International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT)

ISSN: 2249 8958, Volume-3, Issue-2, December 2013

Innovative Design of an All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV)

Harsh Raghuvanshi, N.S. Ramnaveen, Puneet Malhotra, Rakshit, Anurag Khatri
Abstract This study aims to design of an All-Terrain Vehicle
(ATV) in accordance with the SAE BAJA 2014 rule book. A
detailed designing of components is carried out like Roll cage,
Suspensions & Braking mechanism. The main focus of our was
on Safety of driver & Stability of vehicle. Roll cage of our vehicle
is designed in such a way that in case of rolling of vehicle (mostly
occurs in high speed turns & off roading) that it will provide
double the strength to the roll cage with also considering the
Aesthetic of the cage. International standards are followed by us
where ever possible and an extensive market survey is also done.
Finite Element Analysis is carried out on roll cage & braking
mechanism for optimum safety & reliability of the vehicle. Engine
the heart of an automobile is installed in such a way that it can
perform well for an extensive time on any terrain.
Index TermsCooling duct, Ergonomics, Finite element
Analysis & Von misses stress.

I. INTRODUCTION
The objective of the study is to design a safest vehicle for
driver. The roll cage is being strictly designed in accordance
with SAE BAJA 2014 rule book. 3D Assembly of whole
vehicle & Line model of the roll cage is modelled in PTC
Creo 2.0. Finite element analysis (FEA) is carried out on line
model of roll cage in cases of front collision, rear collision,
rolling, front bump & Rear bump analysis in Ansys. FEA of
suspension arms was carried out in Catia & FEA of Braking
mechanism in Solidworks. Based on the result obtained from
above tests the design is modified accordingly.
The Centre of Gravity was tried to keep in middle of the
vehicle & closest to the ground for optimum stability. The
length of the vehicle was kept small so as to reduce weight and
maintain a desired center of gravity, while the width of the
vehicle was keep the most to maintain stability in turns.

AISI 1020
ASTM A 106 Grade B
IS 2062
A comparative study of the chosen material was done for
our use. The methodology for material selection followed by
us are as follows.
Consideration

Priority

Availability

Necessary

Carbon Content

Necessary

Strength

High

Cost

High

Weight

Necessary

On above factors these three material where compared the

final selection of the material are as follows on basis of carbon
content, tensile strength, yield strength & density.
Name

Carbon
Content

Tensile
Strength
(MPa)

Yield Strength
(MPa)

AISI 1020

0.20%

394.7

294.8

ASTM A 106
Grade B

0.30%

415

240

IS 2062

0.22%

410

240

On the above comparison ASTM A 106 Grade B was

selected. The properties of this material are
Density (x 1000 kg/m3)

7.7-8.03

Poissons ratio

0.27-0.30

Elastic Modulus (GPa)

190-210

Tensile Strength (MPa)

415

Yield Strength (MPa)

240

Elongation (%)

20

II. ROLL CAGE DESIGN & ANALYSIS

Design of a roll cage consists of numerous factors like
material selection, pipe size selection, frame design and finite
element analysis. These each steps are elaborated further.
A. Material Selection
As per the rule book constraint there should be at least
0.18% of carbon content in metal. Our initial step was to
conduct a market survey to have an idea of the availability of
the material.
Based on market survey we have chosen following material
namely:Manuscript received December 2013
Harsh Raghuvanshi, Mechanical department, Echelon Institute of
Technology, Faridabad (Haryana), India.
N.S. Ramnaveen, Mechanical department, Echelon Institute of
Technology, Faridabad (Haryana), India.
Puneet Malhotra, Mechanical department, Echelon Institute of
Technology, Faridabad (Haryana), India.
Rakshit, Mechanical department, Echelon Institute of Technology,
Faridabad (Haryana), India.
Anurag Khatri, Mechanical department, Echelon Institute of
Technology, Faridabad (Haryana), India.

