Final Project Report

PRELIMINARY STUDY FOR RIDE DYNAMICS MODEL OF SEMAR-T
USING MATLAB-SIMULINK

FINAL PROJECT
Submitted as a bachelor requirement in obtaining degree
in the mechanical engineering department,
faculty of engineering

by:
IPNU CANDRA
(I0408039)

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITAS SEBELAS MARET
SURAKARTA
2013

DEDICATIONS

To those who have been responsible, to them I dedicate this work anyway.
They are:

Allah SWT.
The creator and the master himself

Muhammad SAW.
The miracle and the inspiring

Taruni
A mother who always gave love and support

Mamad
A father who has always worked hard for the welfare of him children

Dedi Suwikyo, Tiyas Sismaya and Ina Susanti
Brother and sisters who has been assisting

Hadana Ulufannuri
A girl with a name and a story

MOTTO

Life is an adventure, so we should work hard to achieve our destinations

Preliminary Study For Ride Dynamics Model of Semar-T Using MATLAB-
Simulink

Ipnu Candra
Mechanical Engineering Department
Faculty of Engineering
Universitas Sebelas Maret
Surakarta, Indonesia
E-mail: ipnu.candra@yahoo.com

Abstrack
The work is aimed to study the vertical, longitudinal and lateral response of
ride performance of Semar-T. The issues related to the design of vehicle model
with passive suspension system are discussed. A complete-vehicle seven-degree-
of-freedom model is used to investigate the dynamics response by applying road
disturbances in sinusoidal road input excitation. Frequency response of the heave,
roll, pitch of the sprung mass and suspension deflection is obtained for the need of
studying the effect of given variation of both suspension stiffness coefficient and
suspension damping coefficient. Finally, the resulted responses in frequency
domain are then evaluated using ISO-2631 criteria to evaluate the passenger
comfortability.

Keywords: Semar-T, passive suspension system, comfortability, ISO-2631.

Pembelajaran Awal Untuk Model Dinamika RideSemar-T Menggunakan
Matlab-Simulink

Ipnu Candra
Jurusan Teknik Mesin
Fakultas Teknik
Universitas Sebelas Maret
Surakarta, Indonesia
E-mail: ipnu.candra@yahoo.com

Abstrak
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mempelajari respon vertikal,
longitudinal dan lateral dari performa ride Semar-T. Masalah-masalah yang terkait
dengan desain model kendaraan menggunakan sistem suspensi pasif akan dibahas
dalam penelitian ini. Model penuh kendaraan tujuh derajat kebebasan (DOF)
digunakan untuk meneliti respon dinamik dengan memberikan gangguan jalan
yang berbentuk sinusoid. Respon domain frekuensi heave, roll, pitch dari massa
sprung dan perpindahan suspensi diperoleh untuk mempelajari pengaruh dari
variasi nilai konstanta pegas dan peredam. Respon domain frekuensi kemudian
digunakan untuk evaluasi berdasarkan standar ISO-2631 guna mengevaluasi
kenyamanan penumpang.

Kata kunci: Semar-T, sistem suspensi pasif, kenyamanan, ISO-2631.

PREFACE

First of all, the writer wants to thank to Allah SWT for the blessing and
guidance. Sholawat and also salam for my prophet Muhammad SAW, the person
who we will hope his syafaat in the end world later. The writer also would like to
say very much thank you to all family and friends for supporting writer to finish
this final project report well.
In this report, the writer is interested to discuss the Preliminary Study For
Ride Dynamics Model Of Semar-T Using Matlab-Simulink, including the
problem of influence road profile and variation of suspension stiffness coefficient
and suspension damping coefficient on the ride comfort of Semar-T. The writer
tried to make this final project report become the best final project report that ever
writer made.
The writer realized that this report is still far from being perfect. Therefore,
the writer will be happy to accept the suggestion and constructive criticism to
make this report be better. The writer hopes, this final project report would give
benefit for the others later.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Praise be to Allah SWT who always gives the power from first until end so
that Writer can finish this final project report well. However, the writer could not
accomplish this report without the help of many people. Therefore, the writer
would like to thank to all of them. They are:.
1. Ubaidillah S.T., M.Sc., as supervisor, who has patiently given his
guidance, advice, suggestions and time from the beginning up to the
complection of writing this report.
2. Wibowo S.T., M.T., as co-supervisor, who has given his guidance,
advice and encouragement in writing this report.
3. Didik Djoko Susilo S.T., M.T., the head of mechanical engineering
department for his permission to write this report.
4. Parents, you are everything in here, thanks for everything that you have
given for the writer.
5. Brother and sisters, for being the writers inspiration and giving strength
in facing this life.
6. Hadana Ulufannuri, who has given her support everyday.
7. All poeple and friends who cant able to mention one by one.

Surakarta, July 2013

The writer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
COVER ........................................................................................................ i
ASSIGNMENT ............................................................................................ ii
APPROVAL ................................................................................................. iii
DEDICATIONS ............................................................................................ iv
MOTTO ........................................................................................................ v
ABSTRACK ................................................................................................ vi
PREFACE .................................................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................ ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................. x
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................... xii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF EQUATIONS ................................................................................ xix
LIST OF NOTATIONS ............................................................................... xx
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background .............................................................................. 1
1.2. Problem Statement ................................................................... 3
1.3. Scopes And Limitations ........................................................... 4
1.4. Objectives ................................................................................. 4
1.5. Benefits .................................................................................... 4
1.6. Writing Systematics ................................................................. 4
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Previous Researches ................................................................ 6
2.2. Basic of Theory ........................................................................ 8
2.2.1. Vehicle Ride Model ......................................................... 8
2.2.2. Bumps and potholes profiles ............................................ 11
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Methodology ........................................................................... 13
3.2. Implementation of project ....................................................... 15
3.3. Schedule ................................................................................. 19

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4.1. Simulation Setup ..................................................................... 20
4.2. Arrangement of Variations ..................................................... 21
4.3. Road sinusoidal Test ............................................................... 22
4.4. Validation ................................................................................ 23
4.5. Results ..................................................................................... 30
4.5.1. Simulation Results of 1
st
Variation (k
s
= constant) ......... 30
4.5.2. Simulation Results of 2
nd
Variation (c
s
= constant) ........ 44
4.6. International Standard ISO-2631 ............................................ 57
4.7. Ride Comfort Comparison Using ISO-2631 ........................... 59
4.7.1. Under Full Load (m=1400 kg) Condition ....................... 59
4.7.2. Under Full Load (m=1400 kg) Versus Half Load
(m=1200 kg) Conditions .................................................. 61
4.8. Analysis ................................................................................... 62
4.8.1. Frequency Responses ...................................................... 62
4.8.1.1. Frequency Responses of 1
st
Variation ............. 62
nd
Variation ............ 63
4.8.2. Time Responses................................................................ 63
4.8.2.1. Time Responses of 1
st
Variation ..................... 63
nd
Variation ..................... 64
4.8.3. ISO-2631 ......................................................................... 64
4.8.3.1. ISO-2631 for 1
st
Variation (k
s
= constant) ...... 64
4.8.3.2. ISO-2631 for 2
nd
Variation (c
s
= constant) ....... 65
4.8.3.3. ISO-2631 for Full Load (m=1400 kg) Versus
Half Load (m=1200 kg) Conditions ..................... 66
4.8.4. The Most Optimal Suspension System Variation ........... 66
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1. Conclusion ............................................................................... 67
5.2. Recommendation...................................................................... 67
REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 68

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Table 3.1. Semar-T parameters ................................................................ 15
Table 3.2. Description of free body diagram symbol .............................. 16
Table 3.3. Schedule of project ................................................................. 19
Table 4.1. Simulation Setup ..................................................................... 20
Table 4.2. List of parameter variations .................................................... 20

