Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Saturday, September 08, 2018

Computational Analysis and Optimization of 2014-01-0355

Torsional Stiffness of a Formula-SAE Chassis Published 04/01/2014

Atishay Jain
Mahindra 2 Wheelers, Ltd.

CITATION: Jain, A., "Computational Analysis and Optimization of Torsional Stiffness of a Formula-SAE Chassis," SAE
Technical Paper 2014-01-0355, 2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-0355.

Copyright © 2014 SAE International

Abstract It is imperative for a chassis designer to balance different

aspects of the vehicle while adhering to design governing
One of the key aspects of designing a race car chassis is
constraints such as, center of gravity, engine orientation,
Torsion Stiffness (Roll stiffness). Designers strive to develop a
exhaust manifold clearance, intake manifold clearance,
chassis design with a high value of roll stiffness to counter the
suspension component mounting, drive train, driver safety and
forces applied by the suspension during cornering while keeping
many more.
the weight as low as possible. CAD and static analysis
techniques are instrumental for virtual testing and validation in
Taking into consideration these prerequisite constraints, a
the initial stages of a project prior to experimental testing. This
chassis designer may come up with quite a number of
paper intends to encapsulate elementary analysis skills and their
iterations of chassis designs. Finally the question arises before
application in designing and developing tubular frame structures
the designer “which design is the best?” There are a number of
for amateur racing vehicles and simultaneously focusing on
parameters against which a chassis can be evaluated, few
reducing the time for the design and development process.
being, weight, manufacturability, torsional stiffness, and
torsional stiffness to weight ratio. Experimental evaluation of
The objective of this paper is to calculate, analyze and optimize
the mentioned parameters can be a costly and a time
the torsion stiffness of a Formula SAE/ Formula Student
consuming scenario, especially for student design team, where
chassis using an analysis model developed and optimized for
the budget and time constraints are always stringent and
quicker design iterations and to compare different design
experimental analysis will require life size prototypes,
proposals based on certain key parameters in the nascent
manufacturing these prototypes will be detrimental to the team
stage of project development.
budget. Further, the experimental setup required for such
evaluations is never a standard one.
This paper extensively uses Finite Element Model (FEM)
techniques to execute static structural analysis and modal
The challenges mentioned above hints a designer to adopt
analysis, and suggests various approaches that can be
FEA techniques to compute approximate values of the
adopted post analysis to help in deriving alterations in space
governing parameters and draw a comparison between the
frame geometry directed towards augmenting torsional
design iterations. Using various analysis results the designer
stiffness value for a particular load case and thus, optimize
can identify the scope of improvement in one design and induct
one's design.
maximum feasible mitigations in the next iteration of design
and development process.
Introduction
Torsional stiffness and weight are the two very important
Formula Student/ Formula SAE are a series of international
measurable aspects to any race car. Thus, the aim of this
student engineering competitions. Student teams from around
paper is to draw a comparison of the given design iterations
the world from different leading universities design, build, test,
and arrive at a design of which the trade-off between high
and race a small-scale formula style racing car. All cars are
torsional stiffness and low weight is balanced to achieve high
required to follow the provided rules and guidelines meant for
vehicle performance across the various competition events.
safety and uniform design evaluation.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Saturday, September 08, 2018

Load Cases of Chassis Vertical Bending

In order to ensure that the chassis performs satisfactorily for an This load case arises from supporting the weight of all
FSAE race car, it must be designed after an extensive analysis components of the race car. Among them, more dominant ones
has been performed. Thus, it becomes imperative to know are driver, engine and differential system. The frame is
about loads that the chassis must withstand during the assumed to act as a beam simply supported on four wheels
operation of the race car. In the design and analysis of the (Figure 3), which tend to produce reactions vertically upward at
chassis for FSAE application, there are generally four types of the axles. Under dynamic conditions, the magnitudes of these
static load cases. These load cases are: weights can be several times higher than those at static
conditions, due to acceleration/deceleration.

