Journal of Sound and Vibration (1978) 58(2), 179-187

RIDE COMFORT AND ROAD HOLDING OF A 2-DOF

VEHICLE TRAVELLING ON A RANDOMLY PROFILED ROAD

T. DAHLBERG
Division of Solid Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology, lack,
S-402 20 Gothenburg, Sweden

(Received 12 December 1977)

The suspension of a two-degree-of-freedom (2-DOF) vehicle travelling on a randomly

corrugated road is optimized with respect to both road holding and ride comfort. Optimal
comfort is defined as a minimum mean value of the largest maxima of a stationary Gaussian
random process. This process is the vertical vehicle seat acceleration weighted with respect
to human sensitivity (ISO 2631). Optimal road holding is defined as a minimum probability
that the road-wheel contact force will be smaller than a given level. This contact force is
conceived as another stationary Gaussian random process. The two criteria are synthesized
and the suspension system is optimized with respect to the joint criterion obtained. One
restriction accounted for is the limited working space of the vehicle suspension.

1. INTRODUCTION

Since the days of horse-drawn spring carriages people have strived for making rides com-
fortable by isolating the car body from road irregularities. Today's "carriage" isolation
could consist of passive and/or active spring and dashpot elements. The aim of this paper is
to optimize a passive linear spring-dashpot road vehicle suspension system with respect to
both ride comfort and road holding.
Since the 1950s the theory ofstochastic processes has been applied to road vehicle response
problems [1] and this will be done also in the present paper. The road profile is taken as a
one-dimensional stationary Gaussian stochastic process in space. The road vehicle is modelled
as a linear two-degree-of-freedom (2-DOF) system. The road-induced vehicle responses
studied will then come out as stochastic processes of the same type. Criteria for ride comfort
and road holding are formulated on the basis of the vertical acceleration response of the
vehicle and the wheel-road force, respectively. The vehicle suspension working space is
limited and the limitation is formulated in probabilistic terms.
The ride comfort criterion is based on the vertical acceleration response process.~2 of the
vehicle (see Figure 1). This process is filtered through the passenger's seat and then also
weighted in the frequency domain according to human sensitivity to vertical acceleration.
The power spectral density of a process so obtained could serve as a base for subjective
judgment o f the ride comfort [2, 3], or the standard deviation o f the process could be used
[2-4]. It is supposed in what follows here that the largest maxima of a weighted stochastic
acceleration process are mainly responsible for ride discomfort and the comfort criterion is
based on these maxima only.
When studying road holding and limited working space (under stochastic excitation) the
quantities most commonly used hitherto are the standard deviations of the road-wheel
contact force and of the distances P2 - P l and P2 - q (see Figure 1) [2-5]. In what follows
here, however, optimal road holding is defined as a minimum probability that the randomly
varying part of the road-wheel contact force will exceed a given level during a specified time
179
0022-460x178/0422--0179 $02.00/0 9 1978 Academic Press Inc. (London) Limited
180 T. DAIILBERG
period. The probability that ] P 2 - P t [ will exceed a given level (for example, half the sus-
pension working space) during a specified time period is calculated. By limiting this prob-
ability a constraint is put on IP2 - P x 1.

P"--T-- E "I Human sensitivity

"="
I -- -- --I to vibrations
PsT~_[ - ~ -- s _ _ Seat
k,~w,
PZ2 [ rnz J Vehiclebody moss

kz I r ~cz, 'z SuspensiOn

P'--~-I m, I Wheel (axle) moss
k, I ,.,.,, ~C,,,,Tyre
qL j- J q = rood irregularities

Figure 1. Two-degree-of-freedomvehicle model. The vehicle body mass displacement p, is filtered bz..~_t
characteristics and weighted according to human sensitivity to vibrations, o9~= ~ , ~'~= ca/2.v/k~ma;
o92 = k~z/m2, ~2 = c:d2Vr~'~zm2; ~, = ~ , ~, = c,/2vrk'-,'~,m,.