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 2.1. Vehicle body acceleration due to road excitation in
comparison with ISO ride comfort boundaries .................... 7
Figure 2.2. Vehicle coordinate systems .................................................. 9
Figure 2.3. Complete-vehicle model ....................................................... 10
Figure 2.4. (a) Rectangular cleat and (b) cosine-shaped bump ............... 11
Figure 3.1. Flow chart of project ............................................................ 14
Figure 3.2. Complete Semar-T model ..................................................... 16
Figure 3.2.a Wheels Responses ................................................................ 17
Figure 3.2.b Body Responses .................................................................... 17
Figure 3.2.c Scopes ................................................................................... 18
Figure 3.3. Complete Semar-T block diagram ........................................ 18
Figure 4.1. Suspension damping coefficient testing result ..................... 21
Figure 4.2. Suspension stiffness coefficient testing result ...................... 22
Figure 4.3. Mode sinusoidal test ............................................................. 23
Figure 4.4. Validation graphic of body displacement response .............. 24
Figure 4.5. Validation graphic of body acceleration response ................ 24
Figure 4.6. Validation graphic of pitch angle response .......................... 25
Figure 4.7. Validation graphic of roll angle response ............................. 25
Figure 4.8. Validation graphic of front-left suspension travel response . 26
Figure 4.9. Validation graphic of front-left wheel acceleration response 26
Figure 4.10. Validation graphic of rear-left suspension travel response .. 27
Figure 4.11. Validation graphic of rear-left wheel acceleration response 27
Figure 4.12. Validation graphic of rear-right suspension travel response 28
Figure 4.13. Validation graphic of rear-right wheel acceleration response 28
Figure 4.14. Validation graphic of front-right suspension travel response 29
Figure 4.15. Validation graphic of front-right wheel acceleration
response ................................................................................ 29
Figure 4.16. Bode plots of (a) body displacement and (b) body
acceleration response, for different values of the suspension

damping coefficients (
s
c ) and constant value of the
suspension stiffness coefficients (
s
k = 18000 m N / ) ........... 31
Figure 4.17. Bode plots of (a) roll angle and (b) pitch angle response, for
different values of the suspension damping coefficients (
s
c )
and constant value of the suspension stiffness coefficients
(
s
k = 18000 m N / ) ................................................................ 32
Figure 4.18. Bode plots of (a) front-left suspension travel and (b) front-
left wheel acceleration response, for different values of the
suspension damping coefficients (
s
c ) and constant value of
the suspension stiffness coefficients (
s
k = 18000 m N / ) ..... 33
Figure 4.19. Bode plots of (a) front-right suspension travel and (b) front-
right wheel acceleration response, for different values of the
s
s
k = 18000 m N / ) ..... 34
Figure 4.20. Bode plots of (a) rear-left suspension travel and (b) rear-left
wheel acceleration response, for different values of the
s
s
k = 18000 m N / ) ..... 35
Figure 4.21. Bode plots of (a) rear-right suspension travel and (b) rear-
s
s
k = 18000 m N / ) ..... 36
Figure 4.22. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) body displacement and (b) body
s
s
k = 18000 m N / ) ........... 38
Figure 4.23. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) roll angle and (b) pitch angle
response, for different values of the suspension damping

coefficients (
s
c ) and constant value of the suspension
stiffness coefficients (
s
k = 18000 m N / ) ............................. 39
Figure 4.24. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) front-left suspension travel and
(b) front-left wheel acceleration response, for different
values of the suspension damping coefficients (
s
c ) and
constant value of the suspension stiffness coefficients (
s
k =
18000 m N / ) ........................................................................ 40
Figure 4.25. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) front-right suspension travel and
(b) front-right wheel acceleration response, for different
s
c ) and
s
k =
18000 m N / ) ........................................................................ 41
Figure 4.26. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) rear-left suspension travel and
(b) rear-left wheel acceleration response, for different
s
c ) and
s
k =
18000 m N / ) ........................................................................ 42
Figure 4.27. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) rear-right suspension travel and
(b) rear-right wheel acceleration response, for different
s
c ) and
s
k =
18000 m N / ) ........................................................................ 43
Figure 4.28. Bode plots of (a) body displacement and (b) body
s
k ) and constant value of the
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) ............. 45
Figure 4.29. Bode plots of (a) roll angle and (b) pitch angle response, for
different values of the suspension stiffness coefficients (
s
k )
... and constant value of the suspension damping coefficients

(
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) ................................................................... 46
Figure 4.30. Bode plots of (a) front-left suspension travel and (b) front-
left wheel acceleration response, for different values of the
s
k ) and constant value of
the suspension damping coefficients (
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) ....... 47
Figure 4.31. Bode plots of (a) front-right suspension travel and (b) front-
s
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) ....... 48
Figure 4.32. Bode plots of (a) rear-left suspension travel and (b) rear-left
wheel acceleration response, for different values of the
s
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) ....... 49
Figure 4.33. Bode plots of (a) rear-right suspension travel and (b) rear-
s
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) ....... 50
s
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) ............. 51
Figure 4.35. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) roll angle and (b) pitch angle
response, for different values of the suspension stiffness
coefficients (
s
k ) and constant value of the suspension
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) ............................... 52
Figure 4.36. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) front-left suspension travel and
(b) front-left wheel acceleration response, for different
values of the suspension stiffness coefficients (
s
k ) and

constant value of the suspension damping coefficients (
s
c =
900 m Ns / ) ........................................................................... 53
Figure 4.37. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) front-right suspension travel and
(b) front-right wheel acceleration response, for different
s
k ) and
s
c =
900 m Ns / ) ........................................................................... 54
Figure 4.38. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) rear-left suspension travel and
(b) rear-left wheel acceleration response, for different
s
k ) and
s
c =
900 m Ns / ) ........................................................................... 55
Figure 4.39. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) rear-right suspension travel and
(b) rear-right wheel acceleration response, for different
s
k ) and
s
c =
900 m Ns / ) ........................................................................... 56
Figure 4.40. ISO 2631 fatigue-decreased proficiency boundary:
vertical vibration limits as a function of frequency and
exposure time [2] .................................................................. 58
comparison with ISO ride comfort boundaries, for different
s
c ) and
s
k =
18000 m N / ) ........................................................................ 59
comparison with ISO ride comfort boundaries, for different
s
k ) and
s
c =
900 m Ns / ) ........................................................................... 60

comparison with ISO ride comfort boundaries, under full
load (m=1400 kg) versus half load (m=1200 kg) conditions 61

LIST OF EQUATIONS

Page
Equation 2.1. RMS value of the sprung mass displacement ................... 7
Equation 2.2. The second law of Newton ................................................ 10
Equation 2.3. Body vertical response ...................................................... 10
Equation 2.4. Body pitch response .......................................................... 10
Equation 2.5. Body roll response ............................................................ 11
Equation 2.6. Front-left wheel response .................................................. 11
Equation 2.7. Rear-left wheel response ................................................... 11
Equation 2.8. Rear-right wheel response ................................................. 11
Equation 2.9. Front-right wheel response ................................................ 11
Equation 2.10. Height of rectangular cleat ................................................ 12
Equation 2.11. Height of cosine-shaped bump .......................................... 12

LIST OF NOTATIONS

s
m = Sprung mass ............................................................................ (kg)
yy
I = Pitch moment of inertia ........................................................... (kgm
2
)
xx
I = Roll moment of inertia ............................................................ (kgm
2
)
1
mu = Front-left unsprung mass ......................................................... (kg)
2
mu = Rear-left unsprung mass .......................................................... (kg)
3
mu = Rear-right unsprung mass ........................................................ (kg)
4
mu = Front-right unsprung mass ...................................................... (kg)
1
ks = Front-left suspension stiffness coefficient .............................. (N/m)
2
ks = Rear-left suspension stiffness coefficient ................................ (N/m)
3
ks = Rear-right suspension stiffness coefficient ............................. (N/m)
4
ks = Front-right suspension stiffness coefficient ............................ (N/m)
1
cs = Front-left suspension damping coefficient .............................. (N/m)
2
cs = Rear-left suspension damping coefficient ............................... (N/m)
3
cs = Rear-right suspension damping coefficient ............................. (N/m)
4
cs = Front-right suspension damping coefficient ............................ (N/m)
f
l = Side distance from center of gravity to the front axle ............. (m)
r
l = Side distance from center of gravity to the rear axle ............... (m)
fl
a = Frontal distance from center of gravity to the front-left axle .. (m)
rl
a = Frontal distance from center of gravity to the rear-left axle ... (m)
rr
a = Frontal distance from center of gravity to the rear-right axle . (m)
fr
a = Frontal distance from center of gravity to the front-right axle (m)
1
x = Sprung mass heavy displacement ............................................ (m)
2
x = Sprung mass pitch angular displacement ................................ (rad)
3
x = Sprung mass roll angular displacement ................................... (rad)
4
x = Front-left unsprung mass displacement ................................... (m)

5
x = Rear-left unsprung mass displacement .................................... (m)
6
x = Rear-right unsprung mass displacement ................................. (m)
7
x = Front-right unsprung mass displacement ................................ (m)
1 in
x = Front-left displacement input .................................................. (m)
2 in
x = Rear-left displacement input ................................................... (m)
3 in
x = Rear-right displacement input ................................................. (m)
4 in
x = Front-right displacement input ................................................ (m)
RMS
z
. 1
= RMS value of the sprung mass displacement ......................... (m)
t = Time ........................................................................................ (s)
1
z = Sprung mass acceleration ........................................................ (m/s
2
)
g = Gravity ..................................................................................... (N/m
2
)
s
F = Force acting at vehicle body .................................................... (N)
H = Height ...................................................................................... (m)
B = Widht ....................................................................................... (m)
L = Length ..................................................................................... (m)
x
v = Vehicle longitudinal velocity .................................................. (m/s)
Y
v = Vehicle lateral velocity ............................................................ (m/s)
l = Wheel base .............................................................................. (m)
w = Wheel track ............................................................................. (m)