Lateral Bending
This load case (Figure 1) is developed when the race car
navigates a corner at high speeds. Lateral bending deformation
occurs mainly due to the centrifugal forces caused during
cornering and wind forces to some extent. Magnitudes of these
forces depend on the speed of the race car, the radius of the
corner and the degree of the road banking. Lateral forces act
along the length of chassis and is resisted by axles, tires and
frame members directly connected to the suspension. Stresses Figure 3. Vertical Bending in a chassis
in these members can be several time higher than those in
members of other areas of the chassis.
Longitudinal Torsion
Thought of as a torsion spring connecting the two ends where
suspension loads act. The resistance to torsional deformation
is called as torsional stiffness, expressed in Nm/degree (in SI
units). Torsional rigidity is the primary parameter for
determination of frame performance of cars.

Figure 1. Lateral bending in a chassis

Horizontal Lozenging Figure 4. Longitudinal Torsion in a chassis

When there is non-uniformity in traction, horizontal lozenging
load case is encountered (Figure 2). This deformation is
caused by forward and backward forces applied at diagonally
Torsional Stiffness
opposite wheels. Instances of such conditions may be forces Structural stiffness has a huge impact on the performance and
applied due to vertical variations in the pavement or the safety of the race car. Since the chassis functions as a structure
reaction from the road driving the car forward. These forces that houses various vehicle systems, it ensures the stability of
tend to distort the frame into a parallelogram shape. The the chassis for these systems to perform consistently. From the
magnitude of these loads changes with the operating mode of safety point of view, it ensures that the chassis is sufficiently
the car. Similar as the load case of lateral bending, this load stiff to provide the survival space needed for the driver when
case is vital for areas of the chassis which are directly accidents occur. Statistically, a chassis that has high structural
connected to the suspension. stiffness almost always has high structural strength. There are
two main classes of stiffness, namely structural torsional
stiffness and structural bending stiffness. The structural
torsional stiffness of the chassis is highly significant because it
affects the ability of the suspension to tune the race car's
handling characteristic for high performance.

It is generally thought that if torsional and vertical bending

stiffness is satisfactory, then the chassis structure is expected
to perform well. But torsional stiffness is awarded more
weightage as the total cornering traction is the function of
Figure 2. Horizontal Lozenging in a chassis lateral weight transfers.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Saturday, September 08, 2018

The structural torsional stiffness of the chassis is commonly

defined by how much it distorts when it is loaded in pure
torsion and is usually expressed in Nm/degree of rotation.

The formula for a shaft constrained at one end and an applied

torque T at the other, with Φ denoting the resultant twist of the
shaft is expressed as:

(1)
Figure 5. Chassis twist angle and vertical displacement

This simple formula relates this angle of twist to the applied

torque, where Torque Calculations
The chassis was assumed to be rotating about the symmetrical
J= polar moment of inertia, longitudinal axis. Figure 6 below shows a simplified
representation of the connection between point ‘C’ and ‘D’
G= shear modulus of the material, and which represent the points on which the two known loads (of
equal magnitude but opposite in direction) are applied. The
l= length of the shaft. torque on the chassis or around the axis of rotation is defined
by equation below:
This equation can then be rearranged to express torsional
stiffness i.e. T/ Φ
(3)

(2)

This expression displays that torsional stiffness in proportional

to both the polar moment inertia and material shear modulus,
whilst being inversely proportional to the length.

Though the steps for maximizing torsional stiffness of a chassis Figure 6. torque representation during torsion in a chassis
seem simple enough, a car designer encounters conflicting
results when she tries to pursue them. While length
specifications are governed by rules, increasingly strong
Natural Frequencies and Modes of Vibration
materials bring with them other undesirable properties such as The chassis, as with any structure, has an infinite number of
brittleness and low machinability. An increase in the third resonant frequencies. A resonant frequency, also known as
attribute, the polar moment of inertia, demands additional natural frequency, is a preferred frequency of vibration, and
material that increases the weight, which must otherwise be results when the inertial and stiffness forces cancel. The lone
minimized for better performance. Hence a chassis design is at factor controlling the amplitude of vibration in resonance is
best, a tradeoff between many factors. This finally becomes a damping. For each of the infinite natural frequencies of vibration
problem of optimization rather than maximization which can be which exist, a different shape that the chassis will deform to
solved iteratively, through computer simulation till a satisfactory during vibration also exists. The deformed shapes that chassis
result is obtained. will vibrate are also known as modes of vibration. Of the infinite
modes of vibration that exist on the frame structure, only the
The method for measuring the chassis twist angle due to the lowest frequencies are of interest. The low modes of vibration
subjected force was done by measuring the deflections at maximize the kinetic energy and minimize the strain energy
inboard wishbone mounting points. The reason for this is that while the high modes act in an opposite manner. This means
at these points the twist angle is the very deformation that is that the soft and stiff parts of the chassis will be apparent in the
being designed against. Due to the inherent symmetry of the low and high modes of vibrations respectively.
chassis, the vertical displacement of the corner nodes was use
to derive the suspension point relative twist angle, the figure 5
Chassis Design
illustrates how these displacements were used to calculate
angle of twist Φ. The chassis models used for this paper are designed in
accordance with Formula Student/FSAE guidelines 2012. The
vehicle frame is required to meet certain criteria for driver
safety and hazard prevention measures in the event of critical
circumstances during the use of vehicle. Further, a chassis has
to take in to account several other factors in addition to the
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Saturday, September 08, 2018