A similar optimization of a 1-DOF vehicle model but with only the unfiltered vertical
acceleration process considered has been performed earlier [6].

2. VEHICLE MODEL

A linear 2-DOF system is used as a model for the road vehicle (see Figure 1). The two
(fixed-base) eigenfrequencies of the model should represent the lowest two eigenfrequencies
of the vehicle. The lowest eigenfrequency of a road vehicle pertains to the whole-body
vibration. For a medium-size passenger car this frequency is about 1-0-1-5 Hz (6-10
radians/s). The second lowest eigenfrequency is due to wheel vibration. Normally this
frequency is about 10 Hz (60 radians/s).
The two masses ml and m2 (see Figure 1) of the vehicle model represent the wheel (and axle
if there is any) and the vehicle body (often called the unsprung and the sprung mass, respect-
ively). These masses (representing one half or a quarter of a real car) will later be chosen as
50 kg and 500 kg, respectively. The spring stiffness k2 and the damper stiffness c2 of the
vehicle suspension (see Figure 1) can be rewritten as o92 = ~ and (2 = c 2 1 2 ~ . The
quantities o92 and (2 will serve as suspension parameters to be optimized. The tyre stiffness kx
will be chosen so as to give o9~ = ~ = 60 radians/s. The tyre damping ca is not very well
known. The value c~ = 0 is often seen [3, 4]. In this paper the relative tyre damping (~ =
c a [ 2 x / - ~ m l will be set to (1 = 0.06 [7].
With o91, o92, (1 and (2 as defined above, and p = m:[ml for the mass ratio and i for the
imaginary unit (i = w~-i), the vehicle model response to a sinusoidal base excitation q =
qoe I'~t with radian frequency o9 (see Figure I) can be written as

P , = Hot(og)q, P2 = ltp2(eJ)q, (l,2)

P2 - P x = Hp2-,xCo9)q, p~ - q = Hot_~(o9) q. (3, 4).

The complex transfer functions H.(o9) are

/I,~(o9) = (~2 _ ~2 _ 2i ~(2 o92)(o91 + 2i o9~, og,)/A, (5)
 RIDE COMFORT AND ROAD IIOLDING 181
H,2(09) = -(09~ + 2i 09~2 092) (09~ + 2i 09~'t 09t)/A, (6)
Hp2-pt(09) = Hv2(09) - Hpt(09), Hpt_q(09)= Hut(09) - 1, (7, 8)
where
A =/~(09 2 + 2i09~2 092)2 - (092 - 092 - 2i09~2 092)(092 - 09] -/t09 2 - 2i09((1 cot + It(2 092)). (9)

A time differentiation of a response introduces an i09 in the transfer function. For example,
P2 = H~2(09)q = i 09Hp2(09) q. (I0)
The vehicle responses to be used are (a) ride comfort: ,62, J~'2; (b) road holding: Px - q ,
/~1 - q; and (c) suspension working space: P2 - Px, .b2 -/~1.
When the vehicle model is excited by a stationary Gaussian random process q(t) with mean
square spectral density Sq(09), any linearly dependent response will be a process of the same
type. The mean square spectral density of the response process is obtained by the well-known
formula
s.(09) -- I/-/.(,1,)1" s # o ) . (1 I)
The standard deviation a. of a process can then be obtained by integration as
/ o, \ t/z
a.=/2o: S.(m)d09 ) . (12)

In this paper the lower and upper integration limits oh and 09~ will be 0-2rr/s and 160n/s
(0.10 Hz and 80 Hz), respectively.

