2.2 Suspension Functionality PDF

Course on Vehicle Dynamics - 2018
Suspension functionality
Page 1
Course on Vehicle Dynamics
Goal of the Suspension

• provide vertical compliance so that the wheels can follow the uneven
road while isolating the chassis (by following the ground surface, the
tyres will have traction and lateral control)
• keeps the tyre in optimum contact with the road with minimum load
variations
• ensure an adequate control of the relative position of the body and the
wheel
• maintain a proper steer and camber attitudes to the road surface
• avoid excessive wear of the tyre
• resist roll of the chassis
Page 2
Suspension design goals

• Determination of space requirements
• Positioning of the kinematic (hard) points
• Determination of the rubber bushing stiffnesses
• Determination of all forces, angles, and displacements
• Determination of all required stiffnesses
• Determination of materials to be used
• Determination of manufacturing processes for each part
• Determination of component shapes and cross sections
• Ensuring collision-free movement of all parts relative to one another (with clearance
distances)
• Optimization of component weights
• Specification of tolerances
• Specification of surface coatings
• Specification of assembly sequences
• Specification of fasteners, bolted connections, and tightening torques
• Specification of service and service sequences
Page 3
Link between suspension K&C and full vehicle dynamics

• In previous parts of the training it has been shown that the cornering stiffness is
a key parameter for steady state an transient dynamics.
• It must be understood that the cornering stiffness of each axle does NOT
depend ONLY on the characteristics of the tyres.
• Suspension K&C characteristics also contribute to the global cornering stiffness

because they determine:
• The relative orientation between the tyres and the vehicle body
• The load transfer distribution between internal and external wheels
• Additionally, the vertical stiffness and damping of the suspensions affect ride
and roll control
Page 4
Objective: To understand how the wheel moves and it is positioned with respect to the ground and the
vehicle body during driving manoeuvres.
Why? Different driving manoeuvres impose motion of the suspension components and forces applied
on the tire and/or the wheel that will directly affect vehicle performance. Thus, the suspension design
will be strictly related to:
• Forces transmitted through chassis components: Road isolation

• Body motion
• Tire positioning on the ground: Grip and tire wear.
Suspension Ride and handling performance

Driver inputs -
motion/ reaction
Road reactions Front Axle Target Units Target Veh1
Static Geometry
Front Toe (deg) -0.2<t<0.2 0.170
Front Camber (deg) -0.75<t<-0.25 -0.450
Front Castor (deg) 3<t<7 4.290
Front KPI (deg) 9<t<15
Bounce
Maximum bump travel 3*GVM (mm) 75 85.000
Bump travel 2*GVM (mm) 70 75.000
Maximum rebound travel (mm) -90 -92.000
Bump Steer (deg/m) -4.5 < t < -3 - Max 0.7 deg on bump -4.835
Bump Camber (deg/m) -15.5 < t < -13 -14.650
Bump Castor (deg/m) 10 < t < 15 16.800
W/C Lateral Displacement (mm/m) t< 50 Maximum displ. in bump < 6mm -6.265
W/C Longitudinal Displacement (mm/m) -25 < t < 40 8.650
C/P Lateral Displacement (mm/m) - -
Kinematic SVSAA (WC Z vs WC X) deg - 2<t<3 0.496
Bumpstop attack length (mm) 14-20 15.000
Lateral compliance - Front Right

0.2 CF14K FSusp Baseline - Slope =3.93e-05
CF14K FSusp M31T Knuckle Trimmed 5mm - Slope =4.6e-05
0.15
OUTWARD <-- WC Y Displ [mm] --> INWARD
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

OUTWARD <--- Fy [N] ---> INWARD
Page 5
Outputs: Sensor information translated into kinematics and compliance measurements
• Wheel position with respect to body

• 6 DOF of the wheel.
• Wheel position with respect to ground
• Fx, Fy, Fz, Mz.
• Wheel motion with respect to loads
• SWA, SWT
• Driver inputs
• Additional sensoring
• Other system characteristics
K&C metrics: Specific values that characterize system performance.
Suspension motion/ reaction

Lateral compliance - Front Right
0.2 CF14K FSusp Baseline - Slope =3.93e-05
CF14K FSusp M31T Knuckle Trimmed 5mm - Slope =4.6e-05 Front Axle Target Units Target Veh1
0.15
Static Geometry
OUTWARD <-- WC Y Displ [mm] --> INWARD
Front Toe (deg) -0.2<t<0.2 0.170

0.1 Front Camber (deg) -0.75<t<-0.25 -0.450
Front Castor (deg) 3<t<7 4.290
Front KPI (deg) 9<t<15
0.05
Bounce
0 Maximum bump travel 3*GVM (mm) 75 85.000
Bump travel 2*GVM (mm) 70 75.000
Maximum rebound travel (mm) -90 -92.000
-0.05 Bump Steer (deg/m) -4.5 < t < -3 - Max 0.7 deg on bump -4.835
Bump Camber (deg/m) -15.5 < t < -13 -14.650
-0.1
Bump Castor (deg/m) 10 < t < 15 16.800
W/C Lateral Displacement (mm/m) t< 50 Maximum displ. in bump < 6mm -6.265
W/C Longitudinal Displacement (mm/m) -25 < t < 40 8.650
-0.15 C/P Lateral Displacement (mm/m) - -
Kinematic SVSAA (WC Z vs WC X) deg - 2<t<3 0.496
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Bumpstop attack length (mm) 14-20 15.000
OUTWARD <--- Fy [N] ---> INWARD
Page 6
KINEMATICS & COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW
Kinematics Compliance
Suspension performance as a result of:
- Wheel motion - Tire forces and moments
- Body roll motion (relative vertical wheel motion) - Wheel hub forces
- Steering wheel motion - Combined loads
Main dependency on:
- Location of kinematic points that - Stiffness of flexible elements: bushings and chassis parts.
constraint the degrees of freedom of P
each suspension component.
- Steering gear parameters R
T
P Q
Basic tests
- Vertical/Bounce test - Lateral Aiding/Opposing test
- Steering test - Longitudinal Braking/Acceleration test
- Roll test - Aligning toque aiding/Opposing test
ΔSWA
ΔZ
ΔROLL
Page 7
KINEMATICS & COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW
Due to the kinematics suspension movement (vertical, roll and steering), the variation of tire position
and orientation is noticeable, and this determines the dynamic vehicle state.
The study of these effects will be focused on the suspension geometry and the steering.
The most important parameters to analyse these effects are:

- Toe
- Camber
- King pin inclination
- King pin offset, scrub radius and caster trail
- Caster
- Roll centre
- Longitudinal and Lateral wheel displacement
Page 8
DEFINITION OF TOE ANGLE
Toe is the angle between the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and the line of intersection of the wheel
plane and road surface at a given vehicle load
Toe-in/Toe-out: It is positive (toe-in), when the front part of the wheel is turned towards the vehicle
longitudinal axis and negative (toe-out) when it is turned away.
Page 9
DEFINITION OF CAMBER ANGLE
Inclination of wheel plane to the vertical axis
It is considered positive when the wheel leans outward at the top and negative when it leans inward.
Inclination angle is similar to camber angle but with different sign convention
Page 10
STEERING KINEMATICS
Kingpin geometry
Caster angle
Or inclination on the longitudinal plane of tire
rotation axis
King pin inclination
Or inclination on the transversal plane of tire rotation
axis
King pin offset at ground (scrub radius)
Or distance on the longitudinal plane between king-

pin axis intersection and the ground
Caster trail
Or distance on the transversal plane between king-

pin axis intersection and the ground
Page 11
STEERING KINEMATICS
Kingpin geometry
Caster trail
Adds to pneumatic trail already generated by the tire and improves self-centring at the expense of heavier
steering.
King pin offset at wheel centre
Increasing offset at wheel centre increases weighting and self centring at low speed. Traction forces act
about this moment arm affect torque steer
King pin offset (scrub radius)
Braking forces applied at the ground induce torques about the steer axis proportional to scrub radius. If
these are unbalanced left to right then a net steer torque is felt
Page 12
STEERING KINEMATICS
Kingpin geometry Steering Ratio test Camber Angle Change

Front Left Front Right
10
7.5
2.5
Camber Angle [º]

0
-2.5
-5
-7.5
-10
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Steering Wheel Angle [º] Steering Wheel Angle [º]
Seat León
BMW 328i
King pin inclination
It always raises the vehicle when the wheels are steered. It is symmetrical when there is no caster and
so it gives the steering weighting.
It directly affects “steer-camber” causing the wheel to top-out (+ve).
Caster angle
It causes the wheels to rise and fall and it is opposite side to side.
Page 13
STEERING KINEMATICS
Ackerman geometry During low speed turning, the inner and

outer wheels need to assume different
angles in order to track the course without
scrubbing. The difference is simply a
function of vehicle wheelbase and track
and is expressed according to the
following relationship:
inner = tan-1 (l/Rinner)
outer = tan-1 (l/Router)
Page 14
STEERING KINEMATICS
Ackerman geometry Ackerman error

Ackerman Error
Steering Ratio test
10 Ackermann error is shown here and is the
5
Seat León
difference between outer steer angle and ideal
BMW 328i
steer angle.
Ackerman Error [º]
-5
At high speeds when the weight transfer is to the
-10
outer wheel, the lighter loaded inner wheel will be
Steering Friction
forced to run at a higher slip angle than desired.
20
10
Steer torque variation is very important for steering
feel and alignment of joint angles and joint phasing
0
is critical to providing a symmetric and precise feel.
-10
-20
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Steering Wheel Angle [º]
Hysteresis at SW = 0º Steer Units
Steering Friction Seat León 3.89 Nm
BMW 328i 4.02 Nm
0 Nm
0 Nm
Ackermann = STR - STL

Ideal Ackermann = Ideal STR - Ideal STL
Assumption: Ideal steer angle = inner steer angle
Percentage Ackermann = 100 * Ackermann/Ideal Ackermann
Error = outer steer angle – ideal steer angle
Page 15
STEERING KINEMATICS
Ackerman geometry
Steer ratio
Defined by an on-centre range and overall range.
It considers an average steer angle obtained from the left and right hand wheel.
Steering Ratio test Steering Ratio
Left Wheel Right Wheel
60
45
30
15 12 – 18 sporty car
Angle [º]
-15
16 – 20 normal passenger
-30 20 – 30 commercial
-45
-60
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Front Axle
60
45
30 Steering Ratio Lin Reg Left Right Average Units

Overall Steer (+/- 360º) - - - SW / Steer
15
Seat León 17 17.1 17.1 SW / Steer
Angle [º]
0 BMW 328i 17 16.9 17 SW / Steer

0 0 0 SW / Steer
-15 0 0 0 SW / Steer
-30
On Centre Steer (+/- 20º) - - - SW / Steer
-45 Seat León - - 17.35 SW / Steer
BMW 328i - - 18.57 SW / Steer
-60 - - 0 SW / Steer
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 - - SW / Steer
0
Seat León Steering Wheel Angle [º]
BMW 328i
Page 16
BOUNCE KINEMATICS
Wheel rate and suspension frequencies
Wheel rate
The wheel rate is one of the fundamental parameters of the suspension and demands great
attention and has large bearing on vehicle ride
Suspension frequencies
Two predominant vertical suspension frequencies exist that contribute to ride quality.
- Body bounce natural frequency

