CHAPTER I

1. INTRODUCTION

Vehicle crash safety has been a strong point of interest for long time in many
countries due to the reason that safety statistics show high fatality rate of vehicle occupants
involved in road accidents. All vehicles which are going to appear on the road must go
through several serious crash investigations to approve whether they conform to the relevant
safety standards. The structural capacity of the vehicle to absorb the kinetic energy that
results from an impact and to maintain the integrity of the occupants is called the
"crashworthiness" or IAC (Impact Absorber Capacity), wherein this quality must be
maximized by means of the adequate spatial distribution of the flexibility in the structure
analyzed. Studies on crashworthiness and safety of vehicles have gained concerns at intervals
the past years with a stress on examination of coach safety (Prochowski et al. 2011, Al-
Thairy and Wang 2014). analysis on buses and coaches safety is obvious restricted. Some
rules obligatory for vital vehicles unit obligatory for rider protection Federal automobile
Safety Standards (FMVSS) 220 establishes performance needs for varsity bus change
protection within the us. In Europe, international organization Economic Commission for
Europe (UN-ECE) Regulation-66 regarding with the strength of bus construction beneath
dynamic lateral change take a look at and ECE R80 specifying the strength of seats and their
anchorages area unit enforced. However, rules and/or tips specifically organized for frontal
collision of bus structure directly involved with the protection of the driving force and crew
don't exist. However, the passengers area unit in a lot of larger risk if the driver isn't protected
throughout the course of accident. The ECE R29 regulation is obligatory to produce the
protection of the truck cabin and therefore the driver beneath frontal crash (Mirzaamiri et al.,
2012).

1.2.BUS BODY FRAME:

Bus manufacturing had its earliest origins in carriage building. Other bus
manufacturers had their origins in truck manufacturing. Historically, chassis designs were
shared between trucks and buses, but in later years specific bus chassis have been developed,
and the midibus introduced a lighter weight bus chassis than normal trucks.

Bus manufacture historically developed as chassis and body builds. Often, large bus
operators or authorities would maintain separate stocks of bus bodies, and would routinely
refurbish buses in a central works, and refurbished chassis might receive a different body.
One of the first integral type bus designs combining the body and chassis was the AEC
Routemaster.

In the 1980s, many minibuses were built by applying bus bodies to van chassis, so

called 'van derived' buses. Many of these have been replaced by purpose built designs,
although for smaller minibuses this is still an option.

In several parts of the world, the bus is still a basic chassis, front-engined bonneted vehicle;

however, where manufacturers have sought to maximise the seating capacity within legal size
constraints, the trend is towards rear- and mid-engined designs.

In the 1990s, bus manufacture underwent major change with the push toward low-
floor designs, for improved accessibility. Some smaller designs achieved this by moving
the door behind the front wheels. On most larger buses, it was achieved with
various independent front suspension arrangements, and kneeling technology, to allow an
unobstructed path into the door and between the front wheel arches. Accordingly, these
'extreme front entrance' designs cannot feature a front-mounted-engined or mid-engined
layout, and all use a rear-engined arrangement. Some designs also incorporate extendable
ramps for wheelchair access.
Further accessibility is being achieved for high-floor coaches, whereby new designs are
featuring built-in wheelchair lifts.While the overwhelming majority of bus designs have been
geared to internal combustion engine propulsion, accommodation has also been made for a
variety of alternative drivelines and fuels, as in electric, fuel cell and hybrid bus technologies.
Some bus designs have also incorporated guidance technology.

1.3. TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION

A Mercedes-Benz O405 integral bus

There are three basic types of bus manufacturer:

 Chassis manufacturer - builds the underframe for body-on-frame construction

 Body manufacturer - builds the coachwork for body-on-frame construction
 Integral manufacturer - builds entire buses, often using no underframe at all

Manufacturers may also be a combination of the above, offering chassis only or integral
buses, or offering bodywork only as used on integral buses.

The splitting of body and chassis construction allows companies to specialise in two different
fields. It also allows differing offerings of product to customers, who might prefer different
chassis/body combinations. For the manufacturers, it lessens the exposure if one or the other
goes out of business. Larger operators may also split orders between different body/chassis
combinations for shorter delivery schedules.

Sometimes, a chassis and body builder will offer an exclusive combination of one body on
one chassis, as a 'semi-integral'. This combines the expertise of the two companies, and saves
the cost of making their chassis/body usable on different products.
Often builders, such as Duple Metsec will assemble products into kits, for export and local
assembly at a partner site.

Large users of transit buses, such as public transport authorities, may order special features.
This practice was notable in the Transport for London bus specification, and predecessors.
The Association of German Transport Companies was defining a VöV-Standard-Bus concept
that was followed between 1968 and 2000

A Volvo B10M chassis, bodied worldwide as a single decker bus, articulated bus, double

decker bus, and coach

1.4.THE CHASSIS COMBINES:

 A structural underframe
 Engine and radiator
 Gearbox and transmission
 Wheels, axles, and suspension
 Dashboard, steering wheel, and driver's seat

Chassis will often be built as complete units, up to the point of being drive-able around the
factory, or on the public highway to a nearby bodybuilder. The chassis can be front-
engined, mid-engined, or rear-engined. Most chassis will mount the radiator at the front,
irrespective of engine position, for more efficient cooling.

Chassis products will often be available in different standard lengths, even produced
in articulated variants, and often be used for both bus and coach bodywork, such as the Volvo
B10M. The same chassis may even be used for single- or double-decker bus bodywork.
Chassis builders may also offer different options for gearbox and engine suppliers. Chassis
may also be built in multiple axle configuration.

BODYWORK

Interior of the Alexander ALX500 bodywork as applied to the 3-axle Volvo Super Olympian

The bus body builder will build the body onto the chassis. This will involve major
consideration of:

Usage

Seating capacity

Staircase position/design (double-decker buses)

Number and position of doors

Bodywork is built for three general uses:

Bus

Dual Purpose

Coach
Bus bodywork is usually geared to short trips, with many transit bus features. Coach
bodywork is for longer distance trips, with luggage racks and under-floor lockers. Other
facilities may include toilets and televisions.

A dual purpose design is usually a bus body with upgraded coach style seating, for longer
distance travel. Some exclusive coach body designs can also be available to a basic dual
purpose fitment.