Reduction in Area (%)

48

Hardness (HRB)

100

B. Pipe Size Selection

We were having a constraint in selection of size for
secondary members of the frame that the minimum wall
thickness should be 0.89 mm (0.035 in) and min outside
diameter should be 25.4 mm (25.4 in).
To select a standard pipe size we followed ASME
B36.10M which is an international standard for welded and
seamless wrought steel pipes.
Identification [Standard
(STD),
Extra-Strong
(XS), Strong (XXS)]

Outside Diameter
(mm)

Wall
Thickness
(mm)

XS

26.7 (Secondary
Member)

3.91

XS

21.3 (A-arms)

3.73

C. Frame design
The crucial objective of the frame is to provide a safe
driving environment to the driver keeping in mind the weight,

151

Design & Analysis of an All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV)

space & cost. Roll cage was designed in such a way that it
should withstand driver weight, bump loads, engine and
transmission load. It was also required to keep a minimum
clearance of 3 in between driver & roll cage members. Pedals
of brake & accelerator were installed at the extreme front
position so as to reduce the length of the roll cage from front
and give that extra length to rear which results in sustaining
the center of gravity in the middle of the vehicle. Our main
focus was also to provide a better viewing angle to the driver
so we opt for a curved front members of the roll cage. This
curved member also provide support to the roll cage in case of
rolling.
After fulfilling the all the given constraints in the rule book
a 3D model was designed.

Fig 2. Roll over analysis (Von misses stress= 97.93 MPa)

Fig 1. Modelled frame

Our design methodology in designing a roll cage were
some parameters on which certain priorities were listed. A
table representing such parameters with priority & reason is
shown
S.NO

CONSIDERATI
ON

PRIORITY

REASON

Fig 3. Front impact Analysis (Von misses stress= 42.9 MPa)

1
2

Light Weight

Necessary

A light weight
Buggy is fast
Must not deform
during rugged
driving
Majority of frame
fabrication done in
College

Meet
Requirements

Essential

Simple Frame

Essential

Attractive Design

Desired

Cost

Low

Car needs to be
within budget

Manufacturability

High

Manufacturing is
done in the College

Easier to sell an
aesthetically
pleasing vehicle

D. Analysis results
After completion of design of the roll cage we need to find
that our roll cage will perform well in field so we performed
analysis in Ansys.
Fig 4. Rear impact Analysis (Von Mises stress= 53.79 MPa)

152

International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT)

ISSN: 2249 8958, Volume-3, Issue-2, December 2013

Fig 4. Front bump Analysis (Von Mises stress= 14 MPa)

Two Kill switches are used in supporting rod of steering

column and behind the firewall
Other important safety equipments such as brake light,
Reverse light, reverse alarm and fire extinguisher
Dual Pipe Front bumper
Under Seat Member (USM)
Wide exit
Casings are done between steering and FAB (Fore/Aft
Bracing)
A minimum of 6 inch vertical distance from drivers
head to the bottom of RHO(Roll Hoop Overhead
members) and a 3inch clearance between body and
roll-cage.
Better stability due to less distance b/w roll center and
C.G
IV. ERGONOMICS
Outward bend of FBM gives large front vision to Driver
Firewall at 12 degree gives good seating posture to
Driver
SIM are made low for the ease of egress
Auto centrifugal clutch
Gear shifter on left side
Dashboard inclination
Rotor coil starter above the shoulder
Side mirrors
V. COOLING DUCT

Fig 6. Front impact Analysis (Von misses stress= 37.9 MPa)

Due to position of the Air cooled engine (Behind firewall)

there was no means of air striking the engine. We decided to
place an Air deflecting duct at side of our roll cage.

In Ansys maximum Von mises stress is calculated and is

represented by colour coding.
These stresses are evaluated to find the factor of safety &
certain remarks were given.

