Citation Information
Hurel, J.; Mandow, A.; Garcia-Cerezo, A.; ,
"Nonlinear two-dimensional modeling of a McPherson suspension for kinematics and dynamics simulation," 12th IEEE
International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control (AMC), pp.1-6, 2012.
doi: 10.1109/AMC.2012.6197009
@INPROCEEDINGS{Hurel2012:AMC,
author={Hurel, J. and Mandow, A. and Garc\'{i}a-Cerezo, A.},
booktitle={12th IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control},
title={Nonlinear two-dimensional modeling of a McPherson suspension
simulation},
year={2012},
pages={1 -6},}
for
kinematics
and
dynamics
__________________________________________________________________________________________
2012 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish this material for advertising or
promotional purposes or for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or to reuse any copyrighted
component of this work in other works must be obtained from the IEEE.
AbstractThis paper proposes a systematic and comprehensive development of a nonlinear two-dimensional mathematical
quarter-car model of the McPherson suspension. The model
considers not only vertical motion of the sprung mass (chassis)
but also rotation and translation for the unsprung mass (wheel
assembly). Furthermore, this model includes the wheel mass
and its inertia moment about the longitudinal axis. This work
improves the conventional quarter-car model by incorporating
both the suspension geometry and the tyre lateral stiffness,
which allows analyzing variations in kinematic parameters, such
as camber angle and track width. Besides, the paper offers
an implementation of the model using Matlab-Simulink, whose
dynamics and kinematics have been validated against a realistic
two-dimensional model developed with the Adams View program.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Most research on suspension systems has been focused on
the analysis of control strategies for active or semi-active
mechanisms to improve the characteristics of comfort, handling and ride quality [1] [2] [3]. However, there are few works
related to the kinematic-dynamic modeling of the suspension
system [4].
The McPherson suspension is widely used in small and
medium size vehicles due to its light weight, compact size, and
cost [5]. Fig. 1 shows a McPherson suspension system, which
consists of a suspension arm, or control arm, plus a springdamper assembly (strut) rmly attached to the wheel assembly.
Large and asymmetric changes in kinematic parameters, such
as camber angle and track width, are a major problem in
modeling and controlling this type of suspension [6].
The quarter-car linear model is commonly used to analyze
the suspension dynamic behavior [7]. However, this model
does not consider the suspension system structure, which
affects signicantly the system dynamic behavior [8]. In [9],
it is shown that two types of suspension geometry produce
different responses in real systems and equivalent parameters
are proposed to improve the linear model.
In the case of the McPherson suspension, its variable
geometry provokes a nonlinear behavior, which can be
analyzed with two-dimensional models [10]. Furthermore,
three-dimensional models have been considered to study the
6SULQJGDPSHU
DVVHPEO\
&RQWURODUP
:KHHO
DVVHPEO\
McPherson kinematics [5] [11]. However, none of these models accounts for tyre dynamics.
In the linear model of a quarter-car suspension system, the
tyre is analyzed as a rigid element, so neither vertical damping
[12] nor lateral deection [4] are considered. These features
are included in a nonlinear two-dimensional model of a double
wishbone suspension [4], where a small variation in the
points describing the suspension geometry greatly affects the
kinematic-dynamic response of the system. This is specially
relevant in the McPherson case, where tyre spring stiffness
has been considered in two-dimensional [13] and multi-body
dynamic models [14] that neglect tyre damping and lateral
deection.
This paper proposes a systematic and comprehensive development of a nonlinear two-dimensional mathematical model
of McPherson suspension. The model considers that the sprung
mass (chassis) moves vertically, and that the unsprung mass
(wheel assembly) experiments a two-dimensional motion of
rotation and translation. In addition, the model includes the
wheel mass and its inertia moment about the longitudinal axis.
Generalized coordinates Zs and Zu are used to generate a
Zs
Zs
Bs
Ks
a)
Zu
Kt
Kt
l
Bt
Zr
YN Y T Y P
YN 0 Y T 0 Y P 0
Z
N ZT ZP = [D]wheel ZN 0 ZT 0 ZP 0 (2)
1
(3)
=
=
ZN 0 + Zu
c
(4)
(5)
ZT 0 + Z u
(6)
Y P YC f
(7)
ZP + e
Z P 0 + Zu
(8)
YT YC d
ZT + c
Zu
C
Q
Zr
b)
ZP 0 + Zu
YP 0 m2
m(n ZP 0 Zs )
sigma(
+
+
e
e
e
LYP 0 + Zs
)
(13)
e
=
Zs
L2
Z
= sigma(n ZP 0 Zs + YP 0 m (L + Zs )(ZP 0
2Zs )),
(14)
L3
J0
T0
L1
L03
sigma =
Y
C
Zu
Zr
GYtl
Fig. 3: Illustration of suspension motion. Dashed lines represent the initial equilibrium conguration, and solid lines
represent the instantaneous values.
well as the length of the spring-damper assembly (L3 ), the
control arm angle (), and their corresponding initial values
(L03 and 0 , respectively). Note that this motion provokes a
tyre deection with lateral Yt (i.e., a track width variation)
and vertical Zt components.