In past double-deck designs, buses were built to a low bridge design, due to overall height
restrictions

1.5. GENERAL DESIGN ISSUES

Bus manufacturers have to have consideration for some general issues common to body,
chassis or integral builders.

 Maximum weight (laden and unladen)

 Stability - often a tilt test pass is required
 Maximum dimensions - length and width restrictions may apply
 Fuel consumption
 Emissions standards
 Accessibility

In the 1990s onwards, some bus manufacturers have moved towards making transit
bus interiors more comparable to private cars, to encourage public transport ridership. Other
additions have seen multimedia and passenger information systems, and CCTV systems.
With these developments, bus designs have been increasing in weight, which is a concern for
operators with the rising price of fuels in the 2000s (decade

1.6.bus body failures :

The collective intercity transportation in India has been one of the most popular means of
locomotion for people today, and the bus, specifically, is one of the most used transport
options in this category.

According to data provided by the latest Statistical Yearbook, from National Agency for
Land Transport (ANTT, 2007), in 2007 the number of companies that provide transport by
bus in Brazil is 197 companies and bus-type vehicles that travel on the highways are 13907.
The Statistical Yearbook also reports the number of passengers carried in the mode of long
distance transportation, with distances up to 75 miles. In 2007 the number of passengers was
61.570,406, for a total of 2.299,898 trips in that year. Table 1 shows the evolution of
accidents involving vehicles of collective transport on federal roads in Brazil, from 2007 to
2010

Statistical analysis reveals that more than 50% of interurban accidents in Spain resulted in
deaths and serious injuries. The study suggests, based on analysis of accidents, that new
structural solutions in the design of the bus should be considered to improve the protection of
passengers (Páez et al., 2011).

In this context, the manufacturers of buses must comply with current legislation to perform
the project. One of the major problems that may occur during an accident is the socalled
"domino effect" that occurs when the seats are disconnected from the bodywork due to
inadequate anchoring of same, increasing the number of victims in the event of an
accident. Figures 3a to 3c show the resulting damages in a bus due to a frontal impact in
accidents in Brazil. Figure 3d show what may happen inside the body in that kind of
situation, with the seats given off during the impact event.
the frontal area of the bus is responsible for the absorption of the impact energy, which is
concluded by observing the result of frontal impact accidents with road buses. Among the
several types of accidents involving buses, the most dangerous is the train collision, followed
by tumbling; then, the collisions with hard obstacles and heavy vehicles. The risk of injury
fatality depends on the type of the accident (ex. frontal, side and rear impact accidents). The
reduction of damages and fatalities in the development and construction of a bus is proper for
one type of accident, but it's not generally effective for all. For example, a design
modification which is very effective in tumbling may be useless in a frontal impact situation
and vice-versa. Therefore, the development of a structure that meets all requirements is a
complex task.

The seat anchoring in Brazil follows the predicted norms established by the Resolution
445/2013 of National Traffic Council (CONTRAN, 2013). The seat anchoring in the
European Community is established by Regulation 80 (1989), applied to all constructed for
the transportation of 16 passengers or more 

1.7.PLANNING OF BODIES, SELECTING CHASSIS AND VEHICLE

MODIFICATIONS: -

When designing vehicle bodies in addition to a user-friendly and maintenance friendly

design, the careful choice of materials and, in consequence, the associated corrosion
protection measures and of great importance.

In order to ensure safe operation of the vehicle, it is essential to choose the chassis carefully
in accordance with the intended use. Planning should therefore consider the following items
in particular and adapt them to the intended use wheelbase, engine, axle, maximum
permissible gross vehicle weight and position of the center of gravity [1].

Before carrying out any work on the body or modification work, the delivered vehicle must
be submitted to a check to verify whether it fulfills the necessary requirements.

Before starting work, the body builder must check whether:

 The vehicle is suitable for the planned body

 The chassis model and equipment are suitable for the operating conditions intended for
the body.
1.7.1Purpose and Requirements of Vehicle Body Structures: -

The purpose of the bus body structure is to maintain the shape of the vehicle and to
support the various loads applied to it and to carry the passengers and/or payload in a safe
and comfortable manner. The structure usually accounts for a large proportion of the
development and manufacturing cost in a new vehicle programme, and many different
structural concepts are available to the designer. It is essential that the best one is chosen to
ensure acceptable structural performance within other design constraints such as cost, volume
and method of production, product application [1].

The structural requirements of any vehicle structure can be summarized as follows:

a. The structure must be sufficiently stiff to withstand the static loads and dynamic loads
without excessive deformation
b. The structure must be sufficiently strong to withstand many cycles of the applied
loading without suffering from fatigue or other forms of material failure
c. The structure should deform in such a manner under impact load conditions so as the
minimize the risk of injury to the occupants and other road users

Assessments of the performance of a vehicle structure are related to its strength and stiffness.
A design aim is to achieve sufficient levels of these with as little mass as possible

In the event of collision, the body must be capable of transforming as much kinetic energy as
possible into deformation work while minimizing deformation of the vehicle interior [3].

Sheet steel of various grades is customarily used for the vehicle body structure. Sheet
thickness from 0.6 to 3mm with most pieces being between 0.8 and 1.0mm thick. Due to the
mechanical properties of steel with regard to stiffness, strength, economy and ductility,
alternative materials for the vehicle body structure are not yet available. High strength, low
alloy (HSLA) sheet steel is used for highly stressed structural components. The increased
strength of these components allows their thickness to be reduced.
The light weight construction a priority-Low weight construction of vehicles is a top priority
at DaimlerChrysler. Besides aluminum, magnesium, ceramics and carbon-reinforced plastics
extremely light materials now include high strength steels, said Pollman. Components made
of these new high- tech materials are up to 60% lighter than those made of conventional steel,
the use of which will decline substantially.

Developing the materials and production technologies that open up these materials for the
design of motor vehicles is one of the most important core technologies at DaimlerChrysler.
Low weight materials can increase performance, quality and driving pleasure. Moreover,
they can improve environmental soundness while reducing costs. Know-how regarding
materials and production technologies is a key competitive factor [2] [4].

The strength requirements which must be met by the seats in a collision pertain to the seat
cushion and backrest, the head restraints, the seat adjustment mechanism and the seat
anchors(pertinent regulations: FMVSS 207,202; ECE-R 17,25;RREG 74/408,78/932 and
others). One component of active safety is seating comfort. Seats must be designed such that
vehicle occupants with different body dimensions do not suffer from driving fatigue.