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background
Ride and handling characteristics of an automobile are depend on the
characteristics of the tires. Reaction point between the vehicle and roadway occurs
on the tires. Tire manages the input of forces and disturbances from the road. Tire
characteristics are therefore a key factor in the effect of the road on a vehicle. It
also effects the output forces which controls vehicle stability and cornering
characteristics. The tire's basic characteristics are managed by the system of
springs, dampers and linkages that control the way in which tires move and react
to disturbances and control inputs [1].
Wheels provide for a variety of simultaneous needs. The bounce and
steering movements provide steering input for directional control, conpensate for
body roll to improve cornering ability and move vertically in response to roadway
irregularities in order to smooth out the ride and maintain adhesion. Wheels are
connected to the sprung mass throught linkages and are therefore affected by the
rolling and pitching movements that occur about the suspensions system's reaction
center. The mechanical requirements for directional control, cornering forces and
ride comfort continuously change according to roadway and driving conditions.
The suspensions and steering linkages are designed to allow the wheels to move
as needed to meet the dynamic requirements of various combinations of events.
However, the designer is normally constrained by mechanichal conflits between
structural members, engine and drive train and other components that also must fit
into the vehicle. Consequently, errors in geometry are common, and the actual
suspension system often falls short of the ideal in a variety of ways [1].
Road condition can show real performance of vehicle ride just like ride
over bump. The center of gravity height, relative to the track, determines load
transfer, also called weight transfer, from side to side and causes body rolling.
Centrifugal force acts at the center of gravity to lean the car toward the outside of
the curve, increasing downward force on the outside tires. The center of gravity
height, relative to the wheelbase, determines load transfer between front and rear.

The momentum of car acts at its center of gravity to twist the car forward or
backward, respectively during braking and acceleration. Since it is only
downward force that changes and not the location of the center of gravity, the
effect on over/under steer is opposite to that of an actual change in the center of
gravity. When a car is braking, the downroad load on the front tires increases and
that on the rear decreases, with corresponding change in their ability to take
sideways load, causing oversteer [2].
The quality referred to as ride comfort is affected by a variety of factors
including high frequency vibrations, body booming, body roll and pitch, as well
as the vertical spring action normaly associated with a smooth ride [2-8]. If the
vehicle is noisy, or it rolls excessively in turns, or pitchs during accelerations and
braking, or the body produces a booming resonance, occupants will experience
uncomfortable ride.
The ride quality normally associated with the vehicle's response to bumps is
a factor of the relatively low frequency bounce and rebound movements of the
suspension system [1]. Following a bump, the un-damped suspension of a vehicle
will experience a series of oscillations that will cycle according to the natural
frequency of the system.
According to newton's first law, a moving body will continue moving a
straight line until it is acted upon by a disturbing force. Newton's second law
refers to the balance that exists between the disturbing force and the reaction of
the moving body. In the case of the automobile, weather the disturbing force in
the form of a wind-gust, an incline in the roadway, or the cornering forces
produced by tires, the force causing the turn and the force resisting the turn will
always be in balance [5].
Vehicle handling characteristics have to do with the way in which the
vehicle's inertial forces and the cornering forces of the tires act against each other.
The magnitude and vector of the inertial forces are establihed by the vehicle's
weight and balance. In a turn, angular acceleration results in a force that is
centered at the vehicle center of gravity and acts in a direction away from the turn
center. The ability to overcome these forces and produce a controlled, stable turn
depends upon the combined characteristics of the suspension and tires. The job of

the suspension system is to support, turn, tilt and otherwise manage the tires and
their relationship to the vehicle and the ground in a way that will maximize their
capabilities.
From the description above, then studying about the ride dynamics model
of Semar-T is very important to obtain the appropriate parameters in order to
develop the comfortability of Semar-T including the improvement on vertical,
longitudinal, and lateral response. So that passengers will experience a
comfortable ride.

1.2. Problem Statement
When any wheel lose contact with the road there is a change in handling, so
the suspension should keep all four wheels on the road in spite of hard cornering,
swerving and bumps in the road. It is very important for handling, as well as other
reason, not to turn out of suspension travel and bottom or drop. It is usually most
desirable to have the car adjusted for neutral steer, so that it responds predictably
to a turn of the steering wheel and the rear wheels have the same slip angle as the
front wheels. However this may not be achievable for all loading, road and
weather conditions, speed ranges, or while turning under acceleration or braking.
ideally, a car should carry passangers and baggage near its center of grafity and
have similiar tire loading, camber angle and roll stiffness in front and back to
minimize the variation in handling characteristics.
In relation with the development of Semar-T project, especially for chasis
development group, it is important to study the behavior of ride dynamics before
determining the fix critical point of suspension. This is because of the option
critical point of suspension system will be used as main references of chasis
design. To achieve rear low ideal functional requirement as mentioned previously,
it is important to investigate how the vehicles behavior in terms of passenger
comfortability. This investigation can be achieved by how developing ride
model/mathematical model of vehicle ride. Followed by how interpreting the
mathematical model onto MATLAB-Simulink (Matrix Laboratory-Simulink)
block diagram. The developed block diagram can be explored in terms of how the
vehicle parameter responses under road disturbances. To verify the developed

model, it is important to compare the results with other software namely
CARSIM (Car Simulation). From here, it can be justified how far the errors
produced between the model and CARSIM.

1.3. Scopes And Limitations
The scopes and limitations of this project are:
1. Create complete-vehicle model by using MATLAB-Simulink.
2. Vehicle parameter was obtained from design of Semar-T 2
nd
generation.
3. Verification of the model using CARSIM.

1.4. Objectives
The objectives of the project are:
1. To study the passenger comfortability by investigating vehicle ride
performance in frequency domain.
2. To find suitable parameters to achieve ride comfort.

1.5. Benefits
The results obtained are expected to provide the following benefits:
1. Determine the effect of suspension parameters to the ride performance.
2. Find suitable parameters to achieve ride comfort.

1.6. Writing Systematics
The systematics of writing this final project are:
Chapter I: Introduction, describes the background of the problem, formulation
of the problem, limit the problem, objectives and benefits of the
research and writing systematic.
Chapter II: Literature review, contains a review of the literature relating to the
modeling and simulation of vehicle ride and handling performance,
the basic theory of the vehicle model, road profiles, ride
performance, and handling performance.
Chapter III: Research methodology, describes the tools and materials research,
research steps, and flow chart of research.

Chapter IV: Result and discussion, explaining the research data and analysis
results of the calculations.
Chapter V: Closing, contains the conclusions and recommendation.

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Previous Researches
A research by [5] conducted a study on semi-active suspension system
simulation using simulink. Results from simulation using MATLAB-Simulink
showed that the quality referred to as ride comfort is affected by a variety of
factors including high frequency vibrations, body booming, body roll and pitch
as well as the vertical spring action normally associated with a smooth ride. If the
vehicle is noisy, if it rolls excessively in turns, or pitches during acceleration and
braking, or if the body produces a booming resonance, passengers will
experience an uncomfortable ride.
The ride quality, normally associated with the vehicle's response to bumps,
is a factor of the relatively low frequency bounce and rebound movements of the
suspension systems. Following a bump, the undamped suspension (without
shocks) of a vehicle will experience a series of oscillations that will cycle
according to the natural frequency of the system. Ride is perceived most
comfortable when the natural frequency is in the range of 60 to 90 cycles per
minute (CPM), or about 1 Hz to 1,5 Hz. when the frequency approaches 120 CPM
(2 Hz), passangers perceive the ride as harsh [5].
Ride comfort deteriorates when the road roughness coefficient increases
(ISO classification of road roughness). The reason for this is the rolling resistance
coefficient varies with the road roughness coefficients and the vehicle speed.
Hence, when the road roughness coefficient is increased, the rolling resistance
force induced by road roughness also increases.
Measuring and quantifying ride comfort can help development teams in
meeting the necessary standards and regulations, but moreover gives the required
insight to troubleshoot, understand and improve the noise and vibration comfort of
the vehicle. In order to give a quantitative evaluation of the ride comfort
performances, then the RMS (Root-Mean-Square) value of the sprung mass
acceleration ( ), normalized with respect to the gravity acceleration (g) can be
considered [5]:

( )
dt
g
t z
z
t
RMS (
=
}
=
1
0
, 1
1
t
t

( ) 1 . 2
Where,
RMS
z
, 1
= RMS value of the sprung mass displacement ( ) m
t = time (s)
1
z = sprung mass acceleration ( )
2
s
m

g = gravity ( )
2
m
N

A research by [2] conducted a study on ride quality and drivability of a
typical passenger car subject to engine/driveline and road non-uniformities
excitations. Results from this studies showed the appropriate figures in order to
evaluate ride comfort of a typical passenger car at a certain frequency interval by
using the sprung mass responses and the ISO (International Organization for
Standardization) criteria. Measured vertical RMS acceleration of the vehicle body,
with 80 km/h traveling speed on the average road roughness, is shown in Figure
2.1 but together with ISO fatigue-decreased boundaries to investigate the level of
comfort for this specific passenger car.