3. RIDE COMFORT
In a passenger vehicle the ride comfort is influenced by a variety of factors such as noise,
vibrations, temperature, etc. This study is restricted to how the road profile and the vehicle
suspension will influence the ride comfort as to vibrations.
As described above, the automobile is modelled as a 2-DOF system. However, the pass-
enger will not perceive the motion of the vehicle body but rather the motion of his seat.
Therefore the random process,~2 will be filtered by seat characteristics (see Figure 1). The seat
is modelled as a 1-DOF system with undamped natural angular frequency 09~= ~ =
5rr/s (2.5 Hz) and relative damping ~ = c~/2V"~m~ = 0.30 [3]. It has been supposed that the
vehicle vibration (quantified bypt andp2) will not be influenced by the seat parameters 09, and
(~ (the passenger mass could be included in the sprung mass m2). The complex transfer
function from fi2 to/~ (p, is the seat displacement) is

H,(09) = (09] + 2i 09(, 09,)1(092 _ 092 + 2i 09[~cos). (1 3)

The seat accelerationfi, is
fi, = H,(w) Hv2(09)q. (14)

It is clear that the ride comfort will be influenced by the spring stiffness k, and the damper
stiffness c, of the seat. These parameters could, of course, be optimized in the same way as the
suspension, but this will not be done here.
The human body is more sensitive to vibration in some frequency ranges than in others.
Therefore the random processp, will be weighted to give a processfi,~ to be used in a comfort
criterion. In the frequency range 1 to 80 Hz the acceleration processfi, is weighted as recom-
mended in the ISO Standard 2631 [8]. The ISO weighting function (the multiplier f(09)) is
182 T. DAHLBERG

divided in three intervals: 1-4 Hz (2n-8n radians/s), 4-8 Hz (8rr-16rr/s), and 8-80 Hz (16n-
16Oft/s). In the first interval the weighting function is
f(to) = V'-~[8n, 2n < o9 < 8n. (15)
The second interval contains the lowest eigenfrequencies of the human body (in the foot-to-
head direction). Here
f(o9) = l, 8n < o9 < 16n. (16)
In the third interval the weighting function is
f(o9) = 16n/o9, 16n < o9 < 160n. (17)
Also frequencies below 1 Hz could considerably influence the ride comfort. Motion sickness
is caused by vibration mainly in the frequency range 0.1-0.6 Hz (and by other factors not
accounted for here). Thus frequencies down to 0.1 Hz will be included in the comfort
criterion. In accordance with the "Reduced Comfort Boundary" proposed in reference [9] a
reasonable weighting function below 1 Hz could be
f(og) = 1"78o9-~ 0.2r: < co < 2re. (I8)
The total weighting functionf(og) is presented in Figure 2.

~"0 ~ 1 I Illii

I'O

~ 0"$

04
I I I I|||lJ I I ~ IllllJ I I | ] I III
O'1 9 2 ~ fl2 ~ fox2 r )0 x 2 r
(ro~ions/s)
Figure 2. Weighting function]'(co) for human sensitivity to vibrations.

The mean square spectral density of the stochastic process fi,~ can now be determined as
Si;,,, = f2(og) lH,(to)l z [tlb'2(o9) 1z Sa(og). (19)

It will be necessary here to measure the ride comfort by one scalar quantity. As the random
process ffw is stationary and Gaussian its distribution is completely described by the mean
value and the standard deviation. The mean value of the input random process q is taken as
zero and thus any linearly dependent output process will also have a zero mean. The simplest
scalar quantity to use in a comfort criterion would then be the standard deviation al;,~ of the
acceleration process/~w. A criterion for optimal comfort could then be "minimize ai;w".
It has been observed [10] that large values of the vertical acceleration are stress-inducing
for a car driver. Therefore it is presumed here that the height of the largest maxima of the
random process fiw is a suitable quantity to use in a comfort study. The mean value of the
largest maxima of the processfiw during time periods of length Tis (for large values of Inn) [6]

C - (V'2 in n + y/x/2 In n) a~.w. (20)

Here ? is Euler's constant (y = 0-5772...). Further n = a.~T/2na~w is the mean number of
positive mean value crossings of the process/~w in the time period T. Optimal comfort, Cot, t,
is now defined as implying a minimum value of C.
 RIDE COMFORT AND ROAD IIOLDING 183