Strength analysis for individual parts and body areas which are subject to specific stresses
caused by factors such as restraints systems or trailer loads, detailed examinations are carried
out with the aim of providing proof of sufficient strength or of reducing unacceptable stresses
by modifying the design

1.7.2. Modern Advanced Lightweight Materials, Weight and Vehicle Performance:-

Reducing the loads (weight, rolling and air resistance and accessory loads) on the
vehicle, thus reducing the work needed to operate it; The loads on the vehicle consist of the
force needed to accelerate the vehicle, to overcome inertia; vehicle weight when climbing
slopes; the rolling resistance of the tires; aerodynamic forces; and accessory loads. In urban
stop-and-go driving, aerodynamic forces play little role, but rolling resistance and especially
inertial forces are critical. In steady highway driving, aerodynamic forces dominate, because
these forces increase with the square of velocity; aerodynamic forces at 90 km/h10 re four
times the forces at 45 km/h. Reducing inertial loads is accomplished by reducing vehicle
weight, with improved design and greater use of lightweight materials[6].
A 10% weight reduction from a total vehicle weight can improve fuel economy by 4–8%,
expending on changes in vehicle size and whether or not the engine is downsized. There are
several ways to reduce vehicle weight; including switching to high strength steels (HSS),
replacing steel by lighter materials such as Al, Mg and plastics, evolution of lighter design
concepts and forming technologies. The amount of lighter materials in vehicles has been
progressively increasing over time, although not always resulting in weight reductions and
better fuel economy if they are used to increase the size or performance of the vehicle. In
fact, the average weight of a vehicle in the USA and Japan has increased by 10–20% in the
last 10 years (JAMA, 2002; Haight, 2003), partly due to increased concern for safety and
customers‟ desire for greater comfort [7].

Steel is still the main material used in vehicles, currently averaging 70% of curb weight.
Aluminum usage has grown to roughly 100 kg per average passenger car, mainly in the
engine, drive train and chassis in the form of castings and forgings. Aluminum is twice as
strong as an equal weight of steel, allowing the designer to provide strong, yet lightweight
structures. Aluminum use in body structures is limited, but there are a few commercial
vehicles with all Al bodies (e.g., Audi‟s A2 and A8). Where more than 200 kg of Al is used
and secondary weight reductions are gained by down-sizing the engine and suspension –
more than 11–13% weight reduction can be achieved. Ford‟s P2000 concept car11 has
demonstrated that up to 300 kg of Al can be used in a 900 kg vehicle.

The use of plastics in vehicles has increased to about 8% of total vehicle weight, which
corresponds to 100-120 kg per vehicle. The growth rate of plastics content has been
decreasing in recent years however, probably due to concerns about recycling, given that
most of the plastic goes to the automobile shredder residue (ASR) at the end of vehicle life.
Fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) is now widely used in aviation, but its application to
automobiles is limited due to its high cost and long processing time. However, its weight
reduction potential is very high, maybe as much as 60%. Examples of FRP structures
manufactured using RTM (resin transfer method) technology are wheel housings or entire
floor assemblies. For a compact size car, this would make it possible to reduce the weight; of
a floor assembly (including wheel housings) by 60%, or 22 kg per car compared to a steel
floor assembly. Research examples of plastics use in the chassis are leaf or coil springs
manufactured from fiber composite plastic. Weight reduction potentials of up to 63% have
been achieved in demonstrators using glass and/or carbon fiber structures (Friedricht, 2002).

Aside from the effect of the growing use of non-steel materials, the reduction in the
average weight of steel in a car is driven by the growing shift from conventional steels to
high strength steels (HSS). There are various types of HSS, from relatively low strength
grade (around 400 MPa) such as solution-hardened and precipitation-hardened HSS to very
high strength grade (980–1400 MPa) such as TRIP steel and tempered martensitic HSS. At
present, the average usage per vehicle of HSS is 160 kg (11% of whole weight) in the USA
11 and 75 kg (7%) in Japan. In the latest Mercedes A-class vehicle, HSS comprises 67% of
body structure weight. The international ULSAB-AVC project (Ultra-Light Steel Auto Body
– Advanced Vehicle Concept) investigated intensive use of HSS, including advanced HSS,
and demonstrated that using HSS as much as possible can reduce vehicle weight by 214 kg (–
19%) and 472 kg (–32%) for small and medium passenger cars respectively. In this concept,
the total usage of HSS in body and closures structures is 280–330 kg, of which over 80% is
advanced HSS (Nippon Steel, 2002).
 CHAPTER II

2.LITRATURE REVIEW:

Prasannapriya Chinta, L. V. Venugopal Rao [1], Optimization of mechanical response of

automotive and body designs are increasingly relies on new models. Generally, in
international market for passenger’s buses design processes can rely on supercomputing
facilities. Nowadays for the passenger buses have many local producers which construct
vehicles based on local needs. In the competitive to stay these producers comply with the
same requirements and weight reduction of their international counterparts without access to
latest computation facilities. This paper proposes a new method for designing a bus body
structure is designed and modelled in 3D modelling software Pro/Engineer. The original body
is redesigned by changing the thickness and reducing the number of elements so that the total
weight of the bus is reduced. The present used material for structure is steel. It is replaced
with composite materials Spectra fiber and S 2 Glass Epoxy. The density of steel is more than
that of composite materials, so by replacing with composites, the weight of the structure is
reduced. Structural and Dynamic analysis is done on both the structures using three materials
to determine the strength of the structure. Analysis is done in Ansys. In this project, a bus
body structure is designed and modelled in 3D modelling software Pro/Engineer. The
dimensions of the body structure are taken from the journal specified in literature survey. The
original body is redesigned by changing the thickness and reducing the number of elements
so that the total weight of the bus is reduced. The present used material for structure is steel.
It is replaced with composite materials Spectra fiber and S 2 Glass Epoxy. The density of
steel is more than that of composite materials, so by replacing with composites, the weight of
the structure is reduced. Structural and Dynamics analysis is done on both the structures
using three materials to determine the strength of the structure. Analysis is done in Ansys. By
observing the analysis results, the displacement and stress values are within the limits, and
the strength of the composite materials is more. So it can be concluded that by reducing the
thickness and also using composite materials yields better results than original model and
conventional steel.