Figure 2.1. Vehicle body acceleration due to road excitation in comparison
with ISO ride comfort boundaries

Regarding Figure 2.1, it can be concluded that for this type of passenger car
and passive suspension system properties, in the situation of average road
roughness, it is desired to have exposure time less than 2.5 hours, however in the
vibration duration is more than 2.5 hours, the vertical RMS acceleration is beyond
the limitations, specifically around the modal frequencies or in the other words
low frequency region, consequently the ride quality level is low. One good
suggestion is moving th second modal frequency to the outside of the critical
region for human sensitivity (4-8 Hz), thus it will exist wider band to the allowed
boundaries [2].
A research by [6] conducted a study on ride performance analysis of half-
car model for semi-active system using RMS as performance criteria. In this study
a half-vehicle two degree-of-freedom model of semi-active control scheme is
analyzed and compared with the conventional passive suspension system. Results
from this studies showed that the vertical response was affected by value of
stiffness coefficient.

2.2. Basic Of Theory
1. Vehicle Ride Model
Numerous papers about the theoretical and experimental investigation on
the dynamic behavior of passively and actively suspended road vehicles have
been published to improve ride quality and handling performance [9-11]. The
quarter-vehicle model [3,8], half-vehicle model [4,6,7] and complete-vehicle
model [12] have been developed with researches related to the dynamic behavior
of vehicle and its vibration control. Suppression of vibration in passive
suspensions depends on the spring stiffness, damping coefficient and car mass [5].
Some assumptions in order to develop a complete-vehicle model such as the tires
are modeled as a linear spring without damping; there is no rotational motion in
wheels; the behavior of springs and dampers are linear; the tires are always in
contact with the road surface and effect of friction is neglected so that the residual
structural damping is not considered into vehicle modeling; the center of gravity is
located in the center of vehicle.

In any vehicle dynamics simulation, there are some calculations for a
particular vehicle axis system as illustrated in Figure 2.2. The vehicle fixed
coordinate system is right-hand orthogonal, originates at the body centre of
gravity (CG) and travels with the vehicle. This standard coordinate system will be
used to describe the forces on the vehicle.

Figure 2.2. Vehicle coordinate systems

The complete-vehicle model is represented as a linear seven degree-of-
freedom (DOF) system as shown in Figure 2.3. It consists of a single sprung mass
s
m (car body) connected to four unsprung masses
1 u
m ,
2 u
m ,
3 u
m , and
4 u
m (front-
left, front-right, rear-left, rear-right wheels) at each corner. The sprung mass is
free to bounce, pitch and roll while the unsprung masses are free only to bounce
vertically with respect to the sprung mass. All other motions are neglected for this
model. Hence this system has seven degrees-of-freedom and allows simulation of
tyre load forces in all four tyres, body acceleration and vertical body displacement
as well as roll and pitch motion of the car body. The suspensions between sprung
mass and unsprung masses are modeled as linear viscous dampers and linear
spring elements, while the tyres are modelled as simple linear springs without
damping. For simplicity, all pitch and roll angles are assumed to be small [2].

Figure 2.3. Complete-vehicle model

Vehicle ride model is used to study behavior of body movement, roll and
pitch of the vehicle. The output the model is body displacement, body velocity,
body acceleration, roll angle, roll velocity, roll acceleration, pitch angle, pitch
velocity, and pitch acceleration. The second law of Newton state that force is
created when the body is moving. The equation of this second law is:
s s s s
Z m a m F

. . = =

( ) 2 . 2

Where,
s
F

= force acting at vehicle body ( ) N
s
m

= vehicle mass ( ) Kg
s
Z

= body accleration of the vehicle ( )
2
s
m

From equation above, then the equations of motion for the vehicle body and
the wheels are obtained as follow:
1
+
1
1
+
2
2
+
3
3
+
4
4
+
1
1
+
2
2
+
3
3
+
4
= 0 (2.3)

2
+
1
+
4
+
1
+
4
= 0 (2.4)

3
+
1
+
2
+
1
+
4
= 0 (2.5)

1
+
1
4

1
= 0 (2.6)

2
+
2
5

2
= 0 (2.7)

3
+
3
6

3
= 0 (2.8)

4
+
1
7

4
= 0 (2.9)

Where,

1
=
1
+
2
+
3
2
=
1
+
3
3
=
1
4
=
1
+
2
7

2. Bumps and potholes profiles
Bumps and potholes on the road are single obstacles of nearly arbitary
shape. Already with simple rectangular cleats the dynamic reaction of a vehicle or
a single tire to a sudden impact can be investigated if the shape of the obstacle is
approximated by a smooth function, like a cosine wave, sine wave or rectangular.
Usually the obstacles are described in local reference frames as shown in Figure
2.4.

(a) (b)
Figure 2.4. (a) Rectangular cleat and (b) cosine-shaped bump

Then, the rectangular cleat is simply defined by,
) , ( y x
z =
0 < <
1
2
< <
1
2
0

( ) 10 . 2

and the cosine-shaped bump is given by,
) , ( y x
z =
1
2
1 2
0 < <
1
2
< <
1
2
0
( ) 11 . 2

where H , B and L denote height, widht and lngth of the obstacle. Potholes are
obtained if negative values for the height < 0 are used.

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Methodology
A complete-vehicle model is used to investigate the dynamics response of
Semar-T under sinusoidal road input excitations. The investigation starts with
getting the vehicle parameters of Semar-T. Then, it made the free body diagram to
build mathematical model, and followed by interpreting the mathematical model
onto MATLAB-Simulink block diagram. To verify the model was developed,
then it results compared with other software namely CARSIM. From here, it can
be justified that if the errors produced between the model and CARSIM is less
than 15%. It is because the model has an accuracy of 85-98% can be stated in
accordance with the CARSIM results [16].
Block diagram has validated then it simulated in MATLAB-Simulink at
variety parameters including the suspension stiffness coefficient and suspension
damping coefficient. From the simulation was resulted the frequency and time
responses of the transfer function of the heave, roll, pitch of the sprung mass and
suspension deflections. From here, it can be studied how far the comfort level of
Semar-T.

Figure 3.1. Flow chart of project

3.2. Implementation of project
1. Dimensional measurements of Semar-T
The results of the measurements are shown as follows:
Table 3.1. Semar-T parameters
Symbol Description Value
Sprung mass 1400 kg
Pitch moment of inertia 1263.5 kgm

2

Roll moment of inertia 450.1 kgm

2

Front-left unsprung mass 40 kg
Rear-left unsprung mass 35 kg
Rear-right unsprung mass 35 kg
Front-right unsprung mass 40 kg

Front-left suspension stiffness
coefficient
(Variated) N/m

Rear-left suspension stiffness
coefficient
(Variated) N/m

Rear-right suspension stiffness
coefficient
(Variated) N/m

Front-right suspension stiffness
coefficient
(Variated) N/m

Front-left suspension damping
coefficient
(Variated) N s/m

Rear-left suspension damping
coefficient
(Variated) N s/m

Rear-right suspension damping
coefficient
(Variated) N s/m

Front-right suspension damping
coefficient
(Variated) N s/m
Front-left tyre stiffness coefficient 200,000 N/m [15]
Rear-left tyre stiffness coefficient 200,000 N/m [15]
Rear-right tyre stiffness coefficient 200,000 N/m [15]
Front-right tyre stiffness coefficient 200,000 N/m [15]

Side distance from center of gravity
to the front axle
0.95 m

Side distance from center of gravity
to the rear axle
0.95 m

Frontal distance from center of
gravity to the front-left axle
0.65 m

gravity to the rear-left axle
0.65 m

gravity to the rear-right axle
0.65 m

gravity to the front-right axle
0.65 m

2. Create free body diagram of Semar-T
Free-body diagrams are diagrams used to show the relative magnitude and
direction of all forces acting upon an object in a given situation, as shown in
Figure 2.3.
Figure descriptions are as follows:
Table 3.2. Description of free body diagram symbol
Symbol Description Units
Sprung mass heave displacement m
Sprung mass pitch angular displacement rad
Sprung mass roll angular displacement rad
Front-left unsprung mass displacement m
Rear-left unsprung mass displacement m
Rear-right unsprung mass displacement m
Front-right unsprung mass displacement m
Front-left displacement input m
Rear-left displacement input m
Rear-right displacement input m
Front-right displacement input m

3. Create mathematical model of Semar-T
Mathematical model is defined as the algebra of the vehicle which used as a
basis for making a block diagram in MATLAB-Simulink. Mathematical models
for Semar-T is shown in equation 3-9 previously.