4. ROAD HOLDING
It is important for a safe ride that the contact forces between the wheels and the road are
so lar$c that horizontal forces on the vehicle can br balanced by frictional forces at the wheels.
In accordance with the previous assumptions, the wheel-road contact force, N, will be a
stationary Gaussian random process. Its mean value, E[N], is the static wheel-road contact
force, and its standard deviation, a2v, is

try= 2 ](og~ + 2ito~l col)ml tt, t_,(og)12 Sq(o~)d to (21)

0.2n

The assumed type of wheel-road contact force will vary from plus to minus infinity. Thus for
parts of the ride there will be a tensional force between the wheel and the road (of course, this
is not true but it is supposed that this consequence of the theory applied can be disregarded).
A commonly used road holding criterion is that the tensional part of the wheel-road
contact force be of short duration. As the force is supposed to be Gaussian this is equivalent
to a minimization of u~t. This formulation does not say anything about how often and, when
it happens, for how long a time the road contact is lost.
An alternative road holding criterion is formulated here. A deviation N~ from the static
mean E[N] of the wheel-road contact force is chosen. Let Pm be the probability that the
contact force N will exceed E[N] + N~ at least once in a time period T. Optimal road holding,
Pmopt, is now defined as implying a minimum of Pm. One has (cf. [6], section 4)

Pm = PNt + (1 -- Pm)PN2, (22)

Put = (a~/N,'X/-~) (I -- tr2/N 2) exp (-NtZ/2tr2), (23)

P~2 = 1 - exp ( - ( a b T]2rctrlr exp (-N2/2tr2)). (24)

Here P~'I is an approximate expression of the probability that N i> E[N] + Nz at a fixed time
t = to, and PN2 is the probability that Nwill cross the level E[N] + Nz from below at least once
in the time period to < t < to + T. The assumptions that the level crossings are independent
and that N~ >> trz~have been made. As the randomly varying part of N is symmetric around its
mean, Pm also gives the probability of having a contact force smaller than E[N] - N~. Thus,
if N~ = E[N], Pm gives the probability of losing the road contact.
A third road holding criterion could be the minimization of the mean value of the largest
maxima of (the varying part of) the contact force (cf. ride comfort). As for the first criterion
this again does not say how often and for how long a time the road contact is lost. In this paper
the second road holding criterion is used.

5. SUSPENSION WORKING SPACE

In practice the working space of the vehicle suspension is limited, and so is IP2 - P l ] in the
vehicle model. The restriction of ]P2 - P l [ could be put on the standard deviation ap2-p, [5]
but here a probabilistic formulation of the restriction is proposed [6]. The probability Pro
that the r~lative displacement [y(t)l = [P2 - P , I will exceed a given level Yo some time during
a time period to < t < to + T is
P)o = PI + (I - P~)P2, (25)
where PI is the probability that ly(t)l >1yo at a fixed time to. An approximate formula is
(cf. equation (23))

Pt = (2tr,/yo V ' ~ ) (1 - trZ/y~) exp (-yo2/2tr2). (26)

184 T. DAHLBERG
In equation (25), P2 is the probability that [y(t)] will cross the level Yo with positive slope at
least once in the sampling period T. One has (cf. equation (24))
P2 = 1 - exp (-(tr~ T]na),) exp (-yZ/2a2)). (27)
The same assumptions as in section 4 have been made.
The limitation of the relative displacement is now introduced by a constraint on the
probability Pyo. For a given level Yo the probability P>.o must be equal to or less than a pre-
scribed probability Po. The calculations to follow will be carried out for some different levels
Yo. The probability Pro ~<Po = 0.001 will be used throughout.