Rajesh S. Rayakar, D. S. Bhat [2] Buses are the foremost mode of road transportation. The
design of the bus bodydepends mainly leading the performance constraint under various types
of loading and operating circumstances besides those of the road conditions. In India the
majority of the buses are designed and fabricated on the basis ancient time experience. The
bus body design parameter essentially consists of shape, stability purpose and strength is
carried out at different operating circumstance such as quasi static load and braking loads.
Here we analyse two different carline, state transport utility passenger vehicle is compared
with new developed prototype carline. Applied quasi static loading & different loading
conditions using yield strength of materials 240 Mpa and 380 Mpa respectively, Test
procedures followed were as per AIS-052 (Revision 1) and AIS-031 results analysed by FE
model for strength analysis. This paper focuses on improving of the strength of bus structure.
The strength of bus structure is the most significant thing to be considered in the design
process. The bus model used in this paper for simulation was developed with the same
dimensions of a real bus, with local bus manufacturer. The strength of the bus structure is
analysed various major load cases. From case I to Case III results show that, most cases the
equivalent stresses developed and deflection and deflection occurred are seems to be similar
but when it comes to roof strength rectangular tubular section has more strength than hat
section. And the Newly developed Carline has simply geometry, fewer elements used also
reduced in weight.

Kenji KARITA, Yoichiro KOHIYAMA, Toshihiko KOBIKI, Kiyoshi OOSHIMA, Mamoru

HASHIMOTO (2003) had developed a chassis made by Aluminium. The material selected
for the frame is 6061-T6. They used the Variable section extrusion method for making the
chassis. It’s developed with the help of computer Aided Engineering. Aluminium material
gives an advantage of weight reduction. From this study authors found that the Aluminium
chassis meets the target of weight reduction, strength and rigidity. Also they concluded that
the remaining technical issues will be addressed to enable commercial adoption of the
aluminum frame.

Alireza Arab Solghar, Zeinab Arsalanloo (2013) studied and analyzed the chassis of Hyundai
Cruz Minibus. ABAQUS Software was used for modeling and simulation. Self weight of the
chassis is considered for static analysis and Acceleration, Braking and Road Roughness were
considered for dynamic analysis. It’s observed that the stresses on chassis caused by braking
were more compared withacceleration.

M. Ravichandra, S. Srinivasalu, Syed altaf Hussain (2012) studied the alternate material
forchassis. They studied and analyzed Carbon/Epoxy, Eglass/ Epoxy and S-glass/Epoxy as
chassis material in various cross sections like C, I and Box Section. TATA 2515 EX chassis
was taken for study. Pro-E and Ansys software were used for this work. Study reveals that the
Carbon/Epoxy I section chassis has superior strength, stiffness and lesser weight compared to
other materials and cross section.

Roslan Abd Rahman, Mohd Nasir Tamin, Ojo Kurdi (2008) used FEM stress analysis as a
preliminary data for fatigue life prediction. They used ABAQUS software for simulation and
analysis and also taken ASTM Low Alloy steel A710 (C) for study. Primary objective was to
find the high stressed area where the Fatigue Failure will start. It’s found that the chassis
opening area having contact with bolt experiences high stress.

N.V.Dhandapani, G Mohan kumar, K.K.Debnath (2012) have used Finite element methods to
study the effect of various stress distribution using Ansys software. To investigate the field
failure of 100Ton dumper they introduced gussets in failure area. After modification the
chassis structure was validated by linear static analysis and found that the modified chassis
was safe.

Teo Han Fui, Roslan Abd. Rahman (2007) have studied the 4.5 Ton truck chassis against
road
roughness and excitations. Vibration induced by Road Roughness and excitation by the
vibrating components mounted on chassis were studied. Chassis responses were examined by
stress distribution and displacements. Mode shape results determine the suitable mounting
locations of components like engine and suspension system
.
S.S Sane, Ghanashyam Jadhav, H. Ananadaraj (2008) analyzed the light Commercial Vehicle
chassis using FEM and simulated the failure during testing. Hyper mesh and Opti-struct
software were used for analysis and simulation. During the study they introduced local
stiffeners to reduce the magnitude of the stress. The modified chassis stress values were
reduced by 44%.
Vijaykumar V. Patel, R. I. Patel (2012) havestudied the Ladder chassis frame of Eicher E2 by
static structural analysis. For this study chassis was assumed as simply supported beam with
overhang Pro-E and Ansys software were used for this work. The study also involved the
analytical calculation of chassis. Both software analysis and analytical calculation results
were compared and found that the stress value obtained from software analysis is 10% more
and also displacement was 5.92% more.

Kutay Yilmazcoban, Yasar Kahraman (2011) have studied and optimized the thickness of a
middle tonnage truck chassis by using Finite Element technique. The main objective of this
work was to reduce the material usage through that gaining reduction in material cost. They
had analyzed three types of thickness material to chassis and compared the results by stress
and displacement. Study reveals that the 4mm thickness is safe enough to carry 15ton load.

N.K.Ingole, D.V. Bhope (2011) analyzed the Tractor Trailer made by Awachat Industries,
Wardha to reduce the manufacturing cost. Four differentmodified designs of trailer were
made in Pro-E software and analyzed using Ansys software. Comparing the results of four
different designed trailer chassis, 4th design was an optimum design based on weight. It’s
suggested that the 4th design trailer chassis was suitable for mass production and also cost
effective.

V. Veloso, H.S. Magalhaes, G.I. Bicalho, E.S. Palma (2009) studied the Failure of
longitudinal
stringer of vehicle. Failure observed at near bumpers fixation points of the vehicle suspension
during durability test. Initial Crack was created and has grown causing fracture of the
component. To overcome this problem they investigated six different types of reinforcement.
All six types of reinforcement methods were analyzed using hyper mesh software and results
were confirmed that the sixth type of reinforcement gave better results. Based on software
results laboratory test had conducted and the failure had not observed. Using the software
analysis they eliminated no of laboratory tests and achieved better results in shorter time
span. Thus eliminates the major percentage of testing costs.
Yongjie Lu, Shaopu Yang, Shaohua Li, Liqun Chen (2009) have developed virtual prototype
model of heavy duty vehicle (DFL1250A9) using multi body dynamics. The geometric
structural parameters and nonlinear characteristics of shock absorber and leaf springs were
precisely defined. The dynamic model was validated by comparing the testing data. The
study reveals that the virtual prototype vehicle model and the testing data’s were very close
and also Increase of running speed maycause damage.

