Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES
2006-01-1953
Optimization of a McPherson
Suspension System Using the
Design of Experiments Method
A. Eskandari and O. Mirzadeh
Sharif University of Technology
Sh. Azadi
K.N.T University of Technology
Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM
By mandate of the Engineering Meetings Board, this paper has been approved for SAE publication upon
completion of a peer review process by a minimum of three (3) industry experts under the supervision of
the session organizer.
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.
For permission and licensing requests contact:
SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax:
724-776-3036
Tel:
724-772-4028
Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM
2006-01-1953
Sh. Azadi
K.N.T University of Technology
Copyright 2006 SAE International
ABSTRACT
In this research, the handling behavior of an
intermediate class passenger car has been optimized by
altering its front suspension parameters. For this
purpose, a validated virtual model of the car, constructed
by Adams/Car software, has been used. The utilized
objective function is a combination of eight criteria
indicating handling characteristics of the car. To reduce
the amount of optimization parameters, a sensitivity
analysis has been done by implementing the Design of
Experiments method capabilities. Optimization has been
done using the Response Surface Method. The obtained
optimization results show a considerable improvement in
the system response.
INTRODUCTION
The cornering behavior of a motor vehicle is an
important performance mode often equated with
handling. Handling is a loosely used term meant to
imply the responsiveness of a vehicle to driver input, or
the ease of control. As such, handling is an overall
measure of the vehicle-driver combination. The driver
and vehicle are a closed-loop system, meaning that the
driver observes the vehicle direction or position, and
corrects his/her input to achieve the desired motion. For
the purpose of characterizing only the vehicle, openloop behavior is used. Open loop refers to vehicle
response to specific steering inputs, and is more
precisely defined as directional response behavior. [1]
In this research, our objective is to find McPherson strut
parameters of a typical vehicle front suspension system
and optimize the handling behavior of the vehicle. The
McPherson strut provides major advantages in package
space for transverse engines, and thus is used widely
for front-wheel-drive cars. Because of the separation of
the connection points on the body, it is well-suited to
vehicles with unibody constructions. The strut has the
further advantages of fewer parts and the capability to
VEHICLE MODELING
Various parts such as springs, dampers, tire stiffness,
bushing stiffness, and connections, and their geometric
relationships and suspension type, greatly influence
vehicle dynamic behavior. Due to this reason, to better
identify and study vehicle performance, it is necessary to
use a complete and precise vehicle model that includes
the aforementioned elements. So, a complete model of
the real vehicle has been constructed using ADAMS/Car
software. This model has 116 degrees of freedom for
steady state cornering.
It is very difficult to troubleshoot and evaluate a very big
computer model, so at first, the vehicle has been divided
into subsystems and constructed in the software
separately. Every subsystem has been checked using
software analysis. Now it is necessary for subsystems to
be related to each other. This task has been done by
defining communicators, which are interactions of
subsystems. On the other hand, flexible parts such as
the rear axle and the front suspension anti-roll bar have
been modeled in the IDEAS software and imported in
the form of a finite element to the ADAMS model.
Figures 1 to 4 show the complete vehicle model and
some of its subsystems.
Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM
Figure 5 Roll angle of the model and the real vehicle against lateral
acceleration in steady state cornering with a radius of 30m.
Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM
Figure 6 Steering wheel angle of the model and real vehicle against
lateral acceleration in steady state cornering with a radius of 30m
Figure 7 Steering wheel torque of the model and the real vehicle
against lateral acceleration in steady state cornering with a radius of
30m
DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS
Experiments are performed by investigators in virtually
all fields of inquiry, usually to discover something about
a particular process or system. Literally, an experiment
is a test. More formally, we can define an experiment as
a test or series of tests in which purposeful changes are
made to the input variables of a process or system so
that we may observe and identify the reasons for
changes that may be observed in the output response.
[3]
Here, we mean from experiment either building system
hardware and a real model and then doing real tests on
y = 0 + 1 x1 + 2 x 2 + ... + K x K +
If there is curvature in the system, then a polynomial of
higher degree must be used, such as the second-order
model
Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM
k
i =1
i =1
y = 0 + i xi + ii xi2 + ij xi x j +
i
j
i< j
i i
( max min ) / 2
max
and
min
xi = )
i =1
and i ,
variables.
k )
) )
y = 0 + i xi
xi =
j / x j
for i=1,2,,k, ij
)
)
)
y
y
y
=
= ... =
= 0 . This point, say
derivatives
x1 x2
xk
x1,s , x2,s ,, xk ,s , is called the stationary point. The
stationary point could represent (1) a point of maximum
response, (2) a point of minimum response, or (3) a
saddle point.
) )
y = 0 + X b + X BX
Where
x1
x
X = 2
.
xk
)
1
)
b = 2
.