6. ROAD PROFILE AND VEHICLE INPUT

The road profile proposed in the ISO recommendation draft [11] will be used. The one-
sided vertical amplitude power spectral density S(n) at the spatial frequency n of the road is
S(n) = S(no) (no/n)", n <~no,
= S(no)(no~n) "=, n >1no, (28)
where S(no) is the power spectral density at the spatial frequency no (m3/cycle), no is a fixed
datum spatial frequency (no = l/2n cycles/m), n is the spatial frequency variable, wt = 2.0 and
w2= 1-5.
Let the vehicle travel with constant speed v over the road profile described. The one-sided
power spectral density S ( f ) of the vehicle input is then S ( f ) =S(n)[v, where f = vn is the
temporal frequency in Hz [11]. Introducing the angular frequency co= 2nf one finds the
two-sided spectral density S~(to) = ( l / 4 r O S ( f = to/2~) [12] to be
s # o ) = S#Oo)(too/to)', ~<tOo = 2nVno,
= s (tOo) (tOo/tO)''s, ItOl O,o = 2, Vno, (29)
where S~(tOo)= S(no)/4rw (mZs/radian). The standard deviation a~ of the input random
qis
(~2 So(o )do ) (30)

The integration will be performed from 0.2n to 160r~/s (0.10 to 80 Hz). The vehicle speed v is
chosen as v = 20 m/s. Using no = l/2r~ cycles/m one finds tr~(2o)= 8"05V/tooSq(too) (m) and
a~'(2o) = 150.8 tov/~-~oSq(too)(m/s2). These standard deviations will be used as reference values.
As the standard deviations trq and tr~ are dependent on the speed, the indices are supplemented
with the speed at which the reference values are taken.

7. OPTIMIZATION FUNCq'ION
If the suspension parameters co2 and ~2 are optimized with respect to road holding only one
usually obtains other values than when optimizing with respect to ride comfort only. This will
happen also with the new definitions of optimal ride comfort and road holding used here. For
a given level Yo (limiting the relative displacement of the suspension working space) the
suspension parameters to2 and (2 were optimized with respect to ride comfort and road
holding, respectively. Optimization procedure and use of constraints are fully described in
[6]. When optimal ride comfort, Copt, and optimal road holding, Pmopt, are known the two
optimization criterions can be synthesized. A new objective function F(co,, ~2) is here suggested
as
F(co2, ~'2) = otC/Copt + (1 - oOPm/Pmop,, (31)
 RIDE COMFORT AND ROAD tlOLDING 185
where c~is a weighting factor (0 <~ cc ~< 1). The quantities C and Pm are given in equations (20)
and (22). When using this objective function the same penalty terms were added as when
Cop~ and PN, opt w e r e computed [6]. The synthetization (equation (31)) of the two criteria now
yields optimal suspension parameters co, and (2 depending on cc and Yo.

8. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

All results given in this section are obtained for the following numerical values: ml = 50 kg,
m2 = 500 kg, col = 60/s, (, = 0.06, co, = 5n/s, (= = 0.3, T = 600 s, v = 20 m/s, co, = 0.2n/s,
co, = 160n/s, and N, = (1.74 x 106 N / m ) ~ o S ~ ( c o o ) . For an average road (class C of 5
classes A to E according to reference [11]) S(no) may vary from 32 x 10 -6 m3/cycle to
128 • 10 -6 m3/cycle. With S(no) = 30 x 10 -6 m3/cycle the Nrvalue given above is about half
the static wheel-road contact force (S(no) = 120 x 10 -6 m3/cycle then gives an Nrvalue equal
to the static wheel-road contact force).
The suspension parameters coz and ~z have been optimized for a given level Yo (the sus-
pension working space) and some c~-values. The optimal parameter values so obtained are
given in Figure 3. The calculations were repeated for other yo-values. Joining all points with
= I yields a curve giving co2 and (2 for optimal ride comfort as a function ofyo. A constraint
i I I i i i I i I I I i I

7.0
a3-6 aZ al
6"0 - ,, "\
5"0

4,0

3"0

d.~-.-~ "\ \\ ",,

.o_ 2-0 \ \ "
\ ",, X\ ",,
yo/%(zo) = 0.15 \ 0.11 \ ,,Od0 0-075\
x \ ,, ,,
I I I I I I I 1 I [ I [
0-5 1.0 2-0 3"0 4.0