PROBLEMS STATEMENT
The most of the frontal crash accidents lands up within the death of the driver, as a results of
this, the protection of every the driver and also the crew need to be ensured among the case of
frontal crash accidents. To providing the driving force safety is crucial since driver is that the
key person for keeping the control of the bus within the event of accidents so as thereto safety
of the passengers are getting to be ensured. Some accidents case figures Nowadays there is
few international regulation providing protection for the bus drivers in case of frontal
collisions. Based on the technical analysis of real bus head on impacts this paper tries to
collect the major issues which may help to develop international regulations in this subject

Scope and Objective

After studying the results and the stress pattern on the bus, benefits of Frontal Crash Analysis
using FEA analysis in
ANSYS as under:-
Critical/Weak members are strengthened to increase the strength of structure.
 Safety of the Driver/Co-Driver/Passengers.
 Time saving.
 Cost saving.
 Reduction in number testing vehicle
Design change suggestion to design team as per analysis report.
II. METHODOLGY
Crashworthiness and safety of the paratransit bus shall be assessed by either:
 Simulation by Using Explicit dynamic Analysis tool
 Numerical analysis.
Both methods are considered equivalent and either one may be selected by the bus
manufacturer for the bus approval.
The paratransit bus is considered to be crashworthy and safe if it’s residual space.
Explicit Dynamic Analysis
Explicit uses explicit time integration to solve the equations of motion. It solves short-
duration problems with complex material response yet makes it easy to set up a problem with
minimum input and effort. Explicit simply handles the retort of materials from impacts, high
pressures, and other forms of loading that result in distortion, failure and destruction.
In nonlinear implicit analysis, solution of each step requires a series of trial solutions
(iterations) to establish equilibrium within a certain tolerance. In explicit study, no iteration is
Obligatory as the nodal accelerations are resolved directly.
Chapter III
Methods and Materials:-

Different options available to carry out the study and gives reasons why a particular method was
selected at different stages of the project. The research is intended to answer the following questions;

 What are the main methods which can be implemented to reduce the weight of the buses during body
modification?

 Are there any proper rules and regulations (national standard code of practice for bus body building, design and
approval) set by the respective bodies to control the process.

 What measures should be taken to improve the bus interior structure to make the bus comfortable and safe for
occupants.

To address these research questions, the following steps are carried out during different phase of the
study:
Research Method:-

The method used when collecting, processing and analyzing the gathered information can be either
quantitative or qualitative research method.

The nature of the present study requires both quantitative and qualitative information to obtain best
results and to propose important recommendation. Both kinds of methods have also been used to
support conclusions made in this thesis. Mixing qualitative and quantitative research methods is called
triangulation method. While most researchers develop expertise in one style, the two types of methods
have different, complementary strengths and when used together can lead to a more comprehensive
understanding of a phenomenon.

Data Collection Techniques:-

Depending on the research perspective and strategy chosen, the researcher must choose methods for
collecting data. The data or information collected by the researcher can be either primary, i.e. the
researcher collects the material himself, or secondary, i.e. already documented material are being used
as a data source, which can be done in either quantitative or qualitative way. In this thesis, both the
primary and secondary data are used.
Weight Distribution Concepts:-

The gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of each
incomplete vehicle are specified on the cover of its incomplete vehicle document in conformance to
the requirements of the federal motor vehicle safety regulations [8][9]. The final stage manufacturer is
responsible to place the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating and the Gross Axle Weight Rating of each axle
on the final vehicle certification label. The regulation states that the appropriate rating “shall not be
less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the
vehicle‟s designated seating capacity” [8][9].

Unloaded vehicle weight means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids
necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.

During completion of this vehicle, Gross Vehicle Weight Rating and Gross Axle Weight Rating may
be affected in various ways, including but not limited to the following:

a. The installation of a body or equipment that exceeds the rated capacities of this Incomplete
Vehicle.
b. The addition of designated seating positions which exceeds the rated capacities of this incomplete
vehicle.
c. Alterations or substitution of any components such as axles, springs, tires, wheels, frame, steering
and brake systems that may affect the rated capacities of this incomplete vehicle.

The following formula is used to assure compliance with the regulations. Chassis curb weight and
GVW rating is located below in each vehicle section. Always verify the results by weighing the
completed vehicle on a certified scale.

Gross Vehicle Weight(GVW) = Curb Weight of Chassis Weight of added body components,
accessories or other permanently attached components + Total weight of passengers, and all load or
cargo[8].

Gross Axle Weight Rating:-

The gross vehicle weight is further restricted by the gross axle weight rating (GAWR). The maximum
GAWR for both front and rear axles is listed in each Vehicle Section. Weight distribution calculations
must be performed to ensure Gross Axle Weight Rating is not exceeded. Always verify the results by
weighing the completed vehicle on a certified scale.

Note: Although the front gross axle weight rating (FGAWR) plus the rear gross axle weight Rating
(RGAWR) may exceed the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), the total GVW may not exceed the
respective maximum Gross Vehicle Weight Rating.

The variation in the Gross Axle Weight Ratings allows the second stage manufacturer some
flexibility in the design of the weight distribution of the attached unit [9].
Weighing the Vehicle:-

Front and rear Gross Axle Weight Ratings and total Gross Vehicle Weight Rating should be verified
by weighing a completed loaded vehicle. Weigh the front and rear of the vehicle separately and
combine the weights for the total Gross Vehicle Weight Rating [9]. All three weights must be less
than the respective maximum shown in figure 1[8].

Center of Gravity:-

The design of the truck body should be such that the center of gravity of the added load does not
exceed the guidelines as listed in each Vehicle Section. If the body is mounted in such a way that, the
center of gravity height exceeds the maximum height of the center of gravity designated for each
model, the directional stability at braking and roll stability at cornering will be adversely affected. A
vertical and/or horizontal center of gravity calculation must be performed if a question in stability
arises to ensure the designed maximum height of the center of gravity is not violated [9].