S.
N
O

III. SAFETY CONSIDERATION

Force
Applie
d
7000N

Factor
of
Safety
2.14

2 Rear
Impact
Analysis

7000N

3.9

No
Yielding

3 Front
Impact
Analysis

7000N

4.89

No
Yielding

4 Front
wheel
Bump
Analysis
5 Rear
wheel
Bump
Analysis

1500N

15

No
Yielding

1500N

No
Yielding

1 Roll
over
Analysis

E. Conclusion
Hence for design purposes force is taken to be 7000N.
Also, design output is for no plastic deformations. The
vehicle should remain in the elastic region.
The Safety of the driver in case of crash is taken care of
by safety equipment which includes special helmets,
foam padding on bars and seat belts.
The Design Factor of Safety, FS d is taken as 2. This
relatively high value is taken to account for the
uncertainty in the nature of forces.

TEST

Fig 7. Similar Curvatures

Curved FBM (Front Bracing Members) & RRH(Rear
Roll Hoop)
A five point racing harness

153

Result

Remark

No
Yielding

Slight
tilt
in
RHO
and
effect on
FBM
Safe and
impact
is taken
by LSM
Safe and
impact
is taken
by LSM
Bump is
taken by
FAB
Bump is
taken by
rear
bracing

Design & Analysis of an All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV)

Front Suspension

Camber
Caster

Double Wishbone Suspension

(Unequal arms)
Double Wishbone Suspension
(Unequal arms)
1-2 degree (NEGATIVE)
5 degree (POSITIVE)

Steering Axis Inclination Angle

8 degree

Scrub Radius

90 mm

Length of A-arm (Front)

14 inch

Length of A-arm (Rear)

9 inch

Roll center Height (Front)

111mm(from ground)

Roll Center Height (Rear)

240mm (from ground)

Shock Absorber

Hydraulic Remote Reservoir

Center of gravity (FROM REAR

LEFT CORNER)

X axis- 667mm
Y Axis-300mm
Z Axis-217mm

Rear Suspension

A. Design Selection

Fig 9. Suspension system

We have selected Double Wishbone suspension for the
front and rear to reduce the unsprung weight and get a
maximum camber gain during cornering.
Design Arms controls the motion of the wheels
throughout the suspension travel and controls the wheel
alignment parameters, like Caster angle camber angle,
toe, roll center height and scrub radius.

Fig 8. Cooling duct

This duct was having bigger inlet section (A1) & smaller
outlet section (A2) to accelerate the air.
Area of input section (A1) =11542.75 mm2
Area of output section (A2) =7310.11 mm2
Input velocity (max. air velocity) (V1) = 50 km/hr

Fig 10. Caster angle Determination: 5.12 degree

A1 * V1 = A2* V2,
11542.75 *50 =7310.11 * V2
V2 =78.95 km/hr
Output Velocities at different speeds
V1
(km/hr
)

A 1/ A 2

V2
(km/hr)

15

1.579

23.69

25

1.579

39.48

40

1.579

63.16

50

1.579

78.95

Sr. No

Fig 11. SAI angle Determination: 8 degree

VI. SUSPENSION
Due to functioning of vehicle in all terrains, the suspension
should be robust. The methodology followed by us is.

154

International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT)

ISSN: 2249 8958, Volume-3, Issue-2, December 2013
C. Braking layout

Fig 12. Front A-arms Analysis (Von Mises stress= 3.47*106

N/m2)

CONSIDE
RATION
Simplicity

PRIORITY

REASON

Essential

This is a main goal of the team

Light
Weight
Shock
Absorbing

Essential

To minimize the sprung

weight
Frontal impacts cause a heavy
amount of damage to the car

Side Impact

Desired

Must be able to handle uneven

impacts from all directions

Compatibili
ty with
Steering
Wheel
Alignment
Parameters

High

The suspension geometry

determines the geometry of
the steering
Reduce tire wear and ensure
that vehicle travel is straight
and true