4. Create complete Semar-T model by using MATLAB-Simulink

Figure 3.2. Complete Semar-T model

Figure 3.2a. Wheels Responses

Figure 3.2b. Body Responses

Figure 3.2c. Scopes

5. Enter Semar-T parameters in to model simulation

Figure 3.3. Complete Semar-T block diagram

6. Validation via CARSIM
CARSIM is a software package developed by University of Michigan that
can be used for simulating and analyzing the behavior of four wheeled vehicles in
response to steering, braking and throttle inputs. It produces the same kinds of
outputs that might be measured with other simulation results that used MATLAB-
Simulink.
7. Running Simulation with variosly parameters
Running the simulation by using MATLAB-Simulink at variety parameters.
8. Discussion and conclusion
a. Analyzing the effect of road profile on vehicle ride performance.
b. Summing up the results of data analysis.

3.3. Schedule
Table 3.3. Schedule of project
TYPE OF
WORKS
MONTH
I II III IV V VI
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Study literatures
Make a proposal
of research and
tools prepared

Research
Data research
analysis

Results and
conclusions of
research

Report

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.1. Simulation Setup
Simulation was performed for a period of 3.5 seconds and a fix step size of
0.025 seconds. The type of road disturbance considered in this study is sinusoidal
function with the amplitude of 0.075 m and the excitation frequency of 1 Hz .
The numerical values of the complete vehicle model parameters and parameters
variations are set in the Table 4.1 and 4.2.

Table 4.1. Simulation Setup
Symbol Value
m
s
1400 kg
I
xx
450.1 kg.m
2

I
yy
1263.5 kg.m
2

m
u1
and m
u4
40 kg
m
u2
and m
u3
35 kg
k
s1,
k
s2
, k
s3
and k
s4
are variated
c
s1,
c
s2
, c
s3
and c
s4
are variated
k
t1,
k
t2
, k
t3
and k
t4
200,000 N/m
a
fl,
a
fr
, a
rl
and a
rr
0.65 m
l
f
and l
r
0.95 m

Table 4.2. List of parameter variations
Variation
s
k ( m N / )
s
c ( m Ns / )
1 a 18,000 700
b 18,000 900
c 18,000 1100
d 18,000 1300
e 18,000 1500

Variation
s
k ( m N / )
s
c ( m Ns / )
2 a 15,000 900
b 18,000 900
c 21,000 900
d 24,000 900
e 27,000 900

4.2. Arrangement of Variations
From the press testing of damper and spring has been conducted known that
the values of suspension damping coefficient (
s
c ) and suspension stiffness
coefficient (
s
k ) to a passenger car 1000 kg are worth 982 m Ns / and 18218
m N / as shown in Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2. Hence, the value variations of
dampers and springs for Semar-T are taken in around those values. The values of
suspension damping coefficient varied between 700-1500 m Ns / , while the
values of suspension stiffness coefficient varied between 15000-27000 m N / .

Figure 4.1. Suspension damping coefficient testing result

y = 982.1x + 0.002
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
F
o
r
c
e

(
N
)
Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2. Suspension stiffness coefficient testing result

4.3. Road sinusoidal Test
The test performed in this simulation is ride over sinusoidal. The vehicle
moves forward in a constant speed and cross the sinusoidal that is positioned cross
wave with the vehicles direction of travel. Front-left wheel will cross the
sinusoidal simultaneously with followed by front-right wheel after a few seconds
and the two rear wheels (rear-left and rear-right wheels) will do the same thing
after a few seconds. The vertical motions of wheels will be transferred to the
vehicle body resulting in vertical, pitch and roll motions of the body. Figure 4.3
shows the sinusoidal geometry of the mode sinusoidal test.
y = 18218x + 0.006
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
F
o
r
c
e

(
N
)
Displacement (m)

Figure 4.3. Mode sinusoidal test

4.4. Validation
In simulation study, it is essential to justify that the model is valid.
Therefore, the vehicle ride model must be compared with other validated model.
The validated model used in this case is CARSIM software which is known as
vehicle dynamic software developed by University of Michigan. This software
can be easily downloaded from internet and freely installed into a personal
computer.
A complete-vehicle seven-degree-of-freedom model is verified with
CARSIM software with sinusoid road profile mode. Model verification is
performed for a period of 3.5 seconds. The numerical values of the vehicle model
parameters are obtained from the design of Semar-T 2
nd
generation as shown in
Table 3.1. Figures 4.4-4.15 show the responses of model and vehicle behaviors
obtained from CARSIM in terms of body displacement, body acceleration, pitch
angle, roll angle, front-left suspension travel, front-left wheel acceleration, rear-
left suspension travel, rear-left wheel acceleration, rear-right suspension travel,
rear-right wheel acceleration, front-right suspension travel and front-right wheel
acceleration responses.

1. Body displacement response

Figure 4.4. Validation graphic of body displacement response

2. Body acceleration response

Figure 4.5. Validation graphic of body acceleration response
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0 1 2 3 4
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Time (s)
Body Displacement Response
matlab
carsim
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0 1 2 3 4
B
o
d
y

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
Time (s)
Body Acceleration Response
matlab
carsim

3. Pitch angle response

Figure 4.6. Validation graphic of pitch angle response

4. Roll angle response

Figure 4.7. Validation graphic of roll angle response
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 1 2 3 4
P
i
t
c
h

A
n
g
l
e

(
r
a
d
)
Time (s)
Pitch Angle Response
matlab
carsim
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 1 2 3 4
R
o
l
l

A
n
g
l
e

(
r
a
d
)
Time (s)
Roll Angle Response
matlab
carsim

5. Front-left suspension travel response

Figure 4.8. Validation graphic of front-left suspension travel response

6. Front-left wheel acceleration response

Figure 4.9. Validation graphic of front-left wheel acceleration response
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 1 2 3 4
W
o
r
k
i
n
g

S
p
a
c
e

(
1
0
-
2

m
)
Time (s)
Front-Left Suspension Travel Response
matlab
carsim
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3 4
W
h
e
e
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
Time (s)
Front-Left Wheel Acceleration
matlab
carsim

7. Rear-left suspension travel response

Figure 4.10. Validation graphic of rear-left suspension travel response

8. Rear-left wheel acceleration response

Figure 4.11. Validation graphic of rear-left wheel acceleration response
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 1 2 3 4
W
o
r
k
i
n
g

S
p
a
c
e

(
1
0
-
2

m
)
Time (s)
Rear-Left Suspension Travel Response
matlab
carsim
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3 4
W
h
e
e
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
Time (s)
Rear-Left Wheel Acceleration
matlab
carsim

9. Rear-right suspension travel response

Figure 4.12. Validation graphic of rear-right suspension travel response

10. Rear-right wheel acceleration response

Figure 4.13. Validation graphic of rear-right wheel acceleration response
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 1 2 3 4
W
o
r
k
i
n
g

S
p
a
c
e

(
1
0
-
2

m
)
Time (s)
Rear-Right Suspension Travel Response
matlab
carsim
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3 4
W
h
e
e
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
Time (s)
Rear-Right Wheel Acceleration
matlab
carsim

11. Front-right suspension travel response

Figure 4.14. Validation graphic of front-right suspension travel response

12. Front-right wheel acceleration response

Figure 4.15. Validation graphic of front-right wheel acceleration response
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 1 2 3 4
W
o
r
k
i
n
g

S
p
a
c
e

(
1
0
-
2

m
)
Time (s)
Front-Right Suspension Travel Response
matlab
carsim
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
0 1 2 3 4
W
h
e
e
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
Time (s)
Front-Right Wheel Acceleration
matlab
carsim

It can be seen that the trend between model developed and CARSIM results
are almost similar, but slightly different in magnitude. The slight difference in the
magnitude may be due to the fact that the suspension in CARSIM which used
double wishbone, whereas in the developed model, the suspension is assumed to
be linear suspension. In overall, similar responses and trend can be obtained from
the developed model compared to the behaviors obtained with CARSIM. As long
as the trend of the model response is closely similar with the CARSIM results, it
can be said that the model is valid.

4.5. Results
Frequency domain simulation was performed by comparing the Bode plots
of 1
st
variation suspension (k
s
= constant) as well as the 2
nd
variation suspension
(c
s
= constant) for a sinusoidal road input.