safety guidelines, likeability to accommodate tallest and

shortest driver, sufficient clearance for routing exhaust
manifold. Some of these criterions are discussed as follows:

95th Percentile Male Clearance

When seated normally and restrained by the Driver's Restraint
System, the helmet of a 95th percentile male (anthropometrical
data) and all of the team's drivers must:

Figure 9. Template clearance for rearward main hoop bracings used

• Be no further rearwards than the rear surface of the main

hoop if the main hoop bracing extends forwards. (Figure10).
[1]

Fig. 7. “Percy”- 95th percentile Male with helmet

Figure 10. Template clearance forward main hoop bracings used

• Be a minimum of 50.8 mm (2 inches) from the straight line

drawn from the top of the main hoop to the top of the front
hoop. (Figure 8) Intake Manifold Clearance (Vehicle Envelope)
All parts of the engine air and fuel control systems (including
the throttle or carburetor, and the complete air intake system,
including the air cleaner and any air boxes) must lie within the
surface defined by the top of the roll bar and the outside edge
of the four tires. The design of main roll hoop of the chassis
plays a crucial role in determining this envelope. [1]

Figure 8. Template clearance

• Be a minimum of 50.8 mm (2 inches) from the straight line

drawn from the top of the main hoop to the lower end of the
Figure 11. Surface envelope for rollover safety
main hoop bracing if the bracing extends rearwards. (Figure 9)
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Saturday, September 08, 2018

Cockpit Size Basic theme of FEA is to make calculations at only limited

In order to ensure that the opening giving access to the cockpit (finite) number of points and then interpolate the results for
is of adequate size, a template shown in Figure 12 will be entire domain. Any continuous object has infinite degrees of
inserted into the cockpit opening. It will be held horizontally and freedom and it is not possible to solve the problem in this
inserted vertically until it has passed below the top bar of the format. Finite element model reduces the degrees of freedom
Side Impact Structure. [1] from infinite to finite with the help of discretization i.e. meshing
(nodes and elements). All calculations are made at limited
number of points known as nodes. Entities joining nodes and
forming a specific shape such as quadrilateral or triangular, etc.
are known as elements. To get value to variable (say
displacement) anywhere between the calculation points,
interpolation function is used. [2]

While the process of solving Finite Element problems is a

science, creating the models is quite an art. There are many
types of elements possible for representing a structure and
every choice the analyst makes can affect the results. The
number, orientation and size of elements as well as loads and
boundary conditions are all critical to obtaining meaningful
values of chassis stiffness. [3]

For our analysis we re-modeled the chassis designs under

consideration as a wireframe in ANSYS Mechanical APDL
(ANSYS Release 14), in the form of axial lines, arcs and
key-points. First step was to plot the key points, following which
Figure 12. Cockpit opening template a wireframe was formed by creating line using them to
complete the geometric analogy of the frame. As mentioned
Exhaust Clearance earlier the choice of elements, and type of meshing can
It is ideal to plan for the requisite allowances between frame affected the results of the analysis. Thus, one must be
members and heating exhaust elements, which is required to extremely cautious and careful while creating the FEA model of
route the exhaust manifold to avoid any damage during a geometry as complex as a racing vehicle frame.
operation and achieve an optimal design.
After thorough analysis and study we were able to conclude
that 2-D shell elements were most ideal in terms of the level of
Minimum Material Requirements accuracy that could be achieved in the analysis. Due to the
For ensuring safety constraints in frame design SAE has the complex geometry of the frame, time involved in creating a
following minimum material requirements [1]: FEA model per iteration and number of the iterations required
to be performed in a project for refining a chassis design, it was
Table 1. Specifications for chassis members practical to use 1-D beam element for modeling the frame.