Weight Distribution:-

A truck as a commercial vehicle has but one purpose. That purpose is to haul some commodity from
one place to another. A short distance or a long distance, the weight to be hauled, more than any other
factor, determines the size of the truck. A small weight requires only a small truck; a large weight
requires a large truck. A simple principle, but it can easily be misapplied. In any case, selecting the
right size truck for the load to be hauled will ensure that the jobwill be done and that it will be able to
be done with some degree of reliability and within the legal limitations of total gross weight and axle
gross weights [9].

Not only must a truck be selected that will handle the total load, but the weight must also be properly
distributed between the axles. This is of extreme importance from both a functional and economic
aspect. If a truck consistently hauls less than its capacity, the owner is not realizing full return on his
investment and his operating costs will be higher than they should be. If the truck is improperly
loaded or overloaded, profits will be reduced due to increased maintenance costs and potential fines
resulting from overloading beyond legal limitations.

Careful consideration must be given to distribution of the load weight in order to determine how
much of the total, including chassis, cab, body and payload, will be carried on the front axle and how
much will be carried on the rear axle, on the trailer axles and the total.

Moving a load a few inches forward or backward on the chassis can mean the difference between
acceptable weight distribution for the truck or an application that will not do the job satisfactorily [8].

Every truck has a specific capacity and should be loaded so that the load distribution is kept within
gross axle weight ratings and the truck‟s gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight
rating (GCWR).

Improper weight distribution will cause problems in many areas like Excessive front end wear and
failure, if center of payload is nearer to front end suspension, rapid tire wear when the weight on a tire
exceeds its rating capacity, rough and erratic ride if the center of the payload is directly over or
slightly behind the rear axle, the lack of sufficient weight on the front axle will create a bobbing
effect, very rough ride, and erratic steering, hard steering when loads beyond the capacity of the front
axle are imposed upon it, unsafe operating and conditions, high maintenance costs when a truck is
overloaded, a dangerous situation may exist because minimum speeds cannot always be maintained,
directional control may not be precise and insufficient braking capacity can cause longer than normal
braking distance, Improper weight distribution and overloading cause excessive wear and premature
failure of parts.

In this way, maximum payloads may be carried without exceeding legal limits. If the body is too long
for a wheelbase, the center of the body and payload is placed directly over the rear axle. This places
the entire payload on the rear axles, resulting in overloading the rear tires, rear axle springs and wheel
bearings and potentially exceeding the rear axle legal weight limit. The front axle is then carrying no
part of the payload and is easily lifted off the ground when going over rough terrain, creating a very
rough ride and temporary loss of steering control. If the body is too short for the wheelbase used,
frame stress may be increased and may result in excessive loads on the front axle. Excessive front
axle loads increase wear on the kingpins and bushings, wheel bearings and steering gear. Excessive
front axle loads also overstress the front axle, springs, tires and wheels. All of these contribute
directly to higher maintenance costs and hard steering, both of which are undesirable. Weight
distribution analysis involves the application of basic mathematical principles to determine the proper
positioning of the payload and body weight in relation to the wheelbase of the truck chassis. It is
much less expensive to work all of this out on paper, make mistakes on paper and correct them there
than to set up the truck incorrectly and either have it fail to do the job or, much worse, fail completely.
It is important to become familiar with the dimensions of the truck, as these will be needed to perform
the necessary calculations

Glossary of Dimensions:-
BBC – Bumper to back of cab

BA – Bumper to axle
WB – Wheelbase

CA – Cab to axle
AL – Overall length
AB – Axle to back of cab
AF – Axle to end of frame
BOC – Back of cab clearance
FH – Frame height

CE – Cab to end of frame

Recommended Weight Distribution % of Gross Vehicle Weight Conventional 2 Axles:-

Figure 3 weight distribution % of gross vehicle weight by axle (Isuzu motors)

Calculation of Center of Gravity:-

In this case we have the following data to calculate the center of gravity of Isuzu NPR series

Note: The body manufacturer can provide the body length and weight, or actual measurements of
the body may be taken with a tape [5].

The following Table 1 compares the dimensions of original truck to the modified bus.
Table 1 Comparisons of the truck and the bus
No Dimensions Isuzu NPR 66L Modified NPR 66L midi bus
1 Model name NPR 66L NPR 66L
2 WB mm 3365 3365
3 FOH mm 1085 1100
4 ROH mm 1505 2300
5 OAL mm 5995 6765
6 GVW kg 6300kg > 6300kg
7 Windshield Laminated uniform and curved Not curved & two pieces
Center of Gravity for
ChassisCab Mass:-
Weight on Front Axle, Wf=1535
kg

Weight on Rear Axle, Wr = 775 kg

Total weight, W = 2310 kg

Center of gravity, D =?

W WB
D= f

D = 1535 kg  3.365 m  2.236 m

2310 kg

Therefore, the center of gravity, D of the chassis–cab mass is 2.236 meters ahead of rear axle.

Center of Gravity of Truck:-

The following original equipment manufacturer (OEM) dimensions should be considered before
calculating the center of gravity. These are:

Table 2 Original Equipment Manufacturer specification

Wheel base (WB) 3365mm
Front Overhang (FOH) 1085mm
Rear Overhang (ROH) 1505 mm
Overall length (OAL) 5995mm
Gross Vehicle Weight 6300 kg
Desired weight on front
axle 25% of GVW
 Desired weight on rear
axle 75% of GVW

Desired % of weight on front axle is 25% of W

Wf = 0.256 × 6300 kg = 1575kg

Desired % of weight on rear axle is 75% of W

Wr = 0.75×6300 kg = 4725kg

Gross Vehicle Weight, W = 6300kg

Then center of gravity, D is equal to
1575 kg  3.365
m
D=  0.84m
6300 kg

Table 3 Dimensional deviations during modification

Original truck Modified bus

Wheel base (WB) 3365mm 3365mm
Front Overhang (FOH) 1085mm 1100mm
Rear Overhang (ROH) 1505 mm 2300mm
Overall length (OAL) 5995mm 6765
Gross Vehicle Weight
(GVW) 6300 kg > 6300kg e.g.8140kg
Desired weight on front axle 25% of GVW
Desired weight on rear axle 75% of GVW

Center of Gravity of Bus with Full Passengers:-

Tare weight = 5440kg, considering the severe case from the table 1

Payload of passengers 25 passengers + 1 driver + 1 co-driver = 27

Payload = 27 × 100 kg per passengers = 2700 kg

 Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) = Payload + Tare weight of Bus

GVW = 2700 kg + 5440 kg = 8140 kg

During bus bodies building the following dimensions are modified.