Sprung Mass
1 kb 1 1 1
fb   
2 ms kb k s kt
ks
- Wheel hop natural frequency
Unsprung mass
1 kw
fw  k w  k s  kt
2 mu kt
Page 17
BOUNCE KINEMATICS
Bump Steer
The variation of the steer angle depend on the direction of the tie rod arm with respect to the instant
rotational center of the suspension links.
If the direction does not target the instant center, the tie rod movement will impose a rotation on the wheel
which also depend on where the link is attached to the knuckle.
King ping Axis
Tie rod
It is very important in controlling the balance of vehicle and its transient behavior as wheel as vehicle
longitudinal trajectory when driving over bumps.
Usually a critical tolerance issue during manufacture with many vehicles exhibiting asymmetric bump steer
Page 18
BOUNCE KINEMATICS
Bump Camber
Bump camber is determined by length of arms with short arms generating more camber. For double
wishbone suspensions, the usually adopted ‘short long arm’ gives asymmetric camber change in
bump and rebound and improves roll camber.
Increasing bump
camber
It is important to compensate wheel inclination during cornering due to roll angle of the body.
Page 19
BOUNCE KINEMATICS
Wheel Recession
Wheel recession is determined by the position on the arms from lateral view. This
determines the instant rotation center which makes the wheel moves forward or
rearward in bump.
An ideal configuration would make the wheel to move rearward when hitting a bump, so
that impact hardness is reduced.
Page 20
BOUNCE KINEMATICS
Wheel Recession
Wheel recession is determined by the position on the arms from lateral view. This
determines the instant rotation center which makes the wheel moves forward or
rearward in bump.
An ideal configuration would make the wheel to move rearward when hitting a bump, so
that impact hardness is reduced.
Vertical motion test Longitudinal Wheel Centre Locus
25
20
15
10
5
X [mm]
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
25
Rear Left Rear Right
20
15
10
5
X [mm]
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Extension Z [mm] Compresion Extension Z [mm] Compresion
Seat León
BMW 328i
Page 21
BOUNCE KINEMATICS
Wheel Center Lateral Migration
Lateral wheel centre migration is determined by inclination of arms with the lowest
change coming from the ICR positioned in the middle. However, lateral wheel centre
migration is inextricably linked to roll centre height and finding a compromise solution is
very difficult.
Page 22
BOUNCE KINEMATICS
Wheel Center Lateral Migration
Lateral wheel centre migration is determined by inclination of arms with the lowest
change coming from the ICR positioned in the middle. However, lateral wheel centre
migration is inextricably linked to roll centre height and finding a compromise solution is
very difficult
Vertical motion test Lateral Wheel Centre Locus
10
8
6
4
2
Y [mm]
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
10
Rear Left Rear Right
8
6
4
2
Y [mm]
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-160 -120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 160 -160 -120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 160
Extension Z [mm] Compresion Extension Z [mm] Compresion
Seat León
BMW 328i
Page 23
ROLL KINEMATICS
Roll Motion
The rotation of the body with respect to the X axis can be measured with respect to the
ground or a line passing through the wheel center lines.
Also, the roll test can be seen as asymmetrical vertical motion of both left and right wheels,
as it is done in the K&C test. Thus, it is strictly related to suspension kinematics as seen in
the parallel travel test.
The wheel motion toe and camber changes are evaluated as in the bump test and in
comparison to the roll angle.
Additional parameters are obtained related to forces and system stiffness against roll.
Ө
y
TAR
Fy<0
CG
RC
- DFz2
- DFzi1 Fyo
Fyi
+ DFzo1
+ DFz2
Page 24
ROLL KINEMATICS
Roll Motion
The rotation of the body with respect to the X axis can be measured with respect to the
ground or a line passing through the wheel center lines.
Also, the roll test can be seen as asymmetrical vertical motion of both left and right wheels,
as it is done in the K&C test. Thus, it is strictly related to suspension kinematics as seen in
the parallel travel test.
The wheel motion toe and camber changes are evaluated as in the bump test and in
comparison to the roll angle.
Additional parameters are obtained related to forces and system stiffness against roll.
Body Roll Angle

Suspension Roll
Angle
Wheel centers line
Deformed tire
Suspension Roll Angle < Body Roll Angle
Page 25
ROLL KINEMATICS
Roll Stiffness
Roll stiffness has been identified as a key factor affecting handling balance and body
control. Calculated as the slope when plotting the roll moment due to wheel vertical forces
and the roll angle.
- Determines distribution of weight transfer front to rear and hence handling balance.
- Determines level of body roll during cornering (deg/deg).
- Will depend also on axle weight.
Roll motion test

10000
Roll Moment
Ө
8000 Left turn Front axle Right turn
6000
4000
z
2000
Moment [Nm]
0
-2000
-4000
y
-6000
-8000 TAR
-10000
10000
8000 Left turn Rear axle Right turn Fy<0
6000
4000 CG
2000
Moment [Nm]
0
-2000
-4000 RC
-6000
-8000 - DFz2
-10000
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
- DFzi1 Fyo
Roll Position [º]
Linear regression [Nm/º] Front Rear Hysteresis at Roll=0º [Nm] Front Rear
Seat León -853 (55.81%) -676 (44.19%) Seat León 425 218
Fyi
+ DFzo1
BMW 328i -886 (56.98%) -669 (43.02%) BMW 328i 322 334
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
+ DFz2
Page 26
ROLL KINEMATICS
Roll Stiffness
Roll stiffness has been identified as a key factor affecting handling balance and body
control. Calculated as the slope when plotting the roll moment due to wheel vertical forces
and the roll angle.
- Determines distribution of weight transfer front to rear and hence handling balance.
- Determines level of body roll during cornering (deg/deg).
- Will depend also on axle weight.
Roll motion test Roll Moment