4.5.1. Simulation Result of 1
st
variation
Frequency Domain Simulations are shown in below:

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.16. Bode plots of (a) body displacement and (b) body acceleration
response, for different values of the suspension damping coefficients (
s
c ) and
s
k = 18000 m N / )

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.17. Bode plots of (a) roll angle and (b) pitch angle response, for different
s
s
k = 18000 m N / )

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.18. Bode plots of (a) front-left suspension travel and (b) front-left wheel
acceleration response, for different values of the suspension damping coefficients
(
s
c ) and constant value of the suspension stiffness coefficients(
s
k = 18000 m N / )

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.19. Bode plots of (a) front-right suspension travel and (b) front-right
wheel acceleration response, for different values of the suspension damping
coefficients (
s
c ) and constant value of the suspension stiffness coefficients
(
s
k = 18000 m N / )

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.20. Bode plots of (a) rear-left suspension travel and (b) rear-left wheel
(
s
s
k = 18000 m N / )

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.21. Bode plots of (a) rear-right suspension travel and (b) rear-right wheel
(
s
s
k = 18000 m N / )

From Figure 4.16, it is clear that it terms of body displacement and body
acceleration, the performance of the 1.b (c
s
= 900 Ns/m) suspension system
variation show better performance compared to its counterpart. Hence, it can be
noted that the performance of the 1.b suspension system variation is reducing
unwanted body motion significantly better than 1.a (c
s
= 700 Ns/m), 1.c (c
s
= 1100
Ns/m), 1.d (c
s
= 1300 Ns/m) and 1.e (c
s
= 1500 Ns/m) suspension system
variations. However, for the frequency of excitation exactly at the body natural
frequency, performance of 1.b suspension system variation is slightly worse than
four variations other.
Figure 4.17 shows the Bode plots of roll angle and pitch angle responses, it
can be seen that the performance of the 1.b suspension system variation show
better performance compared to its counterpart. Hence, it can be noted that the
performance of the 1.b suspension system variation is reducing unwanted body

motion significantly better than 1.a, 1.c, 1.d and 1.e suspension system variations.
However, for the frequency of excitation exactly at the body natural frequency,
performance of 1.b suspension system variation is slightly worse than four
variations other.
Figures 4.18-4.21 show that the Bode plot responses of suspension travel
and wheel acceleration of five suspension system variations for each corner.
Responses of five suspension system variations are closely similar. For the
frequency of excitation exactly at the body and wheel natural frequency,
performance of 1.b suspension system variation is slightly worse than four
variations other.

Time Domain Simulations are shown in below:

(a)

0.078
0.0785
0.079
0.0795
0.08
0.0805
1
B
o
d
y

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
c=700
c=900
c=1100
c=1300
c=1500

(b)
(
s
s
k = 18000 m N / )

(a)
7.04
7.06
7.08
7.1
7.12
7.14
7.16
7.18
7.2
7.22
7.24
7.26
1
B
o
d
y

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
c=700
c=900
c=1100
c=1300
c=1500
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
1
R
o
l
l

A
n
g
l
e

(
r
a
d
)
c=700
c=900
c=1100
c=1300
c=1500

(b)
Figure 4.23. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) roll angle and (b) pitch angle response, for
different values of the suspension damping coefficients (
s
s
k = 18000 m N / )

(a)

0.078
0.08
0.082
0.084
0.086
0.088
0.09
0.092
0.094
0.096
1
P
i
t
c
h

A
n
g
l
e

(
r
a
d
)
c=700
c=900
c=1100
c=1300
c=1500
0.1
0.105
0.11
0.115
0.12
0.125
0.13
0.135
1
S
u
s
p
.

T
r
a
v
e
l

(
m
)
c=700
c=900
c=1100
c=1300
c=1500

(b)
Figure 4.24. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) front-left suspension travel and (b) front-
left wheel acceleration response, for different values of the suspension damping
coefficients (
s
(
s
k = 18000 m N / )

(a)
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
1
W
h
e
e
l

A
c
c
.

(
m
/
s
2
)
c=700
c=900
c=1100
c=1300
c=1500
0.1
0.105
0.11
0.115
0.12
0.125
0.13
0.135
1
S
u
s
p
.

T
r
a
v
e
l

(
m
)
c=700
c=900
c=1100
c=1300
c=1500

(b)
Figure 4.25. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) front-right suspension travel and (b) front-
right wheel acceleration response, for different values of the suspension damping
coefficients (
s
(
s
k = 18000 m N / )

(a)
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
1
W
h
e
e
l

A
c
c
.

(
m
/
s
2
)
c=700
c=900
c=1100
c=1300
c=1500
0.1
0.105
0.11
0.115
0.12
0.125
0.13
0.135
1
S
u
s
p
.

T
r
a
v
e
l

(
m
)
c=700
c=900
c=1100
c=1300
c=1500

(b)
Figure 4.26. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) rear-left suspension travel and (b) rear-left
wheel acceleration response, for different values of the suspension damping
coefficients (
s
(
s
k = 18000 m N / )

(a)
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
1
W
h
e
e
l

A
c
c
.

(
m
/
s
2
)
c=700
c=900
c=1100
c=1300
c=1500
0.1
0.105
0.11
0.115
0.12
0.125
0.13
0.135
1
S
u
s
p
.

T
r
a
v
e
l

(
m
)
c=700
c=900
c=1100
c=1300
c=1500

(b)
Figure 4.27. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) rear-right suspension travel and (b) rear-
right wheel acceleration response, for different values of the suspension damping
coefficients (
s
(
s
k = 18000 m N / )

The effectiveness of five suspension system variations is also investigated in
time domain simulation. The simulation results are shown in Figures 4.224.27.
In which the blue block indicates 1.a (c
s
= 700 Ns/m) variation, green block
indicates 1.b (c
s
= 900 Ns/m) variation, red block indicates 1.c (c
s
= 1100 Ns/m)
variation, gray block indicates 1.d (c
s
= 1300 Ns/m) variation and violet block
indicates 1.e (c
s
= 1500 Ns/m) variation. From Figures 4.22 (a) and (b), it can be
seen that the 1.a variation shows significant improvement on two performance
criteria namely body displacement and body acceleration. Unwanted vibratory
motions of vehicle body can be suppressed by the 1.a variation resulting in
improved ride performance.
Figure 4.23 shows the roll angle and pitch angle responses, it can be seen
that the improvement of 1.a variation system in term of pitch angle better than
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
1
W
h
e
e
l

A
c
c
.

(
m
/
s
2
)
c=700
c=900
c=1100
c=1300
c=1500

four variations other, but there is no improvement in term of roll angle response.
Figures 4.24-4.27 show the suspension travel and wheel acceleration responses of
five suspension system variations are compared for each corner. It can be seen
that the 1.a variation shows significant improvement on wheel acceleration
response, but there is no improvement on suspension travel response.

4.5.2. Simulation Result of 2
nd
variation
Frequency Domain Simulations are shown in below:

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.28. Bode plots of (a) body displacement and (b) body acceleration
response, for different values of the suspension stiffness coefficients (
s
k ) and
s
c = 900 m Ns / )

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.29. Bode plots of (a) roll angle and (b) pitch angle response, for different
s
s
c = 900 m Ns / )

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.30. Bode plots of (a) front-left suspension travel and (b) front-left wheel
acceleration response, for different values of the suspension stiffness coefficients
(
s
k ) and constant value of the suspension damping coefficients (
s
c = 900 m Ns / )

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.31. Bode plots of (a) front-right suspension travel and (b) front-right
wheel acceleration response, for different values of the suspension stiffness
coefficients (
s
s
c =
900 m Ns / )

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.32. Bode plots of (a) rear-left suspension travel and (b) rear-left wheel
(
s
s
c = 900 m Ns / )

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.33. Bode plots of (a) rear-right suspension travel and (b) rear-right wheel
(
s
s
c = 900 m Ns / )

From Figure 4.28, it is clear that it terms of body displacement and body
acceleration, the performance of the 2.a (k
s
= 15000 N/m) suspension system
variation show better performance compared to its counterpart. Hence, it can be
noted that the performance of the 2.a suspension system variation is reducing
unwanted body motion significantly better than 2.b (k
s
= 18000 N/m), 2.c (k
s
=
21000 N/m), 2.d (k
s
= 24000 N/m) and 2.e (k
s
= 27000 N/m) suspension system
variations.
Figure 4.29 shows the Bode plots of roll angle and pitch angle responses, it
can be seen that the performance of the 2.a suspension system variation shows
performance of the 2.a suspension system variation is reducing unwanted body
motion significantly better than 2.b, 2.c, 2.d and 2.e suspension system variations.
Figures 4.30-4.33 show that the Bode plot responses of suspension travel
and wheel acceleration of three suspension system variations for each corner. It

can be seen that the performance of the 2.a suspension system variation is
reducing unwanted suspension displacement better than four variations other.

Time Domain Simulations are shown in below:

(a)

(b)
(
s
s
c = 900 m Ns / )
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
1
B
o
d
y

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
k=15000
k=18000
k=21000
k=24000
k=27000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1
B
o
d
y

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
k=15000
k=18000
k=21000
k=24000
k=27000

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.35. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) roll angle and (b) pitch angle response, for
different values of the suspension stiffness coefficients (
s
s
c = 900 m Ns / )
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
1
R
o
l
l

A
n
g
l
e

(
r
a
d
)
k=15000
k=18000
k=21000
k=24000
k=27000
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
1
P
i
t
c
h

A
n
g
l
e

(
r
a
d
)
k=15000
k=18000
k=21000
k=24000
k=27000

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.36. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) front-left suspension travel and (b) front-
left wheel acceleration response, for different values of the suspension stiffness
coefficients (
s
k ) and constant value of the suspension damping coefficients
(
s
c = 900 m Ns / )
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
1
S
u
s
p
.