~z

\ \- "- \,, "~:, 1

0-20 \ \
u o.2o,, o.,5\ o-,b~.?..,o\ ,,~o75 1
,p,o=o.oo,, ",\ ",,,,, ",,x. ",, ,,,
", x,_.II
0"10
d6 e6 e$ e4 % ez el~
i i i i I i I , i , , , I I t | I ~ I ] t I I I I ~ I|
I'0 2-0 5-0 I0 20 50
~z
Figure 3. Optimized suspension parameters m2 (radians/s) and (z for some suspension working spaces (as
quantified by yo, T = 600 s and P~,o~< 0.001 ) and for some weighting factors =.

Letter ~ Index yo/a~czo)

a 0-0 I 0.075
b 0.5 2 O.lO
c 0-7 3 0.I I
d 0-9 4 0.15
r 1.0 5 0.20
6 0.25
186 T. DAHLBERG

to2 >i 0.1/s was introduced. Without this constraint the optimization of ride comfort would
have yielded o92 = 0 and o9z(2 = constant. The optimal comfort values (along the ct = 1
curve) are given in Figure 4(a) as a function ofyo. The same has been done for optimal road

0-02~ i
holding (curve c~= 0 in Figure 3 and Figure 4(b), respectively).

(a)
i

'of /
(b)
O-3 a=|-

0-02(

~
0-015 0.2
0-3

0-010

0"9
0-I

0.005

r \
PNl opt
q

I I I I I 0 I I I I I
0"05 0-10 0.15 0-20 0.25 1-05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Yo/Or {L:'O) Yo/~ {ZO]

Figure 4. (a) Relative comfort number C/cr~'~,o>for some a-values as a function of the suspension working
space (as quantified byyo, T= 600 s and P).o~<0-001); corresponding suspension parameters to2 and (2 can be
read from curves a to e in Figure 3. (b) Road holding number Pm for some a-values as a function of the sus-
pension working space (as quantified by yo, T= 600 s and P).o~<0"001);corresponding suspension parameters
to, and ~2 can be read from curves a to e in Figure 3.
From Figure 4(a) it follows that the optimal ride comfort can be improved by in-
creasing the suspension working space, and in Figure 3 it is seen that this is coupled to a
weaker spring-dashpot system. These results were also found in reference [6] although the
vehicle model used there was a 1-DOF system. From Figure 4(b) it follows that the road
holding can be improved by increasing the suspension working space up to a certain limit
only. At and beyond this limit (yo/tr~t2o >>10"11) the mass m2 acts as an optimized dynamic
absorber attached to the mass m~. For the case that the suspension working space has been
fixed (i.e., Yo is fixed), Figures 4(a) and 4(b) also yield the ride comfort and the road holding
as a function of ct.
Example. Choosingyo/trq(2o ) = 0"15 one has the optimal comfort number Copt = 8.3 x 10 -a
a~c2o)and the optimal road holding number Pm opt = 5.8 per cent (from Figures 4(a) and 4(b)).
Choosing ct = 0.5 yields the optimized suspension parameters o92 = 4.9/s and (2 = 0.5 (from
Figure 3). By using these parameter values the ride (dis)comfort number is C = 14.3 x 10-3
a~-c2o) and the road holding number is P m = 6.6 per cent (from Figures 4(a) and 4(b)).
I f the parameter values o92 and (2 are too far away from those giving optimal road holding,
then the probability Pm ---> 1, and the second term in equation (31) is no longer a function of
o92 and (2. The minimization of F(o92, (2) (equation (31)) then yields the same o92 and (2 as for
optimal comfort. This is the reason why the points d6 and e6 coincide in Figure 3.
In Figure 3 it is also seen that the values ofo92 and (2 giving P~.o= 0.001 form approximately
straight lines with slope close to - 1 in the logogz-log(2 plane. One thus has o92(2 = constant.
Solving for c2 = (2 x 2 kv/k~2m~yields c2 "" constant x 2m2. It follows that if Yo ~<0"1 ltrq(2o)
one has almost the same damping c2 for optimal road holding as for optimal ride comfort.