10000
8000 Left turn Front axle Right turn
6000
4000
2000
Moment [Nm]
0
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
10000
8000 Left turn Rear axle Right turn
6000
4000
2000
Moment [Nm]
0
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Roll Position [º]
Linear regression [Nm/º] Front Rear Hysteresis at Roll=0º [Nm] Front Rear
Seat León -853 (55.81%) -676 (44.19%) Seat León 425 218
BMW 328i -886 (56.98%) -669 (43.02%) BMW 328i 322 334
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Page 27
ROLL KINEMATICS
Roll Steer
It is related to the bump steer, since it depends on the relative position of the suspension
links and the tie rod. However, asymmetric motion is happening between the left and right
due to body motion.
Roll motion test Toe Angle Change

0.6
Left turn Front Left Right turn Left turn Front Right Right turn
Inner wheel Outer wheel Outer wheel Inner wheel
0.4
oversteer oversteer
0.2
Angle [º]
-0.2
-0.4
understeer understeer
-0.6
0.5
Left turn Rear Left Right turn Left turn Rear Right Right turn
0.4
Inner wheel Outer wheel Outer wheel Inner wheel
0.3 understeer understeer
0.2
0.1
Angle [º]
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4 oversteer oversteer
-0.5
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Roll Position [º] Roll Position [º]
Linear regression [º/º] Lf Rf F Axle steer Lr Rr R Axle Steer Hysteresis at Roll=0º [º] Lf Rf F Aver. Lr Rr R Aver.
Seat León 0 0.003 0.001 0.089 -0.09 -0.09 Seat León 0.016 0.011 0.014 0.016 0.005 0.011
BMW 328i 0.062 -0.072 -0.067 -0.014 0.014 0.014 BMW 328i 0.143 0.132 0.138 0.011 0.011 0.011
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Page 28
ROLL KINEMATICS
Roll Camber
Bump camber is determined by length of arms with short arms generating more camber.
For double wishbone suspensions, the usually adopted ‘short long arm’ gives asymmetric
camber change in bump and rebound and improves roll camber.
Increasing bump
camber
-ve camber in bump

+ve camber in rebound
 camber compensates the roll
motion of the car No camber change With camber change
Page 29
ROLL KINEMATICS
Roll Camber
Bump camber is determined by length of arms with short arms generating more camber.
For double wishbone suspensions, the usually adopted ‘short long arm’ gives asymmetric
camber change in bump and rebound and improves roll camber.
-ve camber in bump

+ve camber in rebound
 camber compensates the roll
motion of the car No camber change With camber change
Page 30
ROLL KINEMATICS
Roll Camber
Bump camber - Front Left

5
BMW 535i (SLA) - Slope =-0.0281
LR Evoque (McPherson) - Slope =-0.0194
4
TOP IN <--- Camber [deg] ---> TOP OUT

LR Discovery (SLA) - Slope =-0.0287
MB E350 (McPherson) - Slope =-0.00863
3
-1
-2
-3
-4
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100

REBOUND <--- Wheel Travel [mm] ---> BUMP
Double Wishbone VS McPherson
Page 31
ROLL KINEMATICS
Roll Centre Height

Instantaneous center around which suspension
can be considered to rotate.
The RC position can be calculated by measuring
CP displacement during the roll test, or
geometrically considering the suspension
kinematics.
Wheel motion based calculation
Kinematic geometry
based calculation
Page 32
ROLL KINEMATICS
Roll Centre Height
The Roll center position will determine the level of forces passing through the elastic
elements of the suspension.
Consequently, it affects the lateral load transfer and the vehicle performance in transient and
steady state cornering maneuvers.
The roll center height position can vary with body and suspension motion so that it is
normally studied for different wheel positions of angles of body roll.
Vertical motion test Roll Centre
200 Seat León

Front
160
120 BMW 328i
80
Zcr [mm]
40
-40
-80
200
Rear
160
120
80
Zcr [mm]
40
-40
-80
-60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60

Vert Position [mm]
Page 33
LATERAL COMPLIANCE
Lateral force application at tire pressure centre or applying an offset. Efforts can be applied
in phase or out of phase
Wheel centre evaluation vs Fy application for:
- Toe
- Camber
- Jacking forces (Roll centre)
- Lateral displacement
Page 34
LATERAL COMPLIANCE
Lateral Compliance Steer
Variation of toe when lateral forces applied.

It affects vehicle under steer tendency depending on toe sign variation and axle applied.
u Longitudinal speed
v Lateral speed
 Yaw angle
Rear Toe Out: Oversteer effect
Rear Toe in: Understeer effect

Page 35
LATERAL COMPLIANCE
Lateral Compliance Steer
Variation of toe when lateral forces applied.

It affects vehicle under steer tendency depending on toe sign variation and axle applied.
u Longitudinal speed
v Lateral speed
 Yaw angle
Front Toe in:
Oversteer effect
Front Toe Out: Understeer
Page 36
LATERAL COMPLIANCE
Lateral Compliance Camber
Variation of camber angle when lateral forces applied.

