Suspension Analysis of Racecars At Sebring International Raceway

By Jason Taylor ME 3015 Dr. Nader Sadegh Summer 2002 George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology

Introduction Every year in March, the competitors of the American LeMans Series journey to Sebring International Raceway in Florida to compete in a gruesome 12-hour endurance race. Teams such as BMW, Audi, Porsche, Chevrolet, and Saleen must have every component of their race vehicles tuned to perfection to endure the track conditions. While tires play an instrumental role in a cars performance, the suspension system must be adjusted to accommodate the unique track conditions. Because the track is actually an old airport runway from decades ago, there are some areas of the track that raise concern. Specifically, hairpin turn 7 causes many problems because of a waviness in the track surface at high-g loads. Cars entering the straight after turn 5 tend to pick up speeds in excess of 140 mph, only to have to decelerate to a reasonable speed for the hairpin. Going into the turn too quickly can upset the suspension in the 5-cm dip, causing the car to lose control. Figure 1 shows the problem spot of Sebring where most accidents occur.

Figure 1

To prevent the teams from falling victim to turn 7, a typical racecar suspension model is shown below to represent the mechanical system that we will analyze. The average weights, spring constants, and damping ratios for competition cars in the ALMS circuit are used to simulate the response of the system when subjected to the disturbance in turn 7. Below figure 2, the numerical values for the variables are given. R represents the track profile (disturbance). Assume zero initial conditions; the diagram is in equilibrium.

Figure 2

Quarter mass of race vehicle (Mb) = 285 kg Tire/wheel/suspension mass (Mt) = 30 kg Suspension system spring constant (k1) = 7,900 N/m Wheel/tire spring constant (k2) = 53,500 N/m Suspension system damping coefficient (b1) = 35 Ns/m Wheel/tire damping coefficient (b2) = 1,200 Ns/m

Analysis Summary Below are the equations of motion derived from the free body diagram shown in Figure 2. For simplification purposes, we will neglect tire deformation and the distance between the car body and track profile (X1-R). Instead, attention should be focused on the travel between the car body and suspension components (X1-X2). Transfer functions of the system are calculated in order to analyze unit step and disturbance responses.

To first take into account how the system performs without feedback control, Graph 1 shows the open-loop response to a unit step actuated force. As you can see, the settling time is well over a minute.
Open-loop Response to Unit Step Actuated Force
2.5 x 10-4 From: U(1)

A m plitude

1.5 To: Y (1) 1 0.5 0 0

14

28

42

56

70

Time (sec.)

Graph 1

Next, to model the track profile in turn 7, a plot of the open-loop response to a 5-cm step disturbance is shown in Graph 2. Again, no feedback control design exists yet to help the suspension system reduce oscillations. Settling time is still about one minute.
Open-loop response to 5-cm Step Disturbance
From: U(1) 0.06

0.04

0.02

A m plitude

To: Y (1)

-0.02

-0.04

-0.06 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (sec.)

Graph 2

In order to eliminate the oscillations, a PID controller with output y is used to help dampen the disturbance created by the track profile. The transfer function for the controller is shown in Figure 3, and a block diagram of our new suspension system is exhibited in Figure 4 below.

Figure 3

Figure 4

Arbitrary PID controller values are chosen to simulate the response with the controller in place. Below are the results with Kd = 445873, Kp = 5166638, and Ki = 6120987.
Closed-loop Step Response with PID Controller
5 4 x 10-4 From: U(1)

Mp = 1%
3 2

ts = 2.5 sec A m plitude

1 To: Y (1) 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Time (sec.)

Graph 3

Now to show the various controller effects on the system, Graph 4 below shows the response with significantly lower PID inputs: Kd = 44535, Kp = 516655, and Ki = 612050.
Closed-loop Step Response with PID Controller
5 x 10-3 From: U(1)

Mp = 8.4%
3

A m plitude

To: Y (1)

ts = 2.6 sec.

-1

-2

-3

-4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Time (sec.)

Graph 4

Conclusions As the graphs clearly show, the presence of a PID controller greatly reduces the oscillations of the step response to a 5-cm disturbance. The initially high gains of the controller resulted in a 2.5-second settling time and a remarkably low one percent overshoot (of the input amplitude). However, when the gains were reduced to 10% of their original value (Graph 4), the maximum overshoot jumped to 8.4% while the settling time was hardly affected (2.6 seconds). As a result, we can conclude that higher gains in a PID controller decrease overshoot, but have little effect on settling time. Perhaps the spring and damping constants have a stronger effect on settling time while the controller helps to reduce initial vibrations.

In the case of the racecars at Sebrings turn 7, a stiff suspension and a low vehicular center of gravity are a vital combination to taking high-g turns. However, if the suspension is too stiff in extreme cases, the dip in turn 7 can cause the car to become slightly airborne at the exit, causing a loss of traction and ultimately a loss of lap time. Despite the lack of concern for comfort of the driver, there is a concern for comfort of the car. Any damage to the suspension during an endurance race could prove detrimental. Therefore, its necessary to allow for some damping to prevent stress on the suspension. Graph 3 exhibits this type of setup, and would be a very competitive choice of suspension settings for taking on the 12 Hours of Sebring.

Resources Control Tutorials for Matlab. University of Michigan. 23 April, 2002. Available: http://www.engin.umich.edu/group/ctm/ Ogata, Katsuhiko. System Dynamics: Third Edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 1998. Fast Details: Zen and the art of Sportscar Racing. Crete, Timothy. Available: http://www.fastdetails.com Ground Control Suspension Systems. January 1999. Available: http://www.ground-control.com