In ANSYS Release 14 we had a choice of elements BEAM189

(3 node) or BEAM188 (2 node). After researching and studying
the reports and blogs of experienced ANSYS users, we
selected BEAM189 over BEAM188 because it was noted that,
in general the former always gives better results. BEAM 188 is
preferred when you want to model stiffeners along with shell
elements (181, 43 …), the 188 provides the required
compatibility, but in our case it was redundant.

The assumption made in using beam elements is that the

welded tubes have stiffness in bending and torsion. If a truss or
link element were used, the assumption being made would be
the connections do not offer substantial resistance to bending
FEA Model or torsion. By examining various FSAE frames, we can see that
To determine the torsional stiffness of a vehicle frame under while they are usually reasonably well triangulated, if some
scrutiny before fabrication a FEA model can be constructed to bending was not being resisted, some parts of many frames
calculate the stiffness and strength. In FEA method the object would become mechanisms and deflect substantially. [3]
to be analyzed is broken into a large number of basic
elements, and creating a stiffness matrix models how these
elements interact with each other.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Saturday, September 08, 2018

In few related papers and on FSAE forums it is advocated to For the following analyses, all degrees of freedom of the rear
replicate a real roll scenario to determine roll/torsional stiffness, all rear in-board wishbone mounting points have been
i.e. model all the suspension components and apply loads at restricted and equal and opposite loads have been applied at
tire contact patches or at hub center. Initially being the first the front in board points (refer figure 14).
thought it turned out to be an extremely tedious task, as the
time involved in just creating such a complex model would take
no less than 200-300 hours, i.e. by the hands of a professional
CAE Engineer. Moreover, the validation of the FEA model and
results of this complex simulation would be another herculean
task (especially for students at undergraduate level) and still
may come out to be inaccurate and rife with uncertainties and
imperfections.

In order to make the analysis relatively simpler and practically

manageable (considering that many FSAE teams have a
majority of undergraduate student members), it was decided to
use only the chassis model for determining the torsional
stiffness, as it would be critical in reducing design iteration time
and make the analysis model more convenient and adaptable
for undergraduate students.
Figure 14. Applied Loads on meshed Beam model

Beam Section Another thing to be considered when modeling just the frame is
the problem of representing the engine and stressed skins. For
In order to have a fine mesh on critical surfaces of the beam/
the engine, the first step is to locate a node at each position
pipe for higher accuracy in using FE methodology the number
where the engine is mounted to the chassis. Since the engine
of circumferential divisions was taken 12 in the beam section
can be considered to be a member of very high stiffness, to
attributes. The space frame is constructed of pipes of different
model the physical load effects of the engine, in this analysis,
thickness as per requirements of strengths and safety;
the degrees of freedom of the engine mounts have been
similarly, meshing attributes for these pipes of different
coupled (figure 15). Coupling the degrees of freedom of the
thickness consist of separate section profiles which are applied
engine mounts could be interpreted as points on an object of
in accordance with their thickness.
very high stiffness. Alternative techniques such as replacing
the engine with a solid Aluminum block may or may not create
the same effect depending on the interaction of the aluminum
block with the engine mounts.