It affects tire positioning on the ground and therefore tire contact.
Together with the wheel center lateral compliance it affects axle capacity to build up efforts
and consequently the level of response and steering feel.
Page 37
LONGITUDINAL COMPLIANCE
Wheel Centre Longitudinal Compliance
The relationship between x and Fx affect comfort and braking. Thus, it is intended to
maximise for comfort reasons.
Longitudinal compliance - Front Left
BMW 535i Front - Slope =0.00484
15 L550 Front ARB - Slope =0.00507
MB E350 Front - Slope =0.0034
VW Golf VII Front Engine On - Slope =0.00571
RWD <-- WC X Displ [mm] --> FWD

10
-5
-10
-15
-5000 0 5000
RWD <--- Fx brk [N] ---> FWD
Page 39
Wheel Centre Longitudinal Compliance
The relationship between x and Fx affect comfort and braking. Thus, it is intended to
maximise for comfort reasons.
Longitudinal compliance - Rear Left
10
BMW 535i Rear - Slope =0.00144
8 L550 Rear ARB - Slope =0.00209
RWD <-- WC X Displ [mm] --> FWD

MB E350 Rear - Slope =0.000902
6 VW Golf VII Rear - Slope =0.00212
-2
-4
-6
-8
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
Page 40
Toe compliance
The relation ship between toe and Fx affects braking stability so that it is intended to
have a to in tendency a to in tendency and minimise it.
Applied force motion Longitudinal compliance steer - Front Left

BMW 535i Front - Slope =5.52e-005
0.6
L550 Front ARB - Slope =-6.8e-005
0.5 MB E350 Front - Slope =4.1e-005
Toe OUT <--- Toe [deg] ---> Toe IN

VW Golf VII Front Engine On - Slope =-0.000255
0.4
0.3
• Toe in wanted under engine torque if 0.2

front wheel drive 0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-5000 0 5000
• Toe in wanted under braking for front axle RWD <--- Fx brk [N] ---> FWD
• Toe in wanted under braking for rear axle, although different

tendencies found in reference cars.
Page 41
Toe compliance
The relation ship between toe and Fx affects braking stability so that it is intended to
have a to in tendency a to in tendency and minimise it.
Applied force motion

Longitudinal compliance steer - Rear Left
BMW 535i Rear - Slope =8.63e-006
0.4 L550 Rear ARB - Slope =1.03e-005

MB E350 Rear - Slope =-8.88e-005
VW Golf VII Rear - Slope =-2.98e-005
0.3
0.2
• Toe in wanted under engine torque if
front wheel drive
0.1
-0.1
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000

• Toe in wanted under braking for front axle
• Toe in wanted under braking for rear axle, although different
tendencies found in reference cars.
Page 42
ALIGNING TORQUE COMPLIANCE
Toe Compliance
The aligning torque on the tires is consequence of the lateral force at the tire which can be
considered applied to the rear of the wheel centre due to tire deformation.
Toe compliance normally follows the direction of the moment applied and it affects steering
precision and understeering.
Normally it is intended to be minimised.
Page 43
AIDING VS OPPOSING
It is important to consider Aiding Vs Opposing.
Toe compliance - Front Left

In a independent (front/left) suspension, Aiding test
effect of aiding and opposing tests will 0.6 Opposing test
have a different influence than in a solid
axle (where left and right are directly 0.4

connected).
0.2
The following components are affecting 0
here:
-0.2
- Subframes (bushings to the body)

-0.4
- Steering compliance
-0.6
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200

ANTICLOCKWISE <--- Mz [Nm] ---> CLOCKWISE
Page 44
POWER ON VS POWER OFF
It is important to consider the effect of the power steering
Lateral compliance steer - Front Left Toe compliance - Front Left

BMW 535 Front EngOff - Slope =-0.000204 BMW 535 Front EngOff - Slope =0.00578
1 BMW 535 Front EngOn - Slope =0.00179
BMW 535 Front EngOn - Slope =-0.000125 1
0.8
0.6

0.5
0.4
0.2
0 0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
OUTWARD <--- Fy [N] ---> INWARD ANTICLOCKWISE <--- Mz [Nm] ---> CLOCKWISE
Page 45
TOE (STEER) EFFECT SUMMARY
All parameters can be seen as understeer or oversteer
negative positive
front US OS
Bump toe
rear OS US
front US OS
lateral compliance toe
rear OS US
front US OS
aligning torque compliance toe
rear OS US
US: Understeer
OS: Oversteer
* Sign convention
Front Axle Suspension Metrics Units Target Test 1
Static Geometry Page 46

ROLL AND LOAD TRANSFER
Up to now the handling model has only been 2D, but by adding a third dimension to the model
(height), and applying an important simplification: that of a stiff chassis and body, the concept
of lateral load transfer can be introduced
Page 56

Understanding the Roll centre height
An important attribute of the suspension is a parameter known as the Roll-centre height. It is
defined as the point at which lateral forces on the body are reacted by the suspension links.
Under application of a lateral force at the tire contact patch, reacting forces are transmitted from
the body to the suspension, the suspension geometry determines the angle and direction of
these action lines and where they intersect is defined as the ‘roll center’, as it also coincides
with the instantaneous roll centre of the body.
RC
hRC
-DFz1 Fyo
Fyi +DFz1
Page 57
Considering one single axle, a simplification

can be made splitting forces applied on the
CGs ms·a sprung mass and unsprung mass.
y
m·g Also, suspension forces are applied in
hCG
between masses.
Tsusp
RC
CGu mu·ay
hRC
-DFz1 Fyo
Fyi t +DFz1
However, the total weight transfer is a combination of 3 distinct effects:

- Weight transfer of unsprung mass - 𝜟𝑭𝒛𝟏
- Weight transfer of sprung mass through suspension links - 𝜟𝑭𝒛𝟐
- Weight transfer of sprung mass through springs, dampers, anti-roll bars - 𝜟𝑭𝒛𝟑
If we look at the equilibrium of forces independently on body and unsprung mass…
Page 58
Equilibrium at the sprung mass

The lateral force applied on the body must be in equilibrium with the connection of the
suspension.
Also, the roll stiffness 𝐾Ø of the suspension reacts on the body working against the lateral
acceleration and controlling the roll.
𝑇𝑅𝐶 = 𝑇𝑚𝑠 + 𝑇𝑠𝑢𝑠𝑝 = 0
CGs ms·ay 𝑇𝑚𝑠 = 𝑚𝑠 ∙ 𝑎𝑦 ∙ (ℎ𝐶𝐺_𝑆 − ℎ𝑅𝐶 )

𝑇𝑠𝑢𝑠𝑝 = −𝐾Ø ∙ ∅
m·g
hCG_S 𝑲Ø ∙ ∅ = 𝒎𝒔 ∙ 𝒂𝒚 ∙ 𝒉𝑪𝑮 − 𝒉𝑹𝑪 (𝒂)
RC
Tsusp Fy_chassis 𝐹𝑦 = 𝑚𝑠 ∙ 𝑎𝑦 − 𝐹𝑦_𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑠 = 0

hRC
tsusp
𝑭𝒚𝒔𝒖𝒔𝒑 = 𝒎𝒔 ∙ 𝒂𝒚 (𝒃)
The equation (a) shows how the roll angle depends on the sprung mass, lateral acceleration,
the suspension characteristics and the relative position of the centre of gravity and roll centre.
Page 59
Equilibrium at the unsprung mass

Forces on the tire must be in equilibrium to all forces applied on the chassis, including the ones
from the unsprung mass. Thus,
Tsusp
hCG
𝐹𝑦 = 𝐹𝑦_𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑠 + 𝑚𝑢 ∙ 𝑎𝑦 − 𝐹𝑦_𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑒 = 0
RCF
y_chassis
CGu Considering (b):
hRC
hCG_U -DFz1 mu·ay Fyo 𝐹𝑦 = 𝑚𝑠 ∙ 𝑎𝑦 + 𝑚𝑢 ∙ 𝑎𝑦 − 𝐹𝑦_𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑒 = 0
Fyi t +DFz1
𝑭𝒚_𝒕𝒊𝒓𝒆 = 𝐹𝑦𝑜 + 𝐹𝑦𝑖 = (𝒎𝒖 + 𝒎𝒔 ) ∙ 𝒂𝒚 (𝒄)
𝑇𝑅𝐶 = 𝑇𝑚𝑢 + 𝑇𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑒 + 𝑇𝑠𝑢𝑠𝑝 = 0
𝑇𝑚𝑢 = −𝑚𝑢 ∙ 𝑎𝑦 ∙ (ℎ𝑅𝐶 − ℎ𝐶𝐺_𝑈 )

𝑇𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑒 = −Δ𝐹𝑧 ∙ 𝑡 + (𝐹𝑦𝑜 +𝐹𝑦𝑖 ) ∙ ℎ𝑅𝐶
𝑇𝑠𝑢𝑠𝑝 = 𝐾Ø ∙ ∅
Δ𝐹𝑧 ∙ 𝑡 = 𝑚𝑢 ∙ 𝑎𝑦 ∙ (ℎ𝑅𝐶 − ℎ𝐶𝐺_𝑈 ) + (𝐹𝑦𝑜 +𝐹𝑦𝑖 ) ∙ ℎ𝑅𝐶 + 𝐾Ø ∙ ∅

Considering (a) (c):
Δ𝐹𝑧 ∙ 𝑡 = −𝑚𝑢 ∙ 𝑎𝑦 ∙ (ℎ𝑅𝐶 − ℎ𝐶𝐺_𝑈 ) + (𝑚𝑢 + 𝑚𝑠 ) ∙ 𝑎𝑦 ∙ ℎ𝑅𝐶 + 𝑚𝑠 ∙ 𝑎𝑦 ∙ ℎ𝐶𝐺 − ℎ𝑅𝐶
Page 60
Total equilibrium
Following with the latest equation, the three components of the load transfer can be identified:
𝒉𝑪𝑮_𝑼 𝒉𝑹𝑪 𝒉𝑪𝑮 −𝒉𝑹𝑪

𝜟𝑭𝒛 = 𝒎𝒖 ∙ 𝒂𝒚 ∙ + 𝒎𝒔 ∙ 𝒂 𝒚 ∙ + 𝒎𝒔 ∙ 𝒂 𝒚 ∙
𝒕 𝒕 𝒕
Instant Factor Transient Factor
Where:
𝒉𝑪𝑮_𝑼 CGs ms·ay

𝜟𝑭𝒛𝟏 = 𝒎𝒖 ∙ 𝒂𝒚 ∙
𝒕 m·g
hCG
𝒉𝑹𝑪 Tsusp
RC
𝜟𝑭𝒛𝟐 = 𝒎𝒔 ∙ 𝒂𝒚 ∙ CGu mu·ay
𝒕
hRC
-DFz1 Fyo
𝒉𝑪𝑮 − 𝒉𝑹𝑪 Fyi +DFz1
𝜟𝑭𝒛𝟑 = 𝒎𝒔 ∙ 𝒂𝒚 ∙ t
𝒕
Page 61
Total equilibrium
Following with the latest equation, the three components of the load transfer can be identified:
𝒉𝑪𝑮_𝑼 𝒉𝑹𝑪 𝒉𝑪𝑮 −𝒉𝑹𝑪