Wf = 0.25x 8140 = 2035 kg

Wr = 0.75x8140 = 6105 kg

Thus, D 2035 3.365 = 0.84m ahead of the rear

= axle
8140

During body construction, the rear over hang was increased by lengthening the chassis by welding.
This further shifts the center of gravity to move very close to the rear axle.

If the body is too long for a wheelbase, the center of the body and payload is placed directly over the
rear axle. This places the entire payload on the rear axles, resulting in overloading the rear tires, rear
axle springs and wheel bearings and potentially exceeding the rear axle legal weight limit ( Isuzu
motors limited 2007).

Moving a load a few inches forward or backward on the chassis can mean the difference between
acceptable weight distribution for the truck or an application that will not do the job satisfactorily
(2007 Series, Chevrolet and GMC N-Series Isuzu GM USA).

When there is the possibility that axle loads will exceed existing weight laws and regulations, careful
weight distribution is necessary to provide a correct balance between front and rear axle loads and
total load within legal limitations.
METHODOLOGY:

The following methodology is being adopted to carry out the above mentioned objectives:

1. The ansys achieved by aircraft landing gear and CAD model was designed by CATIA V5

2. Using ANSYS the overall load are computed and tried to validate with classical theory.

3. Using these equivalent properties of the composite the natural frequency computations are
done.

Fig.4.1 shows present methodology.

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO CATIA

CATIA which stands for computer aided three dimensional interactive applications is the
most powerful and widely used CAD (computer aided design) software of its kind in the
world. CATIA is owned/developed by Dassault system of France and until 2010, was
marketed worldwide by IBM.

The Following general methodologies and best practices can be followed in the modeling of
components in CATIA. The Below methodologies and Best practices followed will help in
capturing the design intent of the Feature that is to be Modeled and will make the design
robust and easy to navigate through.

Specification tree structuring

Renaming appropriate features & bodies in specification tree

Handling input data & foreign bodies

Dimensioning & constraining in sketches

Parameters and relations.

3.3.1 SPECIFICATION TREE STRUCTURING

The SPECIFICATION TREE is the place where the histories of the features modeled are
captured. So it is highly important to have an organized tree structure which gives ease for
navigation of the features when any modification takes place.

The SPECIFICATION TREE in a structured manner. The Machining Body features are
grouped under one body and base block features in another and so on with appropriate feature
operations.

It is also important in structuring the reference and construction element in the tree in an
orderly manner.

The points that would be often used (like the Global Origin Point 0, 0, 0,) can be created
under Points GEOMETRICAL SET and any reference planes defining legal limits can be
created in the planes GEOMETRICAL SET.

3.3.2 RENAMING APPROPRIATE FEATURES & BODIES IN SPECIFICATION

TREE

The renaming of features within the design becomes mandatory as it will be useful for the
end users to by far identify things for modification.

For instance an end user who wants to identify the M5 holes on the model the
SPECIFICATION TREE helps easily in identifying the M5 holes in the model there by
making modifications easy.

Also renaming all the features every now and then as it is created will easy things at the end.

“Base Block Sketch” and “Base Block” is which will be useful in identifying them at a later
stage.

Renaming the Bodies also helps in navigation.

3.3.3 HANDLING INPUT DATA AND FOREIGN BODIES

Any external data that are to be handled in the model can be grouped under a
GEOMETRICAL SET called input data which can be used in the model when situation
demands.

Some foreign elements like planes, points, curves and surfaces that would be used in the
modeling process.

By grouping the foreign elements in a separate GEOMETRICAL SET it is easy to identify

them in the SPECIFICATION TREE.

3.3.4 DIMENSIONING AND CONSTRAINING IN SKETCHES

Planes should be intersected in the sketches and made as construction elements and should be
used as dimension reference for geometries, this helps in identifying the dimension line
clearly in a complex sketch.

Equivalent dimension should be used wherever possible to minimize modification time in the
sketches.

Usage of sketch analysis command is mandatory at the end of every sketch build which helps
in diagnosing the sketch thereby identifying abnormalities.

Robust design Intent can be Achieved with the Integration of Parameters and Relations
Front view of bus body frame

Side view of bus body frame

 CHAPTER IV
4.FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS;

4.1. INTRODUCTION OF FEA

(FEA) Overview FEA is a method for simulating component interaction within a

given operating environment. FEA enables the designer to view several different design
variations without doing extensive testing in the preliminary design stages. FEA can also be
used to prevent overdesigning a part to ensure a “good” safety factor, and to reduce the
number of design iterations to reach an optimum profile. Types of Analysis FEA allows the
user to attempt many different design alternatives based on various loading conditions,
including extended time of load, hightemperature and high moisture conditions. With these
analyses, the designer can look at part optimization and examine how several part variations
can make dramatic differences in part performance. Some of the forms of analysis are: •
Stress Analysis - used to calculate relative stress levels in components under static or
dynamic loads, thermally applied stress, etc. • Deflection Analysis - used to examine how a
component will deform under various loading conditions.

• Heat Transfer Analysis - used to show how the temperature will vary within a component
for different boundary conditions and how a component will deform when there is a thermal
differential across the component’s surfaces.

Procedure The designer must provide the following input to the engineer performing the
FEA: 1. A wireframe model that represents the component(s) being analyzed. The model
should have enough detail to accurately portray the critical areas of the component without
attempting to model everything. 2. The physical properties of the material used in the design
of the component. 3. The application of loads and restraints simulating the proposed
operating conditions to be experienced by the component.