9. ACTIVE ISOLATION
All results given in section 8 pertain to the vehicle speed v = 20 m/s. Other speeds will give
other optimal values ofo92 and (2. It was found that a lower speed (v = 10 m/s) yields optimal
 RIDE COMFORTAND ROAD HOLDING 187
co, and [2 larger than those given in Figure 3 (the ~ = 0-curve) while a higher speed (v = 30 m/s)
yields lower suspension stiffness and damping for the same limitation of the suspension
working space. The optimal comfort curve (the cc= l-curve in Figure 3) is displaced to
the right for a lower speed and to the left for a higher one. It follows that an active sus-
pension system could be controlled by the vehicle speed. The response of a I-DOF vehicle
travelling with a randomly varying speed on a randomly varying road profile has been studied
in reference [13].

10. CONCLUSION
The suspension parameters o92and ~2 ofa 2-DOF vehicle (see Figure 1) have been optimized
with respect to both road holding and ride comfort. Optimal road holding and optimal ride
comfort criteria are formulated and the two criteria are synthesized. Optimal road holding is
found for suspension parameters lying in the vicinity of those used in today's passenger
automobiles. Optimal ride comfort is obtained for a much weaker suspension system. This
system is so weak that loading of the vehicle would result in very large static displacements of
the vehicle body. It was found, however, that the comfort did not change too much when the
suspension parameters o92 and (2 were given values along a specified curve (Yo[aq~2o)= con-
stant in Figure 3). Therefore, when synthesizing the two criteria, optimal suspension para-
meters were again obtained close to those giving optimal road holding.
The optimal suspension parameters were found to be dependent on the vehicle speed. A
conclusion is that an active suspension systemcould be controlled by the speed. This pre-
supposes, of course, that the road profile can be described as in reference [11 ].

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank Professor B. Akesson for several helpful discussions.

REFERENCES
I. J.D. Roaso,,q and C. J. DODDS 1975/76 VehicleSystem DynamicsS, 1-13. Stochastic road inputs
and vehicle response.
2. D. RYBA 1973 Vehicle System Dynamics 2, 1-32. Possible improvements in ride comfort.
3. D. RY~A 1974 Vehicle System Dynamics 3, 17-46. Improvements in dynamic characteristics of
automobile suspension systems.
4. H.J. BRtms and R. R6:qrrz 1971 Automobile Engineer 61(3), 26-28, (4), 45-47. Optimizing ride
comfort.
5. N. FUJIWARAand Y. MtrRo'rsu 1974 Bulletin of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers 17,
68-72. Optimum design of vibration isolations for random excitations.
6. T. DAm.BERG 1977 Journal of Sound and Vibration 55, 245-253. Parametric optimization of a
1-DOF vehicle travelling on a randomly profiled road.
7. R. E. ILASMtrSSENand A. D. CORTrSE 1968 SAE Transactions 77, 1412-1420. Dynamic spring
rate performance of rolling tires.
8. ISO lnternattonalstandard2631-1974(E). Guide for the evaluation of human exposure to whole-
body vibration.
9. G.R. ALLEN1975 U.K. Group Meeting on Human Response to Vibration, Universityof Southamp-
ton, September 1975. Evaluation of exposure to whole-body vibration below 1 Hz.
10. M. HELAt,rDER1976 Ph.D. Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg. Drivers'
reactions to road conditions. A psychophysiological approach.
11. 1SO/TC 108/I4,'G9 (BSIPanelMEE/158/3/I) 1972 (June). Generalized terrain-dynamic inputs to
vehicles.
12. D. E. NEWLA~ 1975 Random Vibrations and Spectral Analysis. London and New York:
Longman.
13. K. SO~CZYK,D. B. MACVEANand J. D. ROeSON 1977 Journal of Soundand Vibration 52, 37--49.
Response to profile-imposed excitation with randomly varying traversal velocity.