Essential

High

Fig 13. Knuckle Analysis (Von Mises stress= 5.13* 106 N/m2)
VII. BRAKING SYSTEM
The methodology followed by us in designing of braking
system is as follows.
On the above factors we decided to install a hydraulic disc
brake for all four tires. .
A. Specification
PEDAL RATIO
PEDAL EFFORT
MASTER CYLINDER BORE
CALLIPER BORE SIZE
TIRE SIZE
ROTOR SIZE
B. Calculation
Braking torque (front)
Braking torque (rear)
Stopping distance
Frictional force (front)
Frictional force (rear)
Vertical forces

Fig 14. Braking layout

S.NO
1

: 6:1
: 75lbs
:
: 0.12
: 21
: 9.5

2
3
4
5

: 8278.76N
: 17857.83N
: 11.19M
: 31.04N
: 66.95N
: 280N

CONSIDERATION
WEIGHT OF THE
VEHICLE
COST OF THE
VECHICLE
BRAKING TORQUE
CLAMPING FORCE
THERMAL
CAPACITY
AVAILABILITY

PRIORITY
MINIMUM
MINIMUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
EASILY
AVAILABLE

D. Analysis

Fig 15. Braket (Von mises stress= 38.8 MPa)

155

Design & Analysis of an All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV)

Fig 16. Pedal (Von mises stress= 78.19 MPa)

VIII. STEERING
Consideration
Simple design

Priority
High

Light Weight

Essential

Low Steering
Ratio
Ackerman
Geometry
Less turning
radius

Essential
High
High

Reason
Easy to repair
Minimize weight to
maximize power to
weight ratio
Quick Steering
response
Reduction in tread
wear of wheel
Consumes less time
& take lesser space

On above criterion we selected Manual Rack & pinion

system.
Design Specification
Terminologies
Turning Radius
Steering Axis Inclination
Front Steering ratio
Scrub radius

There are number of forces acting on the body of the

vehicle that have to be overcome:
FRo = Rolling resistance= fmg = 38.4552 N
FCl = Climbing resistance = mg sin = 1765.609 N ( =
40 maximum)
FAe = Aerodynamics = 0.5 cA (v)2 = 403.48 N
Ftot = Total Resistance = FRo + FAe + FCl = 2017.4252 N

Approximate Values
11 Feet
8
17:1
76 mm

IX. TRANSMISSION
Engine mounting : Tranverse
Engine coupling
: Key coupling

X. CONCLUSION

Fig 17. Drive Train Specification

Gear
Ratio

Torque
(N-m)

R.P.M

Vehicle
Speed
(km/hr)

Tracti
ve
Effort(N)

4.6
2.733
1.67
1.115
8.05
(Reverse)

86.25
51.1875
31.3125
20.906

825.944
1391.702
2275.057
3407.526

12.1638
20.4959
33.5052
50.1827

2208.226
1311.9744
808.6821
535.2548

151.125

471.383

3.9671

6779.2227

The chosen design was the safest & the most reliable car for
any long terrain. All the parameters like Safety, Cost,
Reliability, Performance, Durability, aesthetics, Standard
dimensions & material were also taken in consideration on the
same time. Where ever possible finite element analysis was
done on the regularly loaded parts & modifications were done
accordingly to avoid any type of design failure. In case of
rolling front curved members and rear curved members
(Behind the drivers seat) take the side load equally not like in
other designs where only the rear curved members were made
to bear the side rolling loads.

156

International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT)

ISSN: 2249 8958, Volume-3, Issue-2, December 2013
APPENDIX

Fig18. Whole assembly of an ATV

Fig 19. Sitting arrangement of driver with optimum viewing

angle
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]

Fundamentals Of Vehicle Dynamics Thomas D. Gillespie

Race Car Vehicle Dynamics Millikan
Dr.N.K.Giri Automobile Mechanics By Printed On 2004.
Heinz Heisler Advanced Vehicle Technology 2nd Edition
Srinivasan, Automotive Mechanics Tata Mcgraw-Hill
Publications-New Delhi Year 2006
Richard Stone And Jeffrey.K.Ball Automotive Engineering
Fundamentals Sae International.
Ellis.J.R, Vehicle Dynamics, Business Books Ltd., London, 1991
Www.Carbible.Com

157