T
r
a
v
e
l

(
m
)
k=15000
k=18000
k=21000
k=24000
k=27000
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
1
W
h
e
e
l

A
c
c
.

(
m
/
s
2
)
k=15000
k=18000
k=21000
k=24000
k=27000

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.37. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) front-right suspension travel and (b) front-
right wheel acceleration response, for different values of the suspension stiffness
coefficients (
s
(
s
c = 900 m Ns / )
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
1
S
u
s
p
.

T
r
a
v
e
l

(
m
)
k=15000
k=18000
k=21000
k=24000
k=27000
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
1
W
h
e
e
l

A
c
c
.

(
m
/
s
2
)
k=15000
k=18000
k=21000
k=24000
k=27000

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.38. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) rear-left suspension travel and (b) rear-left
wheel acceleration response, for different values of the suspension stiffness
coefficients (
s
(
s
c = 900 m Ns / )
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
1
S
u
s
p
.

T
r
a
v
e
l

(
m
)
k=15000
k=18000
k=21000
k=24000
k=27000
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
1
W
h
e
e
l

A
c
c
.

(
m
/
s
2
)
k=15000
k=18000
k=21000
k=24000
k=27000

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.39. Peak-to-Peak values of (a) rear-right suspension travel and (b) rear-
right wheel acceleration response, for different values of the suspension stiffness
coefficients (
s
(
s
c = 900 m Ns / )
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
1
S
u
s
p
.

T
r
a
v
e
l

(
m
)
k=15000
k=18000
k=21000
k=24000
k=27000
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
1
W
h
e
e
l

A
c
c
.

(
m
/
s
2
)
k=15000
k=18000
k=21000
k=24000
k=27000

The effectiveness of five suspension system variations is also investigated in
time domain simulation. The simulation results are shown in Figures 4.34-4.39. In
which the blue block indicates 2.a (k
s
= 15000 N/m) variation, green block
indicates 2.b (k
s
= 18000 N/m) variation, red block indicates 2.c (k
s
= 21000 N/m)
variation, gray block indicates 2.d (k
s
= 24000 N/m) variation and violet block
indicates 2.e (k
s
= 27000 N/m) variation. From Figures 4.34 (a) and (b), it can be
seen that the 2.a variation shows significant improvement on two performance
criteria namely body displacement and body acceleration. Unwanted vibratory
motions of vehicle body can be suppressed by the 2.a variation resulting in
improved ride performance.
Figure 4.35 shows the roll angle and pitch angle responses, it can be seen
that the improvement of 2.a variation system in term of roll and pitch angle better
than four variations other. Figures 4.36-4.39 show the suspension travel and wheel
acceleration responses of five suspension system variations are compared for each
corner. It can be seen that the 2.a variation shows significant improvement on
suspension travel response, but there is no improvement on wheel acceleration
response.

4.6. International Standard ISO-2631
According to ISO-2631-1:1985 [2], four physical factors have significant
effects on human response to applied vibration: the strength (power), frequency,
direction and interval of exposure, there are also three different issues which are
important to evaluate the human reaction to the vibratory displacements [2]:
preservation of working efficiency
preservation of health or safety
preservation of comfort
In Figure 4.40, the fatigue-decreased proficiency boundaries for various
exposure times are represented in vertical (along the z-axis) direction. As it is
clear in the proposed diagrams, the comfort boundary will decrease by rising the
vibration duration. It should be mentioned that also the human body is more
sensitive to vibration in some frequency ranges than in others.

Figure 4.40. ISO-2631 fatigue-decreased proficiency boundary: vertical vibration limits as a function of frequency and exposure time

4.7. Ride Comfort Comparison Using ISO-2631
4.7.1. Under Full Load (m=1400 kg) Condition
1. Ride Comfort Comparison Using ISO-2631 for 1
st
Variation (k
s
= constant)

Figure 4.41. Vehicle body acceleration due to road excitation in comparison with ISO ride comfort boundaries, for different values of the
s
c ) and constant value of the suspension stiffness coefficients (
s
k = 18000 m N / )

2. Ride Comfort Comparison Using ISO-2631 for 2
nd
Variation (c
s
= constant)

Figure 4.42. Vehicle body acceleration due to road excitation in comparison with ISO ride comfort boundaries, for different values of the
s
s
c = 900 m Ns / )

4.7.2. Under Full Load (m=1400 kg) Versus Half Load (m=1200 kg) Conditions

Figure 4.43. Vehicle body acceleration due to road excitation in comparison with ISO ride comfort boundaries, under full load
(m=1400 kg) versus half load (m=1200 kg) conditions

4.8. Analysis
In this section, the benefits of all suspension system variations are
investigated in frequency responses, time responses and using ISO-2631 to obtain
the most optimal suspension system variation, in order to improve the ride
performance of Semar-T.

4.8.1. Frequency Responses
st
Variation (k
s
= constant)
of all suspension system variations for a sinusoidal road input in the frequency 1
Hz . The magnitudes of body displacement, body acceleration, body pitch and
body roll responses of 1.b (
s
k = 18,000 m N / ,
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) variation shows
the improvement in the whole frequency range except at the wheel natural
frequency as shown in Figures 4.16 and 4.17. So that, comfortable ride will be
being experienced by passengers. Its because the vibration of the vehicle body is
less than vibration of the wheel. In other words, the road excitation is absorbed by
suspension system and slightly transferred to the vehicle body.
In term of suspension working space (suspension travel) responses, the
performance of 1.b (
s
k = 18,000 m N / ,
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) variation is slightly
worse than other variations for the excitation frequency of exactly at the wheel
and body natural frequency as shown in Figures 4.18-4.21. Its mean that the
suspension system displacements are small, so the passengers just experience
small displacement in the vertical direction. It can be noted that the passengers
will experience comfortable ride.
In term of wheel acceleration responses, the performance of 1.b (
s
k = 18,000
m N / ,
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) variation is slightly worse than other variations for the
excitation frequency of exactly at the body natural frequency as shown in Figures
4.18-4.21. Its mean that the wheel accelerations are slightly high. But, its no
matter because wheel acceleration just slightly affected the ride performance of
vehicle. So, it can be noted that the passengers will experience comfortable ride.

nd
Variation (c
s
= constant)
of all suspension system variations for a sinusoidal road input in the frequency 1
Hz . The magnitudes of body displacement, body acceleration, body pitch and
body roll responses of 2.a (
s
k = 15,000 m N / ,
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) variation shows
the improvement in the whole frequency range as shown in Figures 4.28 and 4.29.
So that, comfortable ride will be being experienced by passengers. Its because the
body vibration of the 2.a variation is less than other variations. In other words, the
road excitation is absorbed by suspension system and slightly transferred to the
vehicle body.
In term of suspension working space (suspension travel) responses, 2.a (
s
k =
15,000 m N / ,
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) variation shows the improvement in the whole
frequency range as shown in Figures 4.30-4.33. Its mean that the suspension
system displacements are small, so the passengers just experience small
displacement in the vertical direction. It can be noted that the passengers will
experience comfortable ride.
In term of wheel acceleration responses, as shown in Figures 4.30-4.33. It
can be seen that the performance of all suspension system variations are almost
similar, magnitude of wheels acceleration are same at all frequency range of
excitations. So it can be concluded that all of variation not reduce wheel
acceleration. But, its no matter because wheel acceleration just slightly affected
the ride performance of vehicle. So, it can be noted that the passengers will
experience comfortable ride.
.
4.8.2. Time Responses
st
Variation (k
s
= constant)
The effectiveness of the proposed all variations was also investigated in
time domain simulation. Peak-to-Peak (PTP) values of body displacement, body
acceleration, body pitch and wheel acceleration of 1.a (
s
k = 18,000 m N / ,
s
c =
700 m Ns / ) variation shows the improvement in the whole time as shown in
Figures 4.22-4.27. But, Peak-to-Peak values of roll angle and wheel acceleration

of 1.a (
s
k = 18,000 m N / ,
s
c = 700 m Ns / ) variation is worse than other
variations as shown in Figures 4.23-4.27. So that, slightly uncomfortable ride will
be being experienced by passengers in term of body roll. Its occurring while one
or two wheels at left or right sides cross the sinusoidal excitations. However, It
can be noted that the passengers will experience comfortable ride. Its because the
road excitation is absorbed by suspension system and slightly transferred to the
vehicle body in term of body roll, so the passengers just experience small angular
displacement in the longitudinal direction.

nd
Variation (c
s
= constant)
The effectiveness of the proposed all variations was also investigated in
time domain simulation. Peak-to-Peak (PTP) values of body displacement, body
acceleration, body roll, body pitch and suspension travel of 2.a (
s
k = 15,000 m N /
,
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) variation shows the improvement in the whole time as shown in
Figures 4.34-4.39. But, Peak-to-Peak (PTP) values of wheel acceleration of 2.a (
s
k = 15,000 m N / ,
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) variation is worse than other variations as
shown in Figures 4.36-4.39. However, It can be noted that the passengers will
experience comfortable ride. Its because the road excitation is absorbed by
suspension system and slightly transferred to the vehicle body in term of body. So
that, comfortable ride will be being experienced by passengers.

