with a buckling load of 28 KN.
Figure16: Force vs. Displacement to Check Permanent
Deformation

Volume 2 Issue 10, October 2013

www.ijsr.net

Paper ID: 01101302

55

InternationalJournalofScienceandResearch(IJSR)
ISSN(Online):23197064

manufacturing front suspension lower control arm of an

automobile vehicle as it shows better mechanical
properties as compare to the presently used materials.

References
[1]Don knowles. Automotive Suspension & Steering
System. Cengage Learning, 2006 ,
[2]Jain, K.K., R.B. Asthana. Automobile Engineering.
London: Tata McGraw-Hill,
[3]Kawasaki steel technical report No. 48 March 2003,
[4]Nastran, Hypermesh and Abaqus Manuals.

Author Profile
Figure 17: Force vs. displacement curve
Table 5:Material Composition
Material
FB560

C % Mn % Si % Remaining
0.08 1.5
0.12
Steel

FB590
JSH590B

0.1
0.2

1.6
2.3

0.15
1.20

Steel
Steel

By analyzing chemicals of 3 preferable materials it is clear

that JSH 590B stands tougher, ductile, stronger due to the
increase in percentage of silicon, manganese and carbon
respectively. And increased carbon content yields in greater
strength achievement by the material but it also increases the
material cost. Using JSH 590B can saves the material of
thickness of 1 mm compare to FB 560 and FB 590. This
reduced thickness may compensate the cost.
7.4 Permanent Set

The OEM constraints for permanent set is less than or equal

to 1 mm. JSH 590B material shows the permanent set of
0.88 mm shown in fig. 14 for 3 mm control arm. But FB 560
and FB 590 are not within this target.

8. Conclusions
From the present simulation on front suspension lower

Nithin Kumar received B. E degree in Mechanical

Engineering from Shiradi Sai Engineering College,
Bangalore in the year 2008. He obtained his Masters
Degree in the area of Machine Design in UVCE,
Bangalore in 2010. He has 03 years of teaching
experience and currently working as assistant professor in the
department of mechanical engineering, NMAMIT, Nitte
Veeresha R K received B. E degree in Mechanical
Engineering from STJIT, Ranebennur in the year
2007. He obtained his Masters Degree in the area of
Design Engineering in JNNCE, Shivamogga in
2010. He has 03 years of teaching experience and
currently working as assistant professor in the department of
mechanical engineering, NMAMIT, Nitte

control arm made up of JSH 590B material following

conclusions can be made.

JSH 590B material used in the analysis will satisfy all the

OEM specifications.

In the stress analysis the material stress for different

loading conditions, will fall well within the yield stress.

Forward 126 N, Backward65 N, Inward187 Nand
Outward45 N.

This material satisfies stiffness constraints at 2 mm

thickness of reinforcementi. E-Longitudinal (X-Stiffness)

6.9 kN/m and Lateral stiffness (Y-direction) 36. kN/m.
JSH 590B exhibits maximum buckling load of 30 KN,
which is higher than OEM constraint parameter.
Chemical composition of the material is also better, which
imparts higher ductility, toughness and strength of the
component.
It also satisfies permanent deformation parameter for the
permanent set i.e less than 1 mm.
Therefore the material JSH 590B can preferably used as
the better substitute for the manufacturer for

Volume 2 Issue 10, October 2013

www.ijsr.net

Paper ID: 01101302

Job Board

About

Press

Blog

Stories

Terms

Privacy

Academia 2015

Copyright

56

We're Hiring!

Help Center