𝜟𝑭𝒛 = 𝒎𝒖 ∙ 𝒂𝒚 ∙ + 𝒎𝒔 ∙ 𝒂 𝒚 ∙ + 𝒎𝒔 ∙ 𝒂 𝒚 ∙
𝒕 𝒕 𝒕
Where:
𝒉𝑪𝑮_𝑼 -Weight transfer of unsprung mass. Sometimes

𝜟𝑭𝒛𝟏 = 𝒎𝒖 ∙ 𝒂𝒚 ∙ negligible in comparison to other terms.
𝒕
𝒉𝑹𝑪 -Weight transfer of sprung mass through

𝜟𝑭𝒛𝟐 = 𝒎𝒔 ∙ 𝒂𝒚 ∙
𝒕 suspension links.
𝒉𝑪𝑮 − 𝒉𝑹𝑪 -Weight transfer of sprung mass through

𝜟𝑭𝒛𝟑 = 𝒎𝒔 ∙ 𝒂𝒚 ∙
𝒕 springs, dampers, anti-roll bars
Page 62

Roll centre
The roll center is a very important point for the vehicle behaviour.
We are going to compare 2 cases, with different roll centre heights:
hmu hRC (hCG  hRC )

DFz  mu  a y   ms  a y   ms  a y 
t t t
h < DF ' z1  m  a y 
h'RC
DFz1  m  a y  RC t
t
RC’
RC
hRC
-DFz1 Fyo -DF’z1 Fyo
Fyi +DFz1 Fyi +DF’z1
Page 63
According to the second term, the weight transfer at the roll centre height will be higher for the
second vehicle. But according to the third term, the roll moment of the second vehicle will be
lower.
With equal springs and anti-roll bar stiffness, the first vehicle will generate a higher roll angle
BUT total weight transfer remains the same for the two vehicles


TAR T’A
R
m·ay m·ay
CG CG
RC
RC
-DFz2 -DF’z2
-DFz1 Fyo -DF’z1 Fyo
Fyi +DFz1 Fyi +DF’z1
Page 64
The 3D model load transfer

With a 3D model the front and rear suspensions can be considered independently and joined
using the roll axis. This analysis modifies both the terms 2 and 3
Term 2 is modified to reflect the

TAR rear difference in axle weight front
to rear and the height of the
front and rear roll centres.
m·ay Term 3 is modified to reflect the

h difference in roll stiffness front
to rear and the distance
TAR front
between roll axis and centre of
gravity.
Page 65

Term 2: Weight transfer through suspension links
ms  a y  hRC
DFz 2 
t Front weight
m f  a y  hRCf
DFz 2 f 
tf
m·ay Rear weight

h
mr  a y  hRCr
DFz 2 r 
tr
This depends on front and rear
weight distribution
Page 66

Term 3: Weight transfer through suspension members
TAR  ms  ay  (hCG  hRC )
Front weight
TAR  ms  ay  h
TAR  K   Kfront  
DFz 3 f 
TAR  TARfront  TARrear  ( Kfront  Krear )   tf
Rear weight
Krear  
DFz 3r 
tr
m·ay
h This depends on front and rear
roll stiffness distribution and roll
axis to centre of gravity height
Page 67

Page 68

Tire considerations
This tire at 3 deg slip and 4000N load produces 3000N cornering force.
Tyre Cornering Force Fy [N]
Tire Load Fz [N]

Page 69

Tire considerations
In a curve, two tires are at loads of 4000N +/- 1000N. Due to the transferred load, an
average lateral force of 2800N is produced according to the tire characteristics
Tyre Cornering Force Fy [N]
 Load transfer
always reduces
the cornering force
of the axle!
Tire Load Fz [N]

Page 70
Effect of load transfer distribution on axle slip angles and US angle
αrear
αfront
Lateral acc m/s^2 Lateral acc m/s^2
αfront - αrear
Varying load transfer distribution
between front and rear axles
100% = all at front
Understeer
0% = all at rear
Lateral acc m/s^2
Effect at higher lateral accelerations
Page 71
Roll Axis
- It is the line connecting the front and rear ‘instantaneous’ roll centers
- It is an instantaneous axis about which the vehicle rolls with respect to the
ground plane
Roll Axis Inclination

Often the rear roll centre is higher than the front because in this way the rear axle
has a higher portion of “Instant Factor”, improving the front/rear phasing.
hmu hRC (hCG  hRC )

DFz  mu  a y   ms  a y   ms  a y 
t t t
Page 72

Front Axle Suspension Metrics Units Target Test 1
Roll
Total Roll Stiffness (Nm/deg) 1604
Susp Roll Stiffness (Nm/deg) 2288
Roll Center Height (mm) 75
Kfront  
DFz 3 f 
tf
OS
m·ay
h Krear   US
DFz 3r 
tr
Fi  Ci   i
Roll test outputs provides roll centre and axle roll stiffness which can be used to understand
the amount of load transfer per axle.
Thus, conclusions as for the amount of grip and lateral forces can be extracted, leading to
understand the understeer tendency of the vehicle due to load transfer.
Page 73
ROLL AND LOAD TRANSFER: JACKING FORCES
Review
If a lateral force Fy is applied at the contact patch, it is reacted at the body by a force
Fy/cos(β) , where β is determined only by the roll centre height and vehicle track
This in turn generates a vertical force on the body given by F*tanβ. As this is generated by
each suspension, the forces balance at the roll centre.
Page 77
However, the vertical forces can only remain balanced if:
• Lateral forces on the inner an outer wheels are equal