)
n
)
)
)
11 , 12 / 2 , ..., 1k / 2
)
)
22 , ..., 2 k / 2
B=
.
kk
sym.
j ).
)
The derivative of y with respect to the elements of the
vector X equated to 0 is
)
y
= b + 2 BX = 0
X
The stationary point is the solution to the above
equation, or
1
X s = B 1b
2
Furthermore, we can find the predicted response at the
stationary point as
Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM
) 1
)
ys = 0 + X sb
2
)
X y = X X
Where
y1
y
2
y= .
.
y n
1 ( x11 ) ( x 21 )
1 ( x ) ( x )
12
22
= .
.
.
.
.
.
1 ( x1n ) ( x 2 n )
... ( x k1 )
... ( x k 2 )
...
.
...
.
... ( x kn )
0'
1
= .
.
k
PARAMETERS
It is necessary to identify the front suspension
parameters that are thought to have considerable effects
on the handling behavior of the vehicle. These
parameters can be coordinates of connections, damping
coefficient and stiffness of the springs, bushings, tires,
etc. The selected parameters and upper and lower limits
of their allowed variations are
A= x-comp of lower control arm exterior end (-10, 20).
B= y-comp of lower control arm exterior end (-20, 5).
C= z-comp of lower control arm exterior end (0, 20).
D= x-comp of strut lower end (-20, 10).
E= y-comp of strut lower end (-20, 0).
F= z-comp of strut lower end (0, 20).
G= x-comp of tie-rod to knuckle arm attachment (-20, 0)
H= y-comp of tie-rod to knuckle arm attachment (0, 20)
J= z-comp of tie-rod to knuckle arm attachment (-15, 0)
K= Rotation stiffness of the anti-roll bar (20%)
L= Stiffness coefficient of the springs (20%)
M= Damping coefficient of the dampers (20%)
M= Rotational stiffness of the lower control arm interior
end bushing (20%)
F = Wi X i
i =1
Where
Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
Design Parameters
DoE Effects
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
15 7
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Design Parameters
0
-0.2
-0.4
0.4
0.2
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-0.2
DoE Effects
DoE Effect
0.2
-1.2
Design Parameters
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
Design Parameters
DoE Effects
Design Parameters
Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM
1.5
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
DoE Effects
DoE Effects
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
0.4
0.2
DoE Effects
0
B
Design Parameters
Design Parameters
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
Design Parameters
10 3
DoE Effects
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
)
X y = X X
The (111) vector of the regression coefficients , is
-1
-1.2
Design Parameters
Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM
Linear Model
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
0
10
15
20
25
Steps Taken
y= 4.2373
Figure 17 Steepest ascent method for first order estimation model
j ). For
= ( X X )1 X y
Next step is to form the b and B matrixes of the second
order model as mentioned earlier and use the
aforementioned formula
1
X s = B 1b
2
to obtain the values of the coded variables at the
stationary point. These values are shown in the following
table
Xs= {-0.632, -4.968, -6.359, -5.661, -2.555, -1.424,
2.557, -5.731, -0.435, 2.366}
It is evident that almost all of the coded variables have
exceeded their allowed variations. This shows that we
havent found the acceptable stationary point and it is
necessary to apply the following conditions for all of the
variables
1 xi 1 i = 1, 2, ...,10
CONCLUSION
By using a fractional factorial design, one can reduce the
amount of the runs that is necessary to identify the
system by assuming that higher order interactions are
negligible. Here, there were 15 parameters, each of
them in two levels, and a complete factorial design
required 215 runs. But a resolution V fractional factorial
design with a good precision was used and required 2157
runs.
Selection of the most important parameters for
optimization purpose can be done by implementing
sensitivity analysis that, here, reduced the amount of the
parameters from 15 to 10.
In the initial state of the vehicle, the objective function
was yinitial=2.6469 and the objective function at the
optimized state is yfinal=4.2373. This shows that we have
more than a 60 percent increase in the objective function
value. This means that the vehicle handling has been
optimized up to 60 percent.
REFERENCES
1. Gillespie,
T.D.,
Fundamentals
of
Vehicle
Dynamics, First Edition, Society of Automotive
Engineering, 1992.
2. ADAMS/CAR
Documentation,
Mechanical
Dynamics Inc, 2000.
3. Montgomery, D.C., Design and Analysis of
Experiments, Fifth Edition, John Wiley & Sons,
2001.
CONTACT
Eskandari, A. MSc student, Mechanical Engineering
Dept, Sharif University of Technology
a_eskandari@mehr.sharif.ir
Mirzadeh, O. MSc student, Mechanical Engineering
Dept, Sharif University of Technology
o_mirzadeh@mehr.sharif.ir
Azadi,Sh., Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering
Dept, K.N.T. University of Technology
sh_azadi@yahoo.com