RACE CAR SUSPENSION OPTIMIZATION

Jacobs School of Engineering

University of California, San Diego

Abstract

Shock dampers are an important factor in race car set up and they should be tuned to provide
optimum handling and maximize tire contact. In order to achieve this, a shock dynamometer
was used to characterize and tune the 4-way adjustable Cane Creek Double Barrel damper
according to theoretical calculations from the Quarter Car Model. UCSD's Society of Automotive
Engineers has been operating without the use of a fully functional dynamometer and with the
rise of this project; the SAE team took advantage of the opportunity. The suspension system
for the SAE car was characterized and utilized to develop ideal settings for maximum
performance.

Mechanical Engineering Laboratory Course – 171B

Spring Quarter 2008
Group B7: Neal Bloom
Isaiah Freerkson
Norman Molina
Vinh Nguyen
TABLE OF CONTENTS -

PAGE

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... iv
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
THEORY
Quarter Car Model .............................................................................................................. 2
Shock Damper .................................................................................................................... 3
Matlab Simulink Quarter Car Simulation .........................................................................................3
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
Shock Dynamomemeter ...................................................................................................... 5
Transducers - Loadcell, LDVT, LVT .................................................................................... 5
Cane Creek Double Barrel Shock Absorber ........................................................................ 6
Labview – Data Acquisition .............................................................................................................6
Matlab – Data Processing ...............................................................................................................7
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Sensor Equipment Calibration ............................................................................................. 8
Shock Characterization ....................................................................................................... 8
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Sensor Equipment Calibration ........................................................................................... 10
Shock Characterization ..................................................................................................... 10
Simulink Model .................................................................................................................. 12
DISCUSSION
Sensor Equipment Calibration............................................................................................ 14
Shock Characterization ...................................................................................................... 14
Simulink Model .................................................................................................................. 15
ERROR ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 16
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 17
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 18
TABLE OF CONTENTS -

APPENDICES

APPENDIX “A” – Measurement Data & Sensor Calibration Figures

APPENDIX “B” – Matlab Simulink Figures & Data

APPENDIX “C” – Matlab Code

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

TABLE 1 – Damper Tuning Ratios .......................................................................................... 4

TABLE 2 – Summary of Results for Calibration Curves ..................................................... 10
TABLE 3 – Minimum Damping Coefficients – Measured ....................................................... 12
TABLE 4 – Maximum Damping Coefficients – Measured .................................................... 12
TABLE 5 – Minimum Damping Coefficients – Cane Creek Data ............................................. 12
TABLE 5 – Minimum Damping Coefficients – Cane Creek Data ............................................ 12
INTRODUCTION

PAGE

FIGURE 1 – Quarter car model of a suspension system ...................................................... 2

FIGURE 2 – Reduced Quarter Car Model ............................................................................... 2
FIGURE 3 – 4-way Damping Switch ....................................................................................... 4
FIGURE 4 – LVDT Displacement Transducer ........................................................................ 5
FIGURE 5 – LVT Velocity Transducer .................................................................................... 5
FIGURE 6 – Cane Creek Double Barrel cutout view ............................................................. 6
FIGURE 7 – Can Creek Double Barrel external adjustment nuts ......................................... 6
FIGURE 8 – Virtual Instrument (VI) Block Diagram ............................................................... 7
FIGURE 9 – Virtual Instrument Data Acquisition Screen .................................................... 7
FIGURE 10 – Load cell Calibration Curve – Load vs. Voltage ............................................ 10
FIGURE 11 – Double Barrel Shock Response – All Low and All High Adjustments ........ 11
FIGURE 12 – Force vs. Velocity – Low Speed Rebound .................................................... 12
FIGURE 13 – Single Damping Coefficient – Car Body Position vs. Time ......................... 12
FIGURE 14 – 4-way damping – Car Body Position vs. Time .............................................. 13
INTRODUCTION

Formula SAE® competition is an annual collegiate competition for SAE student members
to design, fabricate and compete with small formula-one style racing cars. The student
organization, SAE at the University of California, San Diego is planning on competing in the
Formula SAE collegiate competition in June of 2008. The Formula SAE competition is highly
competitive therefore it is important to have a well set-up race car. Having a well set-up race car
allows the driver to utilize its full potential as opposed to having to fight a poorly set-up car around
the race track. Furthermore, having a well set-up car allows it to be more predictable around the
race track.
Part of having a well set-up car is having an optimized suspension system. In doing so
requires choosing a proper spring and damper for the application. A wide range of dampers are
available and for the UCSD SAE’s racecar, the Cane Creek Double Barrel was chosen. This is a
4-way adjustable damper that supports adjustability for high and low speed damping for bump and
rebound. For previous years, UCSD SAE has taken a more empirical approach to tuning the
damper, where adjustments were made according to the driver’s feedback at the race track. The
intent of this experiment is to take a more methodical approach to tuning the suspension system;
an approach that identifies the theory behind the controls of a suspension system along with
theoretical results that can be empirically verified.
This experiment, sponsored by UCSD SAE, will investigate optimization of the vehicle
dynamics of the SAE race car. This involves characterizing front/rear wheel frequencies, spring
stiffness, and the damped/un-damped masses of the car. The dampers will be tuned to the
theoretical characteristics of the damping system and after this is completed the suspension will be
analyzed and tested on the shock dynamometer. This process will optimize the performance of the
SAE car vehicle dynamics and the benefits will be realized in the FSAE collegiate competition in
June of 2008.
THEORY

Quarter Car Model

The quarter car model is a simplification of the car’s suspension system consisting of four shock
assemblies down to one. Although it does not fully represent the physics of the car’s suspension
system, it can be a useful tool for understanding the workings of the suspension1. Figure 1 shows
a diagram of the quarter car model. The model consists of the following parameters:

xs
ms = sprung mass (weight of the car) (lb) ms
mu = unsprung mass (wheel and suspension
components) (lb)
ks = sprung mass spring rate (lb/in) bs
ks
kt = tire spring rate (lb/in)
bs = sprung mass damping (lb·s/in)
u(t) = displacement of the road as a function of xu
time mu

kt
Applying Newton’s Second Law, the governing equations of
motion for the sprung mass and unsprung mass are:
xs = bs ( x&u − x&s ) + ks ( xu − xs )
ms && Eq. (1)
xu = bs ( x&s − x&u ) + ks ( xs − xu ) + kt (u − xu ) Eq. (2)
mu && u(t)
Figure 1 – Quarter-car model
of a suspension system
To further simplify the equations of motion, it is assumed that:
mu<<msand ks<<kt
The high stiffness of the tire spring rate combined with the lower mass of the unsprung weight
limits the movement of mu and reduces equation (2) to zero. The equation of motion for the sprung
mass is then:
xs = −ks xs − bs x&s
ms && Eq. (3)

This equation simply states that the acceleration of the sprung

mass is the sum of the spring rate times the movement of the
damper and the damping coefficient times the damper velocity.
The reduced quarter car model (simple spring-mass-damper
system) is shown in Figure2. Applying a Laplace transform to
equation (3) to transform it from the time-domain to the frequency
domain results in equation (4):

bs k
s2 + ⋅s + s = 0 Eq. (4)
ms ms
s 2 + 2ζ ⋅ ωn ⋅ s + ωn 2 = 0 Eq. (5) Figure 2 – Reduced
Quarter Car model
THEORY

Comparing equation (4) to the ideal second order system, equation (5), where ωnis the natural
frequency and ζ is the damping ratio, It can be seen that:

ks
bs = 2 ⋅ ωn ⋅ ms ⋅ ζ Eq. (6) ωn = Eq. (7)
ms

The damping coefficient is chosen by specifying the damping ratio and the natural frequency is the
frequency at which the spring mass system oscillates without the damper. With the simplifying
assumptions, it is expected that the actual values will be lower than the theoretical values.

Shock Damper
The shock damper is a critical component of the car’s suspension system because it helps control
the car chassis’ response going into and out of turns (pitch and roll) as well as its response to
variations in the road (bouncy or bumpy ride). Without a shock damper, the spring would cause
the suspension system to oscillate over an extended period of time as it compresses, stores
mechanical energy, and then releases it past its neutral state to a point of extension and then it
would continue to oscillate over an extended period of time until all of the stored energy has
dissipated. The shock damper dissipates energy stored in the spring, usually in the form of heat.
In addition to controlling the car’s response in turns, the damper also plays a vital role in controlling
the temperature of the tires1. In automobile racing, controlling tire load variation and maintaining
an optimum temperature for the tires is very important as it increases the car’s mechanical grip.
The damping ratio varies and is tuned according to desired handling characteristics and track
conditions. These ratios are specified in Table 1. LS and HS refers to the damper shaft velocity,
where LS is low-speed and HS is high-speed.
Table 1- Damper Tuning Ratios1
Region Value Comments
0.5 This is body control so if it is a bumpy circuit, the ratio
ζ LS-Compression 0.7 is 0.5. If the circuit is smooth choose 0.7. If the tires
1.2 need to be worked hard then choose 1.2.
0.3 This will be dependent on a number of factors. Where
ζ LS-Rebound 0.5 body control is not significant, use .3, However where
0.7 body control is significant, use .5 to .7
ζ HS- Compression 0.3 This is the high pass area of the damping curve. The
values here should be .3 to .4
ζ HS- Rebound 0.4

Matlab Simulink Quarter Car Simulation

Simulink is a graphical approach to a Matlab environment it allows the user to simulate a real word
environment such as a quarter car system. The Simulink model is used to calculate specific values
that are required to tune the SAE cars suspension.
To begin, the model requires specifications of constants (model parameters/measured values)
needed to produce the equations of motion. These constants are placed in two summing blocks
that formulate the two equations of motion for the sprung and unsprung masses. These equations
THEORY

are shown below (Eg. (8) and Eq. (9)). After equations of motion are placed in the form that solves
for the two accelerations of the un-sprung mass (mu)and the sprung mass (ms), the equations are
then placed through two integrators, the first representing the velocity of (mu)and (ms) and the
second producing an equation representing the displacement of (mu)and (ms). These values of
acceleration, velocity and displacement for mu and ms are then fed back into the controlling parts of
the equations of motion. This feedback loop allows for continuous control of the damping
coefficients.
Eq. (8)
xu + bs ( x&u − x&s ) + ks ( xu − xs ) + kt ( xu − q) − mu g = 0
mu &&

xs + bs ( x&s − x&u ) + ks ( xs − xu ) − ms g = 0
ms && Eq. (9)

It was imperative for the model to simulate real world performance of the double barrel shock
absorber. In order to assure a real world simulation the damping coefficients for rebound and
compression would have to be determined. To determine the system was in rebound or
compression the use of a detect increase and detect decrease block respectively. These two
blocks use the displacement feedback, which was mention previously, to sense the direction of the
simulated damper shaft. After each displacement block there resides a switch (1) that is turned on
to feed the input of the velocity into another set of switches. This switch (1) on the rebound and
compression is to engage that particular damping regime. Once that switch is on it feeds in the
velocity of the damper shaft onto an array of another two switches. These two switches switch (2)
and switch (3) are responsible for delivering the damping coefficients to the driving part of the
system. These two switches are tuned to be active at different shaft speeds. Switch (2) is on only
when switch (1) is on switch (3) is activated when the shaft speed reaches a pre determined limit.
In this system only the specific damping coefficients that are need for a particular regime are
activated this allows for a realistic system in a simulated environment. This damping coefficient
system can is shown in Figure 3.
At the end of each simulation there are specific outputs placed in the Matlab workspace
environment. Once these outputs are in the workspace there can be manipulate to show the
response to the inputs. This allows the user to determine to performance of the ¼ car model in a
simulated environment.

Figure 3 – 4-way Damping Switch

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

Shock Dynamometer
The Aurora V8 dynamometer itself was donated in non-working condition by a racing specialist,
Wayne Mitchell, to help in the project and the optimization of the shock absorber for the race car.
A shock dynamometer is a machine used to test and measure force, velocity, and displacement for
shock dampers.

Transducers - Load Cell, LVDT, LVT

Looking in depth into the dynamometer, there are three main components/sensors that make up
the dynamometer. These are the Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT), Linear Velocity
Transducer (LVT), and the load cell. The load cell sensor is an Omega S-type Model that has a
range of 0 to 2000 pound force (lbf) and measured in both compression and tension. The LVDT
(245 Model) and LVT (110 Model) are manufactured by Trans-Tek, a specialist in transducers. In
particular, the LVDT sensor measures linear displacement. The transducer itself is a core within a
cylindrical tube and contains primary and secondary magnetic coils in which change in voltage
output is proportional to the movement of the core. The LVT sensor on the other hand measures
the velocity at which the motor is running. The LVT is similar to the LVDT in terms of coils inside
the cylindrical tube. The difference being that no external excitation voltage is needed; a magnet is
passed between the coils and results in a DC voltage output proportional to the instantaneous
velocity. Again, an amplifying circuit board and a data acquisition board were needed to read the
voltage outputs out of all three sensors. Software used for data logging was National Instruments
Labview and MATLAB.

Figure 4 – LVDT Displacement Transducer Figure 5 – LVT Velocity Transducer

Cane Creek Double Barrel Shock Absorber2
The shocks that were acquired for the SAE race car was the Cane Creek Double Barrel shock
absorber, manufactured by Cane Creek using the technology from the European company, Ohlins.
The double barrel design allows the shock to have four independent external adjustments,
meaning each adjustment contributes independently to shock response. The four independent
adjustments consist of high and low speed compression and rebound. The traditional shock
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

absorber has one tube inside that allows the oil to pass through narrow orifice in both compression
and rebound. With the twin tube technology, there are different orifice (poppet valves) for the oil to
travel for both low and high speed compression and rebound.

Figure 6 – Cane Creek Double Barrel

cutout view2 (left)

Figure 7 – Cane Creek Double Barrel

external adjustment nuts2 (below)

Labview – Data Acquisition Software

In order to read the data coming off the dynamometer, a few intermediate steps were needed. First
a 14-bit Digital Acquisition Card (DAC) was acquired. The DAC is capable of taking positive and
negative voltage inputs and then interfacing it to a computer via USB. During initial testing, it was
determined that the DAC board did not have enough resolution to read the voltage output from the
load cell, therefore an amplifying circuit with a gain of 100 was made. National Instruments’
Labview was used to log the voltage output from the three sensors on the dynamometer. In
Labview, a Virtual Instrument (VI) interface was created for data acquisition. Below in Figure 8 and
Figure 9shows the VI that was created for data acquisition. The voltage reading while the
dynamometer was operating was logged at 4800 samples per second. There is a low-pass filter
that cuts off anything above 40 Hz.
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

Figure 8- Virtual Instrument (VI) Block Diagram

Figure 9- Virtual Instrument Data Acquisition Screen

MATLAB – Data Processing Software

As stated above, the Labview VI created data logs at a sample rate of 4800 Hz in a spreadsheet
format specified by the user. In order to plot recorded data, Mathworks MATLAB, was used. A
MATLAB code file was created in order to extract the points from the spreadsheet. Commands
were used to load the spreadsheet files to MATLAB and extract the data point into vectors. The
sampled data (in voltage) is used to calculate the force, velocity and displacement measured by
the transducers. See Appendix C for the code.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Sensor Equipment Calibration

Load Cell
Once the dynamometer was up and running, a calibration of all the sensors was needed. The
first calibration was the load cell and it consisted of using chains and weights. The first weight
on the load cell was 35 pounds and was hung on using chain links. The next four weights
included 70, 90, 125, and 160 pounds. This was then graphed versus the voltage output
measured through the Labview VI software. The resulting data is plotted using Microsoft Excel
and then a linear curve fit applied with an equation to characterize the
LVDT
In calibrating the LVDT, the cam shaft was first rotated so that the crank arm was at its lowest
position. The voltage was recorded to determine the offset. The cam was then rotated
manually to eight different positions and each time the displacement and voltage was recorded
using a caliper and the Labview VI. The data was then graphed as voltage versus
displacement. A curve fit was again applied to the plot resulting in an equation.
LVT
The cam on the dynamometer contains three different radius positions in which the stroke and
maximum velocity of the shock assembly attachment can be adjusted. To calibrate the velocity
transducer, the cam radius setting was set at two different positions (.50, .75 in) and the
voltage reading was recorded for each. The maximum voltage for each maximum velocity
during the maximum compression and rebound cycle was recorded. To set the positions, the
cam bolt was removed and the cam was rotated. The cam bolt is then placed into a different
hole depending the desired radius. Again, it was graphed as voltage versus velocity where a
trend line was added to acquire an equation.
General Dynamometer Usage
After the calibrations of all three sensors were performed, the dynamometer was ready to log data
for the shock absorber. The data acquisition equipment was first set up according to the setup
information in the previous section. The speed of the motor was set at its default setting, which is
the low speed. The height of the apparatus was first adjusted according to the maximum
displacement of the absorber and then was then placed onto the mounting points of the
dynamometer. The power supply for the data acquisition board was turned on, which was set at a
constant 24 volts. The Labview VI on a laptop was then turned on as a continuous run and the
dynamometer was switched on as well. The Labview graph on the laptop displayed live output
data of the load cell, displacement and velocity transducer. After a few seconds, the “Log Data”
button on the Labview VI was pressed and data logging was initiated. After approximately 3
seconds, the data logging was stopped as well as the VI and the dynamometer. The spread
sheets of the data was saved in the default Labview format, lvm. The .lvm files were then
extracted to MATLAB and the data was then plotted. This procedure for data logging was
performed several times at different settings to get different results.
Shock Characterization
The purpose of characterizing the damper was to gather information on the damper’s response in
terms of damping coefficient when different adjustments were made to the damper’s adjustment
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

bolts. In attempting to find how the shock reacts to any knob change, there were a number of
testing procedures. As seen in Figure 7, there are four ways to adjust the damper’s response.
First, both the rebound and compression high settings were turned to high as well as the low
settings for rebound and compression and the response was graphed on a force vs. velocity curve.
Next all four settings were turned to low and the response was graphed. Next, all were turned to
the middle and graphed. Then everything was left at middle, while one knob was turned one notch
and this was graphed. Little by little, the same knob was turned one notch more each test to get an
accurate picture of incremental change, along with the already large change graphs from earlier.
On each of these graphs, the slope was found, which presented the damping coefficient at every
change of the damper settings.

ppppp
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Sensor Calibration
To calibrate the Load cell, LVDT, and LVT sensors, quantitative values were measured with
corresponding voltage and then plotted in Microsoft Excel. For the load cell, forces were
measured, the LVDT, displacements, and for the LVT, the maximum velocities for each given cam
radius. The data was plotted using Microsoft Excel and then a linear curve fit was applied to each
dataset. Figure 10 shows the plotted data for the load cell calibration along with a linear curve fit.
The resulting slope obtained from the curve fit is 482.55 lbf/volt with an offset of 5.129 lbs. The
correlation coefficient (R2) for the curve fit to the load cell data calculated by Excel is .9995. The
curve fits for the LVDT and LVT resulted in slopes of .1319 inches/volt and 8.1719 inches/sec/volt.
Examining the correlation coefficient for each of the equations determined from the linear curve fits
indicates that the measured parameters have a very strong linear relationship to the measured
voltages. The closer the correlation coefficient is to 1, the higher the linear dependence. Table 2
summarizes the determined equations for the calibration of each sensor along with the R2 values.
Figures A-1 and A-2, the curve fits for the LVDT and LVT sensors, are located in Appendix A.

200
y = 482.55x + 5.129
150 2
R = 0.9995
Load (Lbs)

100

50

0
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
-50
Voltage

Figure 10 – Load cell Calibration Curve - Load vs. Voltage

From the above calibration curve, since the R2 value was high, we can trust that our points are
linear and therefore can expect accurate results from the following load cell data.
Table 2 – Summary of Results for Calibration Curves
2
Sensor Equation for Calibration Curve fit R
Loadcell y= 482.55 (lbf/volt) * x + 5.129lb 0.9995
LDVT y= 0.1319 (in./volt) * x + .4856in. 0.9976
LVT y= 8.1719 (in*s-1)/volt * x + .3523 in*s-1 0.9988

Comparing the R2 values from the three sensors from our curve, our sensors are accurate and will
give us truer results during testing.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Shock Characterization
This graph shows the results of the four-way dampers being tested in two main configurations.
With all four damper settings set to the minimum damping coefficients, the dark blue line shows the
force over velocity. By taking the slopes of this graph, the exact damping coefficients can be found.
The same can be done with the light blue data, which shows the results of testing after the four
damper setting were turned to all maximum damping coefficients. The purpose of the
characterization tests are to find the outer limits of the shock damper this was achieved
successfully, which can be seen in figure 11.

Figure 11 – Double Barrel shock response - All Low and All High Adjustment Settings
From figure 11, the main difference between the two colored lines is their slopes. The light blue line
is steeper and therefore has a higher slope. This would be accurate since the light blue represents
when the damper was tuned to high damping coefficient. The slope of the force vs. velocity graph
shows damping coefficient and this means a higher slope is a higher damping coefficient and
therefore the light blue line has a higher damper coefficient.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Figure 12- Force vs. Velocity - Low Speed Rebound

Figure 12shows readings were taken when all four settings were turned to low and displays force
vs. velocity when the damping coefficient was found from the slope in the low speed range of the
rebound regime. The damping coefficient is therefore 10.05 lbs in/s. The tables below show the
difference between measured values of damping coefficient and the corresponding theoretical
damping coefficients. The R2 value confirms the accuracy of the model as a linear fit.
Table 3 – Minimum Damping Coefficients – Measured

Regime Damping Coefficients Theoretical Damping Percent diff (%)

(lbs in/ s) Coefficients (lbs in/ s)
Rebound, Low Speed 10.05 9.51 5.68
Rebound, High Speed 26.17 4.75 450.00
Compression, Low Speed 9.39 11.09 Within parameters
Compression, High Speed 24.41 4.75 414.00

Table 4 – Maximum Damping Coefficients – Measured

Regime Damping Coefficient Theoretical Damping Percent diff (%)

(lbs in/s) Coefficients (lbs in/ s)
Rebound, Low Speed 66.97 9.51 Within parameters
Rebound, High Speed 11.54 4.75 Within parameters
Compression, Low Speed 66.33 11.09 Within parameters
Compression, High Speed 11.75 4.75 Within parameters

Table 5 – Minimum Damping Coefficients – Cane Creek Data

Regime Damping Coefficients Theoretical Damping Percent diff (%)
(lbs in/ s) Coefficients (lbs in/ s)
Rebound, Low Speed 10.0 9.51 5.15
Rebound, High Speed 2.86 4.75 Within parameters
Compression, Low Speed 10.0 11.09 Within parameters
Compression, High Speed 2.86 4.75 Within parameters
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Table 6 – Maximum Damping Coefficients – Cane Creek Data

Regime Damping Coefficient Theoretical Damping Percent diff (%)
(lbs in/s) Coefficients (lbs in/ s)
Rebound, Low Speed 458.0 9.51 Within parameters
Rebound, High Speed 23.3 4.75 Within parameters
Compression, Low Speed 458.0 11.09 Within parameters
Compression, High Speed 23.3 4.75 Within parameters

Tables 3 and 4 show measured and theoretical values for the characterization tests. A sample
graph of the experiment is shown in figure 12. In table 3, the measured values are the absolute
minimum damping coefficient found for the damper. Comparing to the calculated theoretical values,
only the compression low speed could be tuned down to meet the theoretical value. The other
three values cannot be attained due to testing errors or internal tuning of the shock. This is
discussed in detail in the discussion. Table 4 shows that all the damping coefficients can be
achieved with simple tuning. Tables 5 and 6 are comparing the experimental data from the
manufacturer Cane Creek of the shock to our calculated theoretical damping coefficients. The
majority of their damping coefficients are within our theoretical calculations. This shows the damper
is capable of attaining our theoretical values, but we were not able to attain them with the same
shock during testing. This leads us to believe that either the shocks were given retuned when given
from the manufacturer or there were errors during the testing.

Simulink Model
Figures 13 and 14 are the results from the theoretical Simulink model. Figure 13 shows the step
response of a typical car body with one constant damping coefficient, while the second shows a
step response with the four-way damper tested for the race car.

Figure 13 – Single Damping Coefficient – Car Body Position vs. Time

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Figure 14 – 4-way damping – Car Body Position vs. Time

It is evident that the four-way damper displayed in figure 14 cuts down the settling time by .04
seconds compared to figure 13, which is quite significant in racing conditions. This was expected
because the advantages of the four way damper are that it can change its damping coefficient mid-
stroke in both directions, as opposed to one damping coefficient of the average car. The discussion
section will go into more detail on other advantages of the four-way damper found through
theoretical modeling and testing.
DISCUSSION

Sensor Calibration
The purpose of the calibration experiment is to establish a relationship between load, velocity and
displacement to voltage measurements from the transducers. This was accomplished by taking
known physical quantities and recording the voltage measurement for each that were sensed by
the transducers. Manufacture data sheet for the specific models of the transducers used was not
available for comparison due to the old age of the dynamometer. However, the strong linear
relationship between the load, velocity and displacement to the measured voltage inspires
confidence in its use for the experiment.
Shock Characterization

The goal in the initial stages of characterizing the shock damper was to find the maximum and
minimum limits of damping for the double barrel damper. In the process of characterizing the shock
dampers, accuracy became an issue. Initially we started with a data logger system that was
reading the data at 12 bits. The data proved to be unreadable and we switched to a data logger
that would read at 14 bits, this was a vast improvement and the data was far superior to data that
was taken by the first data logger. As a precaution data was procured from double barrel, they
provided a graph of force versus absolute velocity with this we determined the high and low
damping coefficients. It was clear from a comparison of the team’s data versus the companies that
the high and low damping coefficients we were not in agreement. The graph from double barrel
contained upper and lower limits that provided a bigger window of adjustment. The reason for this
could come from two sources. The first being the internal adjustment that control the limits of
damping could have been removed or increased, this would provided more extreme upper and
lower limits. The other reason for this discrepancy could be the sensitivity of shock dynamometer
sensing equipment. The sensor that is in question is the load cell; this unit may be providing false
readings. In the future this inconsistency will be resolved by consulting double barrel. At the
conclusion of this experiment the analysis at was as accurate as it could be without spending an
exorbitant amount of money on new sensors if this is even the reason for the discrepancy.

The empirical data that was retrieved from the shock damper provided the team with lower upper
limits of the shock damper performance. It was found that the high speed and the low speed were
damping coefficient were nearly identical for compression and rebound. The values for the upper
and lower limits can be found in tables 3 and 4 in the results section of the report or in figures
(blank thru blank) in the appendix. From the theoretical calculation for the desired damping
coefficients we find that the limits of the damper are insufficient. The percent difference from the
theoretical to the data retrieved from the dynamometer and the values derive from the graph
received from cane creek can be seen in the results section on tables 5 and 6. It can be seen that
the theoretical values can be achieve with respect to the cane creek data all except the low speed
compression and this only has a percent different of 5.15.

Simulink Model
To give the team a better idea of what would really be happening to the SAE car after we made our
theoretical adjustments, Simulink was utilized. In this simulated environment all the theoretical
hand calculations were implemented and the outputs were investigated to see if our model
provided improved results. There were several different aspects of performance that were felt to be
DISCUSSION

important to verify to insure that the cars performance would be optimized. Among them was the
displacement of the wheel (mu) and body (ms) and the difference between the two. To make a
comparison we also simulated a content damping scenario to compare the actively damped
scenario. When looking at these outputs the first thing that was evident was that the displacement
of (mu) for the constant damped and four actively damped scenarios were almost exactly the same.
At first this was perplexing but after a moment it was realized that this was attributed to the tires
lack of damping and not the damping of the car through the actual damping units. The results of
this can be seen in the appendix figures B1 and B2.The next important area to look into was the
displacement of the car body (ms). In the comparison of these graphs there was a significant
improvement in the settling time of the actively damped system over the constantly damped
system. The improvement is seen in a shortening of settling for the four way damper time by
approximately 0.4 seconds over the constantly damped system .These graphs can be verified in
the results section in figures 13 and 14.
In addition to the body displacement the forces on the damper system can be analyzed it is seen in
figure B3. That the main contributor between the spring and the damper is initially the damper, it
peaks out and tappers off and then the spring continues to give the greatest contribution to the
resistance in the system. As the forces go down from the initial step input past the origin, it can be
observed the damper in the only one to contribute. This is consistent with the theory of damper
force versus spring force.
CONCLUSION

Error values have been accounted for throughout the experiment and have not been a significant
factor in the determination of final values. According the specification sheets acquired for similar
LVDT and LVT models, the maximum error values are .5% and 2.5%, respectively. These nominal
values of non linearity are a definite plus in the experiment’s data acquisition. A specification sheet
was unavailable for the load cell; however due to its accuracy during the calibration procedure, it
was safe to assume that it’s non-linearity is a negligible effect.

Error propagation of the natural frequency of the system and the damping coefficients were solved
using the following equations:

 ∂f   ∂f 
2 2

Uncertainty: σ f =   σ a 2 +   σ b 2 + ... Eq. (10)

 ∂a   ∂b 

Uncertainty of Natural Frequency:

2 2
 ∂ω   ∂ω 
∆ωn =  n  ( ∆ks ) +  n  ( ∆ms )
2
Eq. (11)
 ∂ks   ∂ms 

2 2
 1   ks 
The equation therefore becomes ∆ωn =   ( ∆k s ) +   ( ∆ms )
2 2

2 m k   3/ 2  Eq. (12)
 s s   2ms 
The calculated error for the natural frequency is .04 rads/s, or 3.2%.

Damping Coefficient: b = 2 ⋅ ωn ⋅ ms ⋅ ζ with uncertainty of

2 2
 ∂b   ∂b 
∆b =  n  ( ∆ωn ) +  n  ( ms )
2 2
Eq. (13)
 ∂ωn   ∂ms 

The damping ratio ζ was specified as an exact value and therefore did not contribute to error
propagation. The values of b for low speed and high speed are 193.9 lb*s/in and 96.9 lb*s/in,
respectively. The specified values for ζ low speed was 0.6 and 0.3 for high speed. The equation
thus changed to ∆b = ( 2 ⋅ ms ⋅ ζ ) ( ∆ωn ) + ( 2 ⋅ ωn ⋅ ζ ) ( ∆ms )
2 2 2 2
with a propagated error of
11.52 (5.9%) for low speed and 5.76 (5.9%) for high speed. Overall, the propagated error
remained below 10% in both the calculations of the natural frequency and the damping coefficients.
CONCLUSION

As opposed to previous years, a more theoretical approach was taken to tuning the shock dampers
on the SAE race car. This involved using the Quarter Car Model to determine the theoretical
natural frequency of the system and the damping coefficient with respect to the damping ratio.
Damping ratio for the desired shock damper characteristics were specified to calculate the
theoretical damping coefficients. The shock dynamometer was successfully used to characterize
the damping capabilities of the Cane Creek Double Barrel shock damper. It was found that the
theoretical damping coefficients for the desired handling characteristics of the race car are not
achievable with the current configuration of the shock damper. However, according to the
manufacturer’s test data, the damping coefficients can be attained if the valves in the damping
mechanism are changed.

The calculated theoretical damping coefficients were entered into Simulink and a simulation was
performed to observe the response of the race car suspension to a step response. The step input
simulated a sudden jerk from the steering wheel of the race car or an encounter with a bump/raised
curb. The Simulink model showed that the theoretical damping provided the desired suspension
response. For comparison, the simulation was ran using a non-adjustable shock damper (one
damping coefficient) and the result was that the suspension was less adaptable to the step input,
which caused the system to oscillate more over a longer period of time before reaching steady
state.
Overall, the experiment was successful in theoretically tuning the shock damper for specific desired
handling characteristics in the race car. The Simulink model confirmed the choice of damping
coefficients for the shock damper. Not only is this experiment useful in tuning the shock damper,
but it can also apply to specifying a shock damper for the application as well. Although it empirical
verification of the theory remains to be seen, it is expected that the shock dampers to be well tuned
for the race car and at the very least, provide an optimum base starting point for tuning the
suspension at the race track. The only recommendation for the future is having access to or using
a newer shock dynamometer with proprietary software that was made for the application
REFERENCES

1. Nowlan, Danny. “Find the sweet spot.” Racecar engineering 18.2 (2008): 52-58.

2. Double Barrel Shock. Cane Creek. 18 April 2008 <http://www.canecreek.com/double-barrel-

shock.html>.

3. Rajamani, Rajesh. Vehicle Dynamics and Control. Springer, 2006.

4. Dixon, John C. The Shock Absorber Handbook. Society of Automotive Engineers, 1999.

5. Thomson, William T. and Marie Dahleh. Theory of Vibration with Applications. Prentice Hall,
1998.

6. Chen, Yi. “Vehicle Suspension System Modeling.” 2006.

REFERENCES

Region Value Comments

0.5 This is body control so if it is a bumpy circuit, the ratio is 0.5. If
ζ LS-Compression 0.7 the circuit is smooth choose 0.7. If the tyres need to be
1.2 worked hard then choose 1.2.
0.3 This will be dependent on a number of factors. Where body
ζ LS-Rebound 0.5 control is not significant, use .3, However where body control
0.7 is significant, use .5 to .7
ζ HS- Compression 0.3
This is the high pass area of the damping curve. The values
ζ HS- Rebound 0.4 here should be .3 to .4
Table A1

Region ζ Value b - Damping Coefficient (lb*s/in) Error % ωn (rad/s)

LS - Compression 0.7 11.09 0.65 5.90%
LS - Rebound 0.6 9.51 0.56 5.90%
1.95
HS - Compression 0.3 4.75 0.28 5.90%
HS - Rebound 0.3 4.75 0.28 5.90%
* ωn= (Ks/ms)1/2
** Damping Coefficient Formula: b= 2·ωn·ms·ζ
Table A2

APPENDIX “A” –MEASUREMENTS & SENSOR CALIBRATION FIGURES

Calibration Curves

Figure A-1 – LVDT Calibration Curve – Displacement vs. Voltage

APPENDIX

Figure A-2 – LVT Calibration Curve – Velocity vs. Voltage

Figure A-3 – Low Speed Compression for Lowest Settings

These readings were taken when all four settings were turned to low and displays force vs.
velocity when the damping coefficient was found from the slope in the low speed range of
the compression regime. The damping coefficient is 9.39 lbs in/s .
APPENDIX

Figure A-4 – High Speed Rebound for Lowest Settings

These readings were taken when all four settings were turned to low and displays force vs.
velocity when the damping coefficient was found from the slope in the high speed range of
the rebound regime. The damping coefficient is 26.17 lbs in/s .

Figure A-5 – High Speed Compression for Lowest Settings

These readings were taken when all four settings were turned to low and displays force vs.
velocity when the damping coefficient was found from the slope in the high speed range of
the compression regime. The damping coefficient is 24.41 lbs in/s .
APPENDIX

Figure A-6 – Low Speed Compression for Highest Settings

These readings were taken when all four settings were turned to high and displays force vs.
velocity when the damping coefficient was found from the slope in the low speed range of
the compression regime. The damping coefficient is 66.33 lbs in/s .

Figure A-7 – High Speed Compression for Highest Settings

These readings were taken when all four settings were turned to high and displays force vs.
velocity when the damping coefficient was found from the slope in the high speed range of
of the compression regime. The damping coefficient is 66.37 lbs in/s.
APPENDIX

Figure A-8 – Shock Characterization - Force vs. Velocity

Low speed on lowest settings, high speed on highest settings
Low speed on highest settings, High speed on lowest settings
All adjustments on medium

The following two figures display wheel hop and tire deflection are propagated by a step
input of 1 inch this can be seen as the red line in the graphs. When comparing the two
graphs it is noticed that there is very little difference, the reason being is tire spring rate
being constant throughout.

Figure B-1 –One Damping Coefficient (Tire Position vs. Time, Wheel Hop)
APPENDIX

Figure B-2 – Four Damping coefficients (tire position vs. time, wheel hop)

This figure shows the two forces encountered by the spring and the shock during a 1 inch
bump situation. These two components share the load of the step input.

Figure B-3 – Force on Spring and Damper vs. Time

APPENDIX

This figure shows the two forces encountered by the spring and the shock during a 1 inch
bump situation. These two components share the load of the step input.

Figure B-4 – Velocity vs. Time with change in damping coefficients

This graph displays the velocity encountered in a step input and the damping coefficients
that accompany the different velocities.
Matlab Code for extracting data from dynamometer and plotting

%Load data and then graph

clc;
clear all;
load test.lvm
load test_1.lvm
load test_2.lvm
load test_3.lvm
load test_4.lvm
%===== Extract data from file and store into Vectors =====%
t=test(:,1); %time vector
f=482.55*test(:,2)% + 5.129; %Load Cell voltage
v=8.1719*test(:,3)% +0.3523; %Velocity Transducer voltage
d=test(:,4); %Displacement Transducer voltage

t1=test_1(:,1); %time vector

f1=482.55*test_1(:,2)% + 5.129; %Load Cell voltage
v1=8.1719*test_1(:,3)%+0.3523; %Velocity Transducer voltage
d1=test_1(:,4); %Displacement Transducer voltage

t2=test_2(:,1); %time vector

f2=482.55*test_2(:,2) %+ 5.129; %Load Cell voltage
v2=8.1719*test_2(:,3)%+0.3523; %Velocity Transducer voltage
d2=test_2(:,4); %Displacement Transducer voltage
APPENDIX

%
% %changed radius to .5" and high speed
t3=test_3(:,1); %time vector
f3=482.55*test_3(:,2) %+ 5.129; %Load Cell voltage
v3=8.1719*test_3(:,3)%+0.3523; %Velocity Transducer voltage
d3=test_3(:,4); %Displacement Transducer voltage

%
% %changed radius .75 @ highspeed
t4=test_4(:,1); %time vector
f4=482.55*test_4(:,2)% + 5.129; %Load Cell voltage
v4=8.1719*test_4(:,3)%+0.3523; %Velocity Transducer voltage
d4=test_4(:,4); %Displacement Transducer voltage

%==========================================================%

figure(1)
plot(t,f,t,v,t,d)
hold on
plot(t1,f1,t1,v1,t1,d1)
hold on
plot(t2,f2,t2,v2,t2,d2)
hold on
plot(t3,f3,t3,v3,t3,d3)
hold on
plot(t4,f4,t4,v4,t4,d4)
grid on

figure(2)
plot(abs(v),f,'b')
hold on
plot(abs(v1),f1,'c')
legend('All low', 'All high','Location','SouthWest')

figure(3)
plot(abs(v2),f2,'r')
hold on
plot(abs(v3),f3, 'm')
hold on
plot(abs(v4),f4,'y')
legend('low-low high-high','Low-high high-low','All
medium','Location','SouthWest')
grid on