• Roll centre height is constant
 Neither of these conditions hold true when a vehicle is in a turn
The roll centre position is not fixed and changes

with suspension geometry. When the body rolls, the
roll centre will usually move both laterally and
vertically. How this moves can be derived from
suspension geometry.
Lateral forces will be modified by the previously

described weight transfer equations: external
wheels produce higher lateral forces.
Using some combination of weight transfer and roll

centre height migration, it is be possible to minimise
the overall vertical force change but this takes
careful planning.
Page 78
• The vertical force components are known as ‘jacking forces’ as they will
effectively ‘jack’ the vehicle up (or down) during cornering
• If the suspension undergoes a large deflection, adverse kinematic effects can

further be introduced that exacerbate the situation.
• This was quite obvious in vehicles with

swing arm axles where the vehicle body
was seen to rise markedly during severe
manoeuvres. The nature of the swing arm
axle design caused a narrowing of track
and migration of the roll center height up,
further jacking the vehicle.
• Therefore although high roll centres may appear effective at reducing load
transfer they induce undesirable vertical forces on the body.
Page 79
ROLL AND LOAD TRANSFER: CONCLUSIONS
• 3D model gives some interesting information regarding how changes to

suspension design modify vehicle balance
• Any vertical force changes the tire’s capability to generate lateral force
• Any change that increases weight transfer across an axle therefore

reduces the axle’s capability to generate lateral force
• Suspension parameters can be adjusted to provide a desirable balance

and control the vehicle’s tendency to oversteer / understeer
Page 80
ROLL AND LOAD TRANSFER: CONCLUSIONS
• Biasing weight distribution to the front increases understeer

• Increasing front roll centre height increases weight transfer at front axle
through suspension links (Term 2), but reduces overall weight transfer
through suspension (Term 3)
• Front roll stiffness distribution only modifies Term 3 and hence
increasing front roll stiffness always increases understeer
• Increasing vehicle track always reduces weight transfer
• Term 2 always leads Term 3. Balance of roll damping will further modify
the handling during transient part of manoeuvre
• There is a limitation on how high the roll centre height can be put
Page 81
References
“Vehicle Handling Dynamics”. J. R. Ellis
“Tyre and vehicle dynamics”. Hans B. Pacejka
“Race car vehicle dynamics”. William F. Milliken and Douglas L. Milliken
“Passenger cars — Steady-state circular driving behaviour — Open-loop test methods”. ISO/CD 4138. ISO
TC22 SC9.
“Passenger cars — Step steer input test — Open-loop test methods”. ISO 7401. ISO TC22 SC9.
“Passenger cars — Sinusoidal input test — Open-loop test methods”. ISO 8726. ISO TC22 SC9.
“Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics”. Thomas D. Gillespie.
“Aspects of the lateral and longitudinal control of automobiles”. R.S. Sharp, School of Engineering. Cranfield
University, UK
“The multibody Systems Approach to Vehicle Dynamics”. Mike Blundell and Damian Harty.
“Chassis Handbook”. Bernd Heißing and Metin Ersoy
“Roll Centres and Jacking Forces in Independent Suspensions”. M. B. Gerrard (SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER)
Page 84
Page 85

2.2 Suspension Functionality PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2.2 Suspension Functionality PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Course on Vehicle Dynamics - 2018

Goal of the Suspension

Suspension design goals

Link between suspension K&C and full vehicle dynamics

• Suspension K&C characteristics also contribute to the global cornering stiffness

• Forces transmitted through chassis components: Road isolation

Suspension Ride and handling performance

Lateral compliance - Front Right

-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Outputs: Sensor information translated into kinematics and compliance measurements

• Wheel position with respect to body

K&C metrics: Specific values that characterize system performance.

Suspension motion/ reaction

Front Toe (deg) -0.2<t<0.2 0.170

KINEMATICS & COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW

KINEMATICS & COMPLIANCE OVERVIEW

The most important parameters to analyse these effects are:

DEFINITION OF TOE ANGLE

DEFINITION OF CAMBER ANGLE

Inclination of wheel plane to the vertical axis

Or distance on the longitudinal plane between king-

Or distance on the transversal plane between king-

Kingpin geometry Steering Ratio test Camber Angle Change

Camber Angle [º]

King pin inclination

Ackerman geometry During low speed turning, the inner and

inner = tan-1 (l/Rinner)

outer = tan-1 (l/Router)

Ackerman geometry Ackerman error

Ackermann = STR - STL

30 Steering Ratio Lin Reg Left Right Average Units

0 BMW 328i 17 16.9 17 SW / Steer

Wheel rate and suspension frequencies

- Body bounce natural frequency

King ping Axis

Wheel Center Lateral Migration

Wheel Center Lateral Migration

Body Roll Angle

Wheel centers line

Roll motion test

Roll motion test Roll Moment

Roll motion test Toe Angle Change

-ve camber in bump

-ve camber in bump

Bump camber - Front Left

TOP IN <--- Camber [deg] ---> TOP OUT

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100

Double Wishbone VS McPherson

Roll Centre Height

Wheel motion based calculation

Roll Centre Height

200 Seat León

120 BMW 328i

-60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60

Lateral Compliance Steer

Variation of toe when lateral forces applied.

Rear Toe Out: Oversteer effect

Rear Toe in: Understeer effect

Lateral Compliance Steer

Variation of toe when lateral forces applied.

Front Toe Out: Understeer

Lateral Compliance Camber