INTERPRETATION OF FEA RESULTS :

Once the designer has properly input the parameters of the component(s) and the
analysis has been run, it is necessary to interpret the results. In general terms, the results from
an FEA analysis can be very accurate. It is the responsibility of the design engineer, however,
to realize that FEA is simply a tool to aid in design
IMPORTING GEOMETRY:

MESHING & contact

Before meshing the bimetallic bearing having two metal which want to make contact
between two material in this project we gave Aluminum A314 and A419
Object Name Mesh
State Solved
Display
Display Style Body Color
Defaults
Physics Preference Mechanical
Relevance 0
Sizing
Use Advanced Size Function Off
Relevance Center Fine
Element Size 3.0 mm
Initial Size Seed Active Assembly
Smoothing Medium
 Transition Fast
Span Angle Center Fine
Minimum Edge Length 1.503e-002 mm
Inflation
Use Automatic Inflation None
Inflation Option Smooth Transition
Transition Ratio 0.272
Maximum Layers 5
Growth Rate 1.2
Inflation Algorithm Pre
View Advanced Options No
Patch Conforming Options
Triangle Surface Mesher Program Controlled
Patch Independent Options
Topology Checking No
Defeaturing
Pinch Tolerance Please Define
Generate Pinch on Refresh No
Automatic Mesh Based Defeaturing On
Defeaturing Tolerance Default
Statistics
Nodes 467750
Elements 221898
4.2. DIRECT IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.2.1. Base material Aluminium

Density 2.77e-006 kg mm^-3

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 2.3e-005 C^-1
Specific Heat 8.75e+005 mJ kg^-1 C^-1
Poisson's
Young's Modulus MPa Bulk Modulus MPa Shear Modulus MPa
Ratio
71000 0.33 69608 26692

Model (A4) > Static Structural (A5) > Loads

Fixed
Object Name Force
Support
State Fully Defined
Scope
Scoping Method Geometry Selection
Geometry 11 Faces 22 Faces
Definition
Type Fixed Support Force
Suppressed No
Define By   Vector
Magnitude   500. N (ramped)
Direction   Defined
Total Deformation:

Equivalent strain :
Equivalent Stress :
4.2.2. Epoxy Carbon

Epoxy Carbon UD (230 GPa) Prepreg > Constants

Density 1.49e-006 kg mm^-3

TABLE 16
Epoxy Carbon UD (230 GPa) Prepreg > Orthotropic Elasticity
Young's Young's Young's
Shear Shear Shear
Modulus Modulu Modulu Poisson' Poisson' Poisson'
Temperatur Modulu Modulu Modulu
X sY s Z s Ratio s Ratio s Ratio
eC s XY s YZ s XZ
direction directio directio XY YZ XZ
MPa MPa MPa
MPa n MPa n MPa
1.21e+00
8600 8600 0.27 0.4 0.27 4700 3100 4700
5

Total deformation :

Equivalent strain :
Equivalent stress:

4.2.3.SPECTRAN FIBER :
Density 9.7e-010 kg mm^-3
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 1.2e-005 C^-1
 Specific Heat 4.34e+005 mJ kg^-1 C^-1
Thermal Conductivity 6.05e-002 W mm^-1 C^-1
Resistivity 1.7e-004 ohm mm
Modulus MPa Poisson's Ratio Bulk Modulus MPa Shear Modulus MPa
1.16e+005 0.28 87879 45313

EQUIVALENT STRAIN
Equivalent stress

4.3. SIDE_IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.3.1.Result of Aluminum material
Boundary condition
Total deformation

Equivalent strain
Equivalent stress

4.3.2.CARBON FIBER :
Total deformation
Equivalent strain
Equivalent stress:
4.3.3. Spectron Fiber :

Total deformation

Equivalent Strain :
Stress
 CHAPTER V

5.CONCLUSION:
The model analysis, the linear static analysis and the impact analysis has been done for the
existing and the proposed systems and the results are tabulated.

Direct impact analysis

Material Total Strain Stress(MPa)

Deformation(mm)
Aluminium 8.55 0.0016 100.2
Carbon_ Epoxy 43.603 0.0016 152.32
spectra fiber 5.2216 0.00099 99.95

Side impact analysis

Material Total Strain Stress(MPa)

Deformation(mm)
Aluminium 0.2716 0.0001 12.582
Carbon_ Epoxy 1.667 0.0014 11.303
spectra fiber 0.1632 0.00017 12.451
According to the result, we concur that the material Spectra fiber has the capacity to
withstand higher load capacity and it gives minimum deformation when subjected to
acceleration and impact, which increases the factor of safety of the bus model. In modern
times, though Spectra fiber costs higher compared to Structural Steel and Aluminium Alloy
6061, it is better to opt for Spectra fiber due to its load withstanding capacity and its factor of
safety.

REFERENCE
[1] Rajesh. S. Rayakar, D.D. Bhat, “Determination of Strength Analysis of Bus Body Carline
through FEA”, at International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering
Technology, Vol.2 Issue VII, July 2014
[2] Prasanna Priya. Chinta, L.V. Venugopal Rao, “A new Design and Analysis of Bus Body
Structure” at IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, Volume 11, Issue 5 Ver.1,
Sep-Oct 2014
[3] Guruprasad T, Satish Babu, Maruthi B H, Pramod K N, Manjunatha H G, “Bus Body
Structural Strength Analysis Through FEA”, at International Journal for Technological
Research in Engineering, Volume 2, Issue 11, July 2015.
[4] Li Zhaokai, Shen Fulin, Xiao Yuan, Xie Xuliang, Wang Gaoqing and Zhou Wenguang,
"Finite element analysis of body framework for large size bus," 2011 International
Conference on Electric Information and Control Engineering, Wuhan, 2011, pp. 5039-5042.
[5] Madhav G. Badami, Murtaza Haider, “An analysis of Public Bus Transit Performance in
Indian Cities”, in Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice, December 2007.
[6] G.J. Dunlop, “The Industrial Field Bus”, at IEE Colloquium on Buses for Instruments:
VXI and Beyond, August 2002.
[7] Wen-Ku Shi, Zhi-Yong Che, Fu-Xiang Guo, Zhi-hong Shen, “Finite Element Modal
Analysis for a light bus”, at Asia-Pacific Conference on Computational Intelligence and
Industrial Applications, February 2010.
[8] Liu Donpo, Mo Xuhui, “Bus Frame Dynamic and Durability Analysis of using Virtual
Proving Ground”, at International Conference on Consumer Electronics, Communications
and Networks, May 2011.
[9] Zhang Xingwang, Tao Zhen, “A Study on Shape Optimization of Bus Body Structure
based on Stiffness sensitivity analysis”, at IEEE 10th International Conference on Computer-
Aided Industrial Design & Conceptual Design, January 2010.
[10] Li Zhaokai, Shen Fulin, Xiao Yuan, Xie Xuliang, Wang Gaoqing, Zhou Wenguang,
“Finite Element Analysis of Body Framework for Large Size Bus”, at International
Conference on Electric Information and Control Engineering, May 2011