Figure 13. Mesh view of beam section

Boundary Conditions Figure 15. Coupling of degrees of freedom of nodes representing

Boundary conditions though take least time but are the most engine mounting points
important step in FEA. Application of boundary conditions is a
tricky subject and is based on pure engineering judgment and
common sense.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Saturday, September 08, 2018

Analysis Model Description

This nascent design (figure 16) was prepared by incorporating
Structural Analysis suggestions from judges on the evaluation of our last event's
The analysis environment is static structural linear elastic in car. The car was made more driver friendly by focusing on
ANSYS Mechanical APDL. Since the calculated value of driver seating angles, head restraint, pedal position and
torsional stiffness obtained using FE methodology will vary steering comfort. Centre of gravity was lowered by orienting the
depending on the boundary conditions and loads applied. For engine at the lowest possible position, while considering
the purpose of comparison of successive design iterations we appropriate clearances for exhaust routing and fuel tank. The
have kept identical boundary conditions throughout the triangulation of inboard suspension points was improved.
analysis. Without common boundary conditions and load cases Superficially, the chassis dimensions and suspension geometry
torsional stiffness values would vary and a comparison would was retained from the earlier design.
be absurd and meaningless.
Weight: 34.93 Kg

Chassis Iteration Case 1: CHS_1

Length: 2297 mm

Material: AISI 1020

Load: 50.325 Nm

Torsional Stiffness: 1578.654 Nm/degree

Figure 17. Von Mises stress plot for CHS _1

Analysis and Interpretation

After carefully studying the Von-Mises stress plot (figure 17)
and Deformed Shape animation, target areas can be identified
and counter measures can be taken to lower stress
concentrations and deflection values. In this analysis, high
stress concentrations were noticed at engine middle mounts
and members of the middle chassis above side impact
structure. Further, it was construed that there was an untapped
potential in the rear chassis to make it possibly more compact.
Shortening the chassis would increase the torsional stiffness
and may also lead to reduction in weight.

Figure 16. Different views of CHS_1

 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Saturday, September 08, 2018

Chassis Iteration Case 2: CHS_2 Weight: 32.18 Kg

Length: 2057 mm

Material: AISI 1020

Loads: 50.325 Nm

Torsional Stiffness: 1811.57 Nm/degree

Figure 19. CHS _2 Von Mises stress plot

Analysis and Interpretation

The effort in remodeling of the rear and decreasing the length
paid off, weight was considerably reduced and vital increase in
torsional stiffness was noted (figure 19). The success deemed
was partial, as it was difficult to accommodate the mounting of
the components for the desired suspension geometry. Further,
the manufacturing of the chassis also posed difficulty due to
the complex design of the rear, particularly modified to reduce
the length. Indications were clear on the need for a much more
simplified space-frame design.

Chassis Iteration Case 3: CHS_3

Figure 18. Different views of CHS_2

Description
Front and middle chassis design was retained and inboard
suspension mounting points remodeled to minimize the length
of rear chassis. Better triangulation and considerable
reductions in weight achieved (figure 18).

Fig. 20. Different views of CHS_3

 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Saturday, September 08, 2018

Figure 21. CHS _3 Von Mises stress plot

Analysis and Interpretation

The decision to simplify the space frame design and add new
members proved to be gratifying and spot on towards
aggrandizing torsional stiffness and easing manufacturability.
Moreover, reduction in weight was also noted. It was observed
from stress plots that the concentration of stress was reduced
and more uniformly distributed.

Fig. 20. (cont.) Different views of CHS_3

Description
Modifications were again made in the rear and the design was
simplified, this time coherent with the manufacturability of the
structure as well. In addition, in the front part of the chassis, a
new member was added to connect the inboard suspension
mounting points (figure 20). The decision to add the new
member was taken by thorough study of the deformed shape
animation. The modifications though eased the
manufacturability but added two new members and marginally
increased he length of the chassis too.

Weight: 31.53 Kg Figure 22. CHS_3 Deformed Shape

Length: 2130 mm Further, examining and comparing the values of various

recorded variables of the chassis design models (Table 2,
Material: AISI 1020 Figure 23, 24, 25), such as twisting angle (angle of deflection),
chassis weight, it can be clearly noted that chassis design
Loads: 50.325 Nm CHS_3 is a superior one.