Three more equations are obtained from the system geometry:
2
(YP YQ ) + (ZP ZQ )
YP
ZP
1
1
= ,
LYP 0 + mZP 0 2mZs
S
(L1 )
L1 cos(0 + )
L1 sin(0 + ) + Zs ,
d
e
fm
f YP 0
) + (m2 + L2 )(
ZP 0 )
e
e
f YP 0
fm
) + L(
ZP 0 ) + 2(m2 + L2 )
ZP 0 (L +
e
e
n(L +
s = a + b Z s
a = LYP 0 + mZP 0
b = 2m
l = a2 f + b j
c = f ZeP 0 e
j = a e d b
j +2a f Z +b f
Zs2
s
A=
S2
i = mZP 0 + LYP 0
g =
k = a i b h
ZP 0
e
h = mn + (m2 + L2 )YP 0
o = n + mYP 0 LZP 0
C = q + 4a Zs + 2b
Zs2
s = c g R YC0
u = e +
p = 2L 2ZP 0
q = a p b o
t = d +
Ri
e
Rh
e
m = a u b t
n ZP 0 Zs
(10)
Y C
ZP + m
L + Zs ,
(11)
YC
(9)
f = 2L
f
1
Zu + (d + e Zs + f Zs2 )
e
S
f
Zu + AZs
e
f
2l
Zu + AZs +
.
e
S 3 Z s2
c
(15)
(16)
(17)
L = L1 sin0 ;
m = L1 cos0 .
Equations (3)-(11) dene a linear system with nine unknowns variables, which can be solved in terms of Zs and
Zu . This produces expressions for the kinematics of each
suspension key point. For the sake of simplicity, only the
solutions for YC , , and , (i.e., those needed for the dynamical
analysis), are shown below:
fm
f (ZP 0 + Zu )
+ sigma((L +
)(n ZP 0 +
e
e
f YP 0
ZP 0 + 2Zs )) (12)
Zs ) + (m2 + L2 + LZs )(
e
YC = e
1
Zu
(h + i Zs )
e
eS
Z u
k
=
2 Z s
e
eS
u
Z
k
2b k 2
=
2 Zs +
Z ,
e
eS
eS 3 s
and using (14) produces control arm velocity:
g +
1
(o + p Zs + 2Zs2 )
S
q + 4a Zs + 2b Zs2
Zs .
S2
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
Ytl
(YC R) YC0 .
(23)
s +
l = L3 L03
(30)
(31)
B 0.5 L03
(32)
Zu Z r
(33)
1
1
1
ms Z s2 + mu (Y C2 + Z u2 ) + IC 2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
Ks l Kt Zt Ktl Ytl2
2
2
2
+ IC
+ Ks l
Zs
Zs
Z s
(Ytl )
l = 0
+Ktl Ytl
+ Bs l
Zs
Zs
ms Zs + mu YC
(36)
(
) Zu
s
e2 S 4
e
e2 S 2
2
(kC) Bs
kCKs
l03
Ktl F E
+
(1 0.5 ) +
Zs +
4BS 4
2S 2
B
S2
Ktl F f + R
Zu ) = 0 (37)
+ 2 (s +
S
e
Applying Lagranges equation with the second generalized
coordinate Zu
(ms + mu A2 +
d L
L
D
[
]
+
=0
dt Z u
Zu
Z u
(38)
Zu
Zu
Zu
+Kt (Zu Zr ) + Bt (Zu Zr ) = 0 (39)
Substituting the partial derivatives in (39)
k IC
f 2 mu
IC
f mu A
+ 2 2 )Zs
+ 2 )Zu (
2
e
e
e
e S
Ktl E(f + R) Ktl (f + R)2
Ktl s (f + R)
+
Zu
e
e2
e
+Kt (Zu Zr ) + Bt (Zu Zr ) = 0 (40)
(mu +
2L1 L2 sin0 ,
dt Zs
Zs
Z s
(34)
C. Comparative analysis
..
Zs
1
s
Out1In1
Zs
In1
Out1
In2
.
Zs
1
s
Zs
BodyZsNL
Subsys1
In1
Out1
In2
Subsys2
In1
Out1
Subsys8
In2
Subsys5
Out1In1
Zs
Subsys6
Out1In1
Subsys7
Out1In2
In1
Subsys12
Out1 In2
In3
Subsys10
ktl*(sp)*(f+R)/e
..
Zu
-K-
1
s
S-9
Out1
In1
.
Zu
1
s
Zu
Zu
Zu
TireSimulink
kt
bt
.