4.8.3. ISO-2631
4.8.3.1. ISO-2631 for 1
st
Variation (k
s
= constant)
Figure 4.41 shows the vehicle body acceleration due to road excitation in
comparison with ISO ride comfort boundaries, for different values of the
s
c ) and constant value of the suspension
s
k = 18000 m N / ). It can be seen that the performance of
the 1.b (
s
k = 18,000 m N / ,
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) suspension system variation shows
performance of the 1.b suspension system variation is reducing unwanted body
acceleration significantly better than other suspension system variations,

especially at frequency range of body natural frequency to wheel natural
frequency. However, for the frequency of excitation exactly at the wheel natural
frequency is slightly worse, because passengers are only able to survive for 2.5
hours. However, the passengers will be able to last longer to feel the vibration on
the 1.b suspension system variation.
From the explanation above, so can be concluded that 1.b (
s
c = 900 m Ns / )
suspension system variation is the most optimal variation better than other
variations, because it is reducing unwanted body motions. So that, it can be
improve ride performance of Semar-T 2
nd
generation and provide the experience
comfortable ride for passengers.

4.8.3.2. ISO-2631 for 2
nd
Variation (c
s
= constant)
comparison with ISO ride comfort boundaries, for different values of the
s
k ) and constant value of the suspension
s
c = 900 m Ns / ). It can be seen that the performance of the
2.a (
s
k = 15,000 m N / ,
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) suspension system variation shows better
performance compared to its counterpart. Hence, it can be noted that the
performance of the 2.a suspension system variation is reducing unwanted body
acceleration significantly better than other suspension system variations,
especially at frequency range of body natural frequency to wheel natural
frequency. However, for the frequency of excitation exactly at the wheel natural
frequency is slightly worse, because passengers are only able to survive for 2.5
hours. However, the passengers will be able to last longer to feel the vibration on
the 2.a suspension system variation.
From the explanation above, so can be concluded that 2.a (
s
k = 15,000)
suspension system variation is the most optimal variation better than other
variations, because it is reducing unwanted body motions. So that, it can be
improve ride performance of Semar-T 2
nd
generation and provide the experience
comfortable ride for passengers.

4.8.3.3. ISO-2631 for Full Load (m=1400 kg) Versus Half Load (m=1200 kg)
Conditions
comparison with ISO ride comfort boundaries, under full load (m=1400 kg)
versus half load (m=1200 kg) conditions. It can be seen that the performance of
the suspension system variation that having value
s
k = 15,000 m N / and
s
c = 900
m Ns /

is closely similar under full load and half load condition. But, slightly
difference in the magnitude value. Whereas, the performance of suspension
system variation that having value
s
k = 15,000 m N / and
s
c = 900 m Ns / under
full load condition better than under half load condition, because the response
vertical magnitude under full load condition is smaller than under half load
condition. So that, the passengers will be experience comfortable ride while the
vehicle under full load condition better than half load condition.

4.8.4. The Most Optimal Suspension System Variation
From the previous explanation, so can be concluded that 2.a (
s
k = 15,000
m N / ,
s
c = 900 m Ns / ) suspension system variation is the most optimal variation
better than other variations, because it is reducing unwanted body and suspension
motions. However it is slightly worse in wheel acceleration motion. So that, it can
be improve ride performance of Semar-T 2
nd
generation and provide the
experience comfortable ride for passengers.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. Conclusion
Based on the data analysis and discussion that have been presented
previously, the writer has some conclusion as follow:
1. Increasing the value of suspension stiffness coefficient will cause
increasing the value of vertical response at around body natural frequency
(0.5-2 Hz approximately). While, increasing the value of suspension
damping coefficient will cause increasing the value of vertical response at
around wheel natural frequency (5-20 Hz approximately). So that, low
stiffness coefficient is needed to improve ride performance of Semar-T.
2. The variation having value of
s
k = 15,000 m N / and
s
c = 900 m Ns /
shows superior performance than other variations and able to improve all
selected performance criteria.

5.2. Recommendation
Based on the conclusion that have been presented previously, the writer has
suggestion for the future work. Its important to investigate about semi-active
suspension system, in order to compare with passive suspension system and show
the different both of the improvement.

REFERENCES

[1] Prof. Rill G. Vehicle Dynamics. Regensbury: Regensburg University of
Applied Sciences (RUAS). 2009.
[2] Nickmehr N. Ride Quality and Drivability of a Typical Passenger Car
Subject to Engine/Driveline and Road Non-uniformities Excitations.
Linkoping: Linkoping University. 2011.
[3] Thite A.N. Development of a Refined Quarter Car Model for the Analysis
of Discomfort due to Vibrations. 2012.
[4] Faheem A, Alam F and Thomas V. The Suspension Dynamics Analysis
For a Quarter Car Model and Half Car Model. BSME-ASME International
Conference on Thermal Engineering. 2006.
[5] Abramov S, Mannan S and Durieux O. Semi-Active Suspension System
Simulation Using SIMULINK. London: Kings College London. 2009.
[6] Ihsan S.I, Ahmadian M, Faris W.F and Blancard E.D. Ride Performance
Analysis of Half-car Model for Semi-active System using RMS as
Performance Criteria. Journal of Shock and Vibration 16 (2009) 593-605.
[7] Gao J, Zhang N and Du HP. 2007. A Half-Car Model For Dynamics
Analysis of Vehicles With Random Parameters. Australian Congress on
Applied Mechanics, ACAM 2007.
[8] Verros G, Natsiavas S and Papadimitriou C. Design Optimization of
Quarter-car Models with Passive and Semi-active Suspensions under
Random Road Excitation. Journal of Vibration and Control, 11: 581-606,
2005.
[9] Mohan Rao TR, Venkata Rao G, Sreenivasa Rao K and Purushottam A.
Analysis of Passive and Semi-active Controlled Suspension Systems for
Ride Comfort in an Omnibus Passing Over A Speed Bump. IJRRAS 5 (1).
2010.
[10] Seonghark J, Donghee M and Jungha K. Active Control Method of
Automotive Suspension System. ICCAS 2002.

[11] Marzbanrad J, Ahmardi G, Hojjiat Y and Zohoor H. Optimal Active
Control of Vehicle Suspension System Including Time Delay and Preview
for Rough Roads. Journal of Vibration and Control.2002; 8; 967.
[12] Ikanega S, Lewis FL, Campos J and Davis L. Active Suspension Control
of Ground Vehicle based on a Full-Vehicle Model.
[13] Fazree M.A. Modeling Simulation of Vehicle Ride and Handling
Performance. Melaka: Technical Malaysia Melaka University. 2007.
[14] Ihsan S.I. Dynamics and Control Policies Analysis of Semi-Active
Suspension System Using A Full-Car Model. Journal of Noise and
Vibration. 2007.
[15] Ubaidillah, Hudha K, Imaduddin F and Said MR. Simulation and
Experimental Investigation on Direct Multiorder PI Control or
Magnetorheological Damper to Improve Vehicle Ride Performance. ISSN
1411-9471, Mei 2009.
[16] Lee J, Lee J and Heo SJ. Full Vehicle Dynamic Modeling for Chassis
Controls. F2008-SC-021.

Final Project Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Final Project Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PRELIMINARY STUDY FOR RIDE DYNAMICS MODEL OF SEMAR-T

Pitch moment of inertia 1263.5 kgm

Roll moment of inertia 450.1 kgm

Front-left unsprung mass 40 kg

Rear-left unsprung mass 35 kg

Rear-right unsprung mass 35 kg

Front-right unsprung mass 40 kg

Front-left tyre stiffness coefficient 200,000 N/m [15]

Rear-left tyre stiffness coefficient 200,000 N/m [15]

Rear-right tyre stiffness coefficient 200,000 N/m [15]

Front-right tyre stiffness coefficient 200,000 N/m [15]

Sprung mass heave displacement m

Sprung mass pitch angular displacement rad

Sprung mass roll angular displacement rad

Front-left unsprung mass displacement m

Rear-left unsprung mass displacement m

Rear-right unsprung mass displacement m

Front-right unsprung mass displacement m

Front-left displacement input m

Rear-left displacement input m

Rear-right displacement input m

Front-right displacement input m

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen