Optimal Design of Experiments for Estimating

Parameters of a Vehicle Dynamics Simulation Model

Torsten Butz

Bernd Simeon

Markus Stadler

Abstract
The calibration of complex simulation models for vehicle component and controller
development usually relies on numerical methods. In this contribution, a two-level
optimization scheme for estimating unknown model parameters in a commercial real-
time capable vehicle dynamics program is proposed. In order to increase the reliability
of the model coecients estimated from reference data, the measuring test is improved
by methods for the optimal design of experiments. Specically, the control variables of
the experimental setup are adjusted in such a way as to maximize the sensitivity of the
parameters in demand with respect to the objective function. Numerical results show
that this two-level optimization scheme is capable of estimating the parameters of a
multi-body suspension model.
Nomenclature
x(t) R
nx
Vehicle model state variables.
u(t) R
nu
Vehicle model control variables and external excitations.
p R
np
Model parameters.
f(p) R
nt
Residual vector of the parameter estimation problem.
v R
nv
Experimental design parameters.
(v) R Objective function of the optimal experimental design problem.
1 Introduction
In the automotive industry today, the development of vehicle components and control sys-
tems is substantially based on advanced simulation tools and sophisticated mathematical
models. Common applications on PC platforms range from concept and variant studies for
the full vehicle or single vehicle components to the function development of vehicle controllers
and driver assistance systems. Real-time usage, such as software- and hardware-in-the-loop

Corresponding author: TESIS DYNAware GmbH, Baierbrunner Str. 15, 81379 M unchen, Germany;
e-mail: t.butz@tesis.de

Zentrum Mathematik, Technische Universit at M unchen, Boltzmannstr. 3, 85748 Garching, Germany;

e-mail: simeon@ma.tum.de

Bain & Company Switzerland, Inc., 8037 Zurich, Switzerland; e-mail: markus.stadler@bain.com
1
tests of electronic control units, entails the simulation model to be coupled with a software
or hardware implementation of one or more control systems. Both types of applications
make high demands on the complexity of the underlying vehicle model, while moderate
computational times are required to accomplish extensive applications with a large number
of simulations as well as real-time operation.
In order to properly reproduce the physical vehicle behavior, a meaningful parametriza-
tion of the simulation model must be selected. But not all model coecients are readily
available from vehicle specications or even have a physical equivalent. Careful inspection
of simulation results or systematic comparison with measurement data can help to adjust
prominent model parameters manually. With increasing model complexity, however, nu-
merical methods, such as tailored optimization strategies, for the estimation of unknown
parameters become indispensable, e.g. [3, 4]. In case of complex experimental setups or
expensive measurements, the usage of optimal experimental designs is an attractive means
to obtain reliable parameter estimates or to reduce the number of trials. Experimental de-
signs which are determined with respect to a particular optimality criterion have become
widespread not only in statistics, e.g. [18], but also for the parameter estimation of plant
models with complex dynamics, e.g. [1, 2, 14].
In the following, we introduce a two-level optimization scheme to estimate chassis model
parameters of the commercial vehicle simulation package DYNA4 [22]. In the rst opti-
mization, the unknown model coecients are estimated by systematic comparison between
reference values and simulation results. The reliability of the estimates is assessed by a
sensitivity analysis based on statistical methods. In the second optimization, the control
variables of the experimental setup are adjusted as to maximize the sensitivity of the param-
eters in demand with respect to the objective function of the parameter estimation problem.
The obtained excitations are used as input for the measurement test which serves to deliver
reference data for the next iteration of the two-level scheme. Successively increasing the
impact of the parameters on the objective function allows to determine improved estimates.
The underlying minimization problems for the parameter estimation and the optimal ex-
perimental design require robust optimization methods which are tailored to the respective
problem structures. Especially, the optimal experimental design problem is highly nonlinear
and leads to very demanding requirements on the robustness and convergence properties of
the numerical algorithm. Suitable optimization methods are presented for both problems,
and results from the parameter estimation for a real-time capable multi-body suspension
model with rubber bushings are reported. Using synthetic reference data obtained from
numerical simulation records the two-level optimization is shown to be capable of simulta-
neously improving the measurement input and estimating the model coecients.
This contribution is organized as follows: Section 2 summarizes the equations of motion of
the vehicle dynamics model and the numerical integration scheme used for real-time simula-
tion. In Section 3, the nonlinear least-squares problem for the estimation of unknown model
parameters and a suitable optimization method is introduced. The second optimization loop
for the experimental design is discussed in Section 4 with particular emphasis on numerical
algorithms which have the potential to nd a feasible solution. As a case study Section 5
presents parameter estimation results for the rubber bushings of a multi-link suspension
model. The numerical results are analyzed with respect to dierent optimality criteria and
optimization codes.
T. Butz, M. Stadler, B. Simeon CND-88-8888 2
2 Vehicle Dynamics Model
The software package DYNA4 of TESIS DYNAware supplies simulation models for vehicle
and engine dynamics implemented in a MATLAB/Simulink environment. The full vehicle
model is highly modular and may be congured as to match the required accuracy require-
ments by selecting component models of suitable complexity. For vehicle dynamics applica-
tions the chassis is represented by a tailored multi-body system for the vehicle body motion
and the suspension dynamics with up to 30 degrees of freedom per axle. Further component
models account for conventional, hybrid and electric power trains, the combustion engine
dynamics and handling properties of the tires.
The equations of motion for the chassis model in DYNA4 are formulated according to
Jourdains principle, e.g. [19]. Algebraic constraints are in general eliminated by choosing
suitable minimum coordinates for the spatial motion of the vehicle body, i.e. the vehicle
position in inertial coordinates and its roll, pitch and yaw angles. Additionally, generalized
velocities are introduced for the translational and angular speeds in the vehicle xed reference
frame. For the remaining degrees of freedom, such as of the multi-body systems for front
and rear axles, positions and velocities are specied as relative coordinates with respect
to the vehicle reference system. Thus, the kinematic bonds between the single bodies are
automatically included in the equations of motion and need not be considered explicitly.
Denoting the minimum coordinates and generalized velocities with y(t) R
ny
and z(t)
R
ny
, the equations of motion read
y = V (y) z (1)
M(y) z = Q(y, z) . (2)
Here, M(y) R
nyny
is the mass matrix, V (y) R
nyny
describes the kinematic transforma-
tions between the time derivative of the minimum coordinates and the generalized velocities,
and Q(y, z) R
ny
summarizes the generalized forces and torques.
The equations of motion (1), (2) yield a system of sti dierential equations. Since
fully implicit integration schemes are usually not compatible with the demands of real-time
applications, the numerical integration is carried out with a semi-implicit Euler scheme and
constant step size h, cf. [5, 19]. The velocity vector z
n+1
at time t
n+1
is determined from
the linear system of equations

M
n
h
Q
z
h
2
Q
y
V
n

(z
n+1
z
n
) = hQ
where the force vector Q and its partial derivatives are evaluated at the point (y
n
+hV
n
z
n
, z
n
).
The value y
n+1
of the generalized coordinates is obtained from the explicit update
y
n+1
= y
n
+ hV
n
z
n+1
.
An adaption of the numerical integration method for the case of additional algebraic
constraints, which may arise for the simulation of vehicle-trailer combinations, is discussed
in [5].
T. Butz, M. Stadler, B. Simeon CND-88-8888 3
3 Parameter Estimation
Parameter estimation aims at determining unknown coecients of the dynamic model by
adjusting the numerical results of the simulation to given reference data. With increasing
model complexity, sophisticated numerical methods are required in order to formulate a well-
conditioned optimization problem, determine suitable parameter estimates and assess their
reliability.
3.1 Nonlinear Least-Squares Problem
For reasons of simplicity, the equations of motion for the chassis dynamics (1), (2) are
summarized by the rst-order system
x(t) = g(x(t), u(t), p), t [t
0
, t
f
] (3)
with suitable initial values x(t
0
) = x
0
. Besides the vehicles state variables x(t) = (y(t), z(t))
R
nx
, the dynamics of the system is also governed by a vector u(t) R
nu
of control variables
or external excitations, such as the brake pedal input or the wheel lift from a hydraulic
suspension test rig. The unknown model parameters p R
np
are constant over time.
The calibration of the model (3) is based on a comparison with measurement values

ij
= x
i
(t
j
) +
ij
, i I
j
{1, ..., n
x
}, 1 j n
t
, (4)
of suitable state variables from test rig experiments or test drives recorded at the times t
j
.
The measured quantities are usually subject to measurement errors for which independent
Gaussian distributions with expectation 0 and variances
2
ij
are supposed, i.e.
ij
N(0,
ij
).
The computation of estimates for the model parameters in demand yields a nonlinear
optimization problem
min
pR
np
r(p) (5)
with the dynamic equations as well as possible boundaries of the feasible parameter range
as constraints. The objective function r(p) is usually given by the nonlinear least-squares
residual
r(p) :=
1
2
f(p)
2
2
:=
1
2
nt

j=1

iI
j

x
i
(t
j
, p)
ij

ij

2
. (6)
3.2 Numerical Optimization
Due to mutual parameter dependencies and physical limits of measurement tests often not
all model coecients can be determined reliably from the available reference data. To gain
insight in the identiability of single parameters and to isolate the state variables x
i
, i I
j
,
required for their identication, a screening must be carried out, e.g. [8, 23]. For this
purpose, the parameters in question are systematically varied within their feasible range and
the objective function is evaluated at the sampling points of this experimental design. By
means of average and variance analyses it is possible to assess the impact of each parameter
T. Butz, M. Stadler, B. Simeon CND-88-8888 4
on the objective function value and to exclude parameters with mutual dependencies. Thus,
the screening reveals a parameter set which is suitable for numerical optimization.
The eligible parameters are then optimized within suitable boundaries to obtain max-
imum consistency with the reference data. The use of numerical optimization methods is
particularly promising, if the structure of the minimization problem can be exploited. In the
context of parameter estimation, algorithms for nonlinear least-squares problems are appro-
priate whose implementation depends on the type of constraints on the feasible parameter
range. In case of linear or nonlinear constraints, the usage of a suitable SQP algorithm, such
as NLSSOL by Gill et al. [10, 11], is advisable.
Unrestricted problems or problems with box constraints can be solved by Gauss-Newton-
type methods where the nonlinear objective function (6) is replaced by a sequence of linear
least-squares problems. In each iteration, from the objective function linearized about the
current iterate p
(l)
min
sR
np
1
2

f(p
(l)
) +f(p
(l)
) s

2
2
(7)
a descent direction s is determined which eectuates a reduction of the objective value. An
enhancement is the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm where a trust-region condition, i.e. a
restriction of the length s of the optimization step, is considered in addition. For the
solution of the parameter estimation problem, we use Mores implementation LMDER of
the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm from Netlib [7, 16].
A numerical sensitivity analysis, e.g. [15], can serve to assess the reliability of the com-
puted parameter estimates and to determine the relevance of single components of the so-
lution. Basically, the singular values of the Jacobian matrix f(p

) are investigated, which

provide information about the proportional impact of the parameters on the objective func-
tion. It must be noted, however, that the obtained sensitivity results depend on the specic
parameter values of the solution p

and are less meaningful than in the case of a linear

objective function.
4 Optimal Design of Experiments
In order to nd reliable parameter estimates, it is indispensable to select the control quantities
and the external excitations of the test setup such that the parameters in demand can actually
be identied from the reference data and that the uncertainty in the estimates is minimized.
For this purpose, the continuous control variables u(t) are parameterized in closed form and
free design parameters of the excitation are subjected to a superordinate optimization. The
computation of this optimal experimental design requires suitable optimality criteria and
robust numerical codes for the solution of the related minimization problem.
4.1 Criteria for the Optimal Experimental Design Problem
Aim of the experimental design optimization is to improve the reliability of the computed
model coecients by maximizing their impact on the objective function (6) of the parameter
estimation problem. The formulation of a suitable optimality criterion relies on a statistical
T. Butz, M. Stadler, B. Simeon CND-88-8888 5
analysis of the parameter estimation results. The free design variables are suitable constant
parameters v R
nv
of the vector u(t) of control variables and external excitations.
The goal to nd an optimal experimental design is formulated as nonlinear minimization
problem
min
vR
nv
(I(p

, v)) (8)
for the information matrix, i.e. the inverse covariance matrix,
I(p

, v) = C(p

, v)
1
= f(p

)
T
f(p

) (9)
of the parameter estimation problem. The information matrix implicitly depends on the
design parameters v of the control variables and external excitations via (3). The formu-
lation of a well-conditioned optimal experimental design problem requires the information
matrix (9) and thus the Jacobian f(p

) to be regular. Therefore, it may be necessary

to eliminate parameters, which cannot be estimated from a specic experimental setup or
which have mutual dependencies, from the vector of unknowns in order to obtain a regular
information matrix, cf. [18]. The estimation of the eliminated parameters then requires
a further optimization with revised problem formulation, dierent excitation strategies or
suitable boundaries on the feasible parameter range [21].
The most common optimality criteria R for the optimization of the information
matrix are listed in the following, cf. [14, 15, 18]. All of them basically intend to minimize
the condence ellipsoid G
L
(, p

). The latter is the approximate n

p
-dimensional region about
the solution p

of the parameter estimation problem which holds the real parameter values
with probability 1 .
The D-criterion (determinant criterion)

D
(I) = ln(det I) (10)
maximizes the determinant of the information matrix I. This is equivalent to mini-
mizing the volume of G
L
(, p

).
The A-criterion (mean variance criterion)

A
(I) =
1
n
p
trace(I
1
) (11)
yields a minimum mean value of the parameter variances. No correlation between the
estimates is considered, since for the trace operator only the diagonal of I is relevant.
With the E-criterion (maximum eigenvalue criterion)

E
(I) =
max
(I
1
) (12)
the largest eigenvalue of the covariance matrix is minimized. Geometrically, this is
equivalent to minimizing the semi-major axis of G
L
(, p

).
T. Butz, M. Stadler, B. Simeon CND-88-8888 6
The condence interval criterion

MM
(I) = max
i=1...np
(I
1
ii
) (13)
minimizes the maximum occurring variance of the parameter estimates. This implies
minimizing the maximum length of the approximate condence intervals which are
obtained by linearizing G
L
(, p

) about one single parameter.

The geometrical interpretation of the above optimization criteria is shown in Fig. 1. In
the rst place, optimization with respect to the E-criterion or the condence interval criterion
yields a discontinuous objective function. By introducing an auxiliary variable, however, it
can be transformed to a continuous, but nonlinearly constrained optimization problem, cf.
[2].
Area (D-criterion) Mean value of parameter variances (A-criterion)
Semi-major axis (E-criterion) Maximum condence interval
(Condence interval criterion)
G
L
(, p

D
(I) = ln(det(I))
A
(I) =
1
np
trace(I
1
)

E
(I) =
max
(I
1
)

MM
(I) = max
i=1...np

I
1
ii

p
1
p
2
Figure 1: Geometrical interpretation of the optimal experimental design criteria.
4.2 Numerical Optimization
Determination of an optimal experimental design yields the nonlinear minimization prob-
lem (8) which may be subject to constraints on the feasible parameter range or from a
transformation of the E-criterion or the condence interval criterion. In [21], several opti-
mization strategies were discussed which are basically eligible for the numerical solution of
this problem. It turned out that gradient-based optimization codes, such as SQP, or local
T. Butz, M. Stadler, B. Simeon CND-88-8888 7
search strategies, e.g. pattern or exploratory search, are not practicable, when using the
vehicle dynamics model in DYNA4 as simulation kernel. Instead, more robust algorithms
are required which are designed to avoid local minima and can cope with low smoothness
prerequisites. Therefore, we focus here on a quasi-Newton method for the solution of noisy
optimization problems and a global search strategy based on the design and analysis of
computer experiments (DACE).
The implicit ltering approach [13] is intended for the solution of noisy optimization prob-
lems where a smooth objective function is superimposed by high-frequency low-amplitude
disturbances or even discontinuities. The underlying method is a projected quasi-Newton
algorithm where the descent direction is determined from
H
(k)
s = (v
(k)
) . (14)
To avoid the computation of the Hesse matrix
2
(v
(k)
) an approximation H
(k)
is determined
by BFGS or symmetric rank one update. The length of the optimization step is obtained
from a line search. The required gradient information is provided by numerical dierentiation
using one-sided or centered nite dierences. Starting from a rather large value, the nite
dierence increment is successively reduced, until no further progress is achieved in the
optimization. This strategy intends to rst follow the rough structure of the objective
function, before increasing the resolution to a detailed search by use of small nite dierence
steps in the proximity of the solution. In this way, the problem of prematurely terminating
with a local minimum of the noisy function shall be avoided. For the numerical optimization,
the implementation IFFCO by Kelley was used [6].
The second strategy is optimization by iteratively updated surrogate functions adopted
from the design and analysis of computer experiments for extremely expensive simulation
models, such as nite elements. The underlying idea is to carry out the optimization with an
approximate model of the objective function which can be evaluated with low computational
cost. The value of the true objective function is only computed at the minimum of the
surrogate model and is used to successively rene the approximation. Though, a large part
of the computational eort arises from the function evaluations required to obtain an initial
approximation.
The surrogate optimization method by Hemker [12] is based on a kriging model which is
constructed from the Matlab Toolbox DACE [17]. The surrogate model

(v) =
T
(v) +Z(v) (15)
consists of a polynomial interpolation
T
(v) for the global trend of the objective function
which is superimposed by a stochastic process Z(v). The latter is a realization of a stationary
Gaussian function with expectation 0 and a covariance matrix which depends on the variance

2
and the Gaussian correlation matrix R of the supporting points. The parameters of Z(v)
and the polynomial coecients are determined by a maximum likelihood estimation. The
surrogate model interpolates the original objective function at the supporting points exactly
and yields an innitely dierentiable optimization criterion over the entire feasible parameter
region. For a more detailed description of the construction and the update of the surrogate
model we refer to [12, 20, 21]. The optimization is accomplished with the SQP code SNOPT
by Gill [9].
T. Butz, M. Stadler, B. Simeon CND-88-8888 8
0
5
10
15
0
100
200
300
400
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Frequency [Hz]
Phase [deg]
D

c
r
it
e
r
io
n
0
5
10
15
0
100
200
300
400
140
120
100
80
60
40
Frequency [Hz]
Phase [deg]
D

c
r
it
e
r
io
n
0
5
10
15
0
100
200
300
400
140
120
100
80
60
40
Frequency [Hz]
Phase [deg]
D

c
r
it
e
r
io
n
(a) after 1 iteration (b) after 5 iterations (c) after 10 iterations
Figure 2: Iterative