Torsional Stiffness: 1857.24 Nm/degree

 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Saturday, September 08, 2018

Table 2. Structural Analysis Result Summary

Figure 25. Stiffness to weight ratio comparison

Modal Analysis
A beam mesh of the chassis model was used for analysis of:
mode shape and corresponding natural frequency, or modal
analysis. Following meshing and defining on the order of eight
to ten deformation plots, the study was created and run for
interpretation of results. It may be anticipated that torsion
would be listed in the first couple modes of vibration; however,
it was seen the seventh. No loads or restraints were applied;
therefore the first six modes are translation and rotation or rigid
body modes. The structure has 6 degrees of freedom,
describing 3 translational and 3 rotational rigid body modes,
with are assigned values of 0Hz. Of interest for analysis, are
the seventh, eighth and ninth modes of vibration or first,
second, and third elastic modes of vibration. Further, since for
a rigid body has first 6 natural frequencies as 0 Hz, it can be
used as a test to check if an FEA model is constructed
correctly rigid body. If the first 6 natural frequencies are 0 Hz,
then it can be correctly assumed that the FEA model has been
constructed properly as a rigid body.
Figure 23. Weight comparison
The lower elastic modes of vibration result in lower natural
frequencies. This means the first elastic mode of vibration
demonstrates the shape that the chassis is most susceptible to
deform because it has a lower natural frequency and hence,
lower stiffness. Therefore it is desired to have a chassis with a
relatively high natural frequency in the first elastic mode of
vibration. It is worth considering not only first elastic mode of
vibration, but several others because of cancellation effects
from damping that could occur from the suspension dampers
and soft engine mount damping materials.

In the conducted modal analysis of the three chassis models

CHS_1, CHS_2 and CHS_3, the results (Table 3) are coherent
with that of the Structural analysis results (Table 2), and it can
be again said that CHS_3 is a better design.
Figure 24. Torsional Stiffness comparison
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Saturday, September 08, 2018

Table 3. Natural Frequencies of Vibration vibration. Further, a parallel of torsional stiffness was drawn
with other design governing parameters, namely,
manufacturability and weight.

In modal analyses, concepts of natural frequencies of vibration

and natural frequencies of a rigid body were discussed. Further
discussion was made on the use of modal analyses for testing
the correctness of an FEA model of a rigid body and study of
elastic modes of vibration to identify areas susceptible to
deformation. It was concluded that a high frequency value of
first elastic mode of vibration is desirable as it is directly
proportional to torsional stiffness.

The final recalibrated chassis design, CHS_3 had maximum

value of torsional stiffness, lowest weight and highest torsional
stiffness - weight ratio. This design iteration can be used to
manufacture a prototype and validate FEA results through
experimental testing. The FEA analyses formulated in this
paper are instrumental for an FSAE team to reduce
experimental costs and project development time. Both of
which are valuable resources for any research oriented project.

References
1. FSAE rule book 2013.
2. Gokhale Nitin S, “Practical finite elemental analysis book,”
Finite To Infinite India, ISBN: 978-81-906195-0-9.
3. Riley, W. and George, A., “Design, Analysis and Testing of a
Summary Results and Conclusion Formula SAE Car Chassis,” SAE Technical Paper 2002-01-
3300, 2002, doi:10.4271/2002-01-3300.
In the structural analysis of chassis design iterations, torsional
stiffness and natural frequencies were predicted using FEA
techniques and optimized in three design iterations. Results Contact information
from modal analysis and, structural analysis and study of Mr. Atishay Jain
deformed shape animation were used to identify areas of Mobile No: +91-9673759590
potential improvements. Design improvements, coherent with [email protected]
analyses interpretations were made in Chassis design iteration [email protected]
models, and were successful in culminating a high value of
torsional stiffness and also reduced appreciable amount of
weight (3.4 Kg). Definitions/Abbreviations
CAD - Computer Aided Design
The relevance of torsional stiffness in chassis design and FEM - Finite Element Method
vehicle performance was discussed. In addition, the various
CAE - Computer aided engineering
constraints and challenges in design of an FSAE chassis were
identified. For the calculation of torsional stiffness we Von Mises stress - It is a stress widely used by designers to
formulated and discussed an FEA model and a unique set of check whether their design will withstand given load condition
boundary conditions. Study was done on the various analysis Stiffness matrix - In the finite element method for the
parameters that affect torsional stiffness such as length of the numerical solution of elliptic partial differential equations, the
chassis, stress distribution and, natural frequencies of stiffness matrix represents the system of linear equations that
must be solved in order to ascertain an approximate solution to
the differential equation.

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed SAE’s peer review process under the supervision of the session
organizer. The process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the content of the
paper.

ISSN 0148-7191

http://papers.sae.org/2014-01-0355