Zr
ktl*(((f+R)/e)^2)
du/dt
Derivative
Zr(road)
Zr
Pulse
Generator
ZC0 = 0.0388
YQ0 = 0.0
ZQ0 = 0.0
YN 0 = 0.2341
ZN 0 = 0.1803
YP 0 = 0.2490
ZP 0 = 0.0608
YT 0 = 0.2179
ZT 0 = 0.3782
YM 0 = 0.2049
ZM 0 = 0.5249
kg
mt = 42.3
kg
Ks = 38404.0
Suspension stiffness
N/m
Bs = 3593.4
Suspension damping
N s/m
Kt = 310000.0
N/m
Ktl = 190000.0
N/m
Bt = 3100.0
Tyre damping
N s/m
R = 0.3
IC = 1.0
kg m2
5
1
Damper
4
Chassis
Wheel assembly
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Restrictions
Translational joint
Rotacional joint
Spherical joint
Cilindrical joint
Spherical joint
Fixed joint
Translational joint
2
3
7
0.07
Sprung mass displacement (m)
Control arm
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
(41)
10
15
20
25
30
Time (s)
35
40
45
50
guration of the system, the tyre damping, and the tyre lateral
stiffness. These improvements allow analyzing variations in
kinematic parameters, such as camber angle and track width,
that cannot be addressed with the conventional model.
Besides, the paper has offered an implementation of the
model using Matlab-Simulink. Results have shown a good
agreement between the proposed model and a realistic twodimensional model developed with the Adams View program.
Future work includes using the model within a real-time
suspension control system.
20000
Adams Model
Nonlinear Model
15000
10000
5000
5000
3
3.5
4
Time (s)
4.5
V. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported in part by the Spanish Project
DPI2008-00553. The rst authors stay at the University of
Malaga is funded by Escuela Superior Politecnica del Litoral.
0.1
Adams Model
Nonlinear Model
0.08
R EFERENCES
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
3
0
1
2
3
Camber angle (degree)
0.08
Nonlinear model
Adams model
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
Track width variation (m)
IV. C ONCLUSION
Even if commercial multi-body dynamics simulation software can be used to analyze vehicular suspension from physical modeling, mathematical models, such as the linear quarter
car model, are used because of their favorable cost, simulation
time, and low processing capacity requirements.
This paper has presented a two-dimensional nonlinear
mathematical model of the McPherson-type suspension that
considers vertical motion of the sprung mass (chassis) and rotation and translation for the unsprung mass (wheel assembly).
This model is an improvement over the conventional two-mass
quarter car vehicle because it incorporates the geometrical con-
[1] X.-m. Dong, M. Yu, C.-r. Liao, and W.-m. Chen, Comparative research
on semi-active control strategies for magneto-rheological suspension,
Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 59, pp. 433453, 2010.
[2] J. Sun and Y. Sun, Comparative study on control strategy of active
suspension system, in Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation (ICMTMA), 2011 Third International Conference on, vol. 1,
jan. 2011, pp. 729 732.
[3] A. Abu-Khudhair, R. Muresan, and S. Yang, Fuzzy control of semiactive automotive suspensions, in International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, 2009, pp. 2118 2122.
[4] K. P. Balike, S. Rakheja, and I. Stiharu, Development of kinetodynamic quarter-car model for synthesis of a double wishbone suspension, Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 49, no. 1-2, pp. 107128, 2011.
[5] D. A. Mantaras, P. Luque, and C. Vera, Development and validation
of a three-dimensional kinematic model for the mcpherson steering and
suspension mechanisms, Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 39, pp.
603619, 2004.
[6] H. V. Deo and N. P. Suh, Axiomatic design of automobile suspension
and steering systems: Proposal for a novel six-bar suspension, SAE
International, 2004.
[7] D. Hrovat, Survey of advanced suspension developments and related
optimal control applications, Automatica, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 1781
1817, 1997.
[8] C. Kim, P. I. Ro, and H. Kim, Effect of the suspension structure on
equivalent suspension parameters, Automobile Engineering, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, vol. 213, p. 457, 1999.
[9] C. Kim and P. I. Ro, Reduced-order modelling and parameter estimation
for a suspension system, Automobile Engineering, Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, vol. 214, pp. 851864, 2000.
[10] A. Stensson, C. Asplund, and L. Karlsson, The nonlinear behavior of a
macpherson strut wheel suspension, Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 23,
p. 85, 1994.
[11] Y. A. Papegay, J.-P. Merlet, and D. Daney, Exact kinematics analysis of
cars suspension mechanisms using symbolic computation and interval
analysis, Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 395
413, 2005.
[12] H. Akcay and S. Turkay, RMS performance limitations and constraints
for quarter-car active suspensions, in 16th Mediterranean Conference
on Control and Automation, 2008, pp. 425 430.
[13] M. S. Fallah, R. Bhat, and W. F. Xie, New model and simulation of
macpherson suspension system for ride control applications, Vehicle
System Dynamics, vol. 47, p. 195, 2009.
[14] E. R. Andersen, Multibody dynamics modeling and system identication for a quarter-car test rig with mcpherson strut suspension, Masters
thesis, faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 2007.
[15] J. Reimpell, H. Stoll, and J. W. Betzler, The Automotive Chassis:
Engineering Principles, 2nd ed., R. Educational and P. P. Ltd, Eds.
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001.
[16] C. H. Suh, Synthesis and analysis of suspension mechanisms with
use of displacement matrices, SAE Transactions, vol. 98, pp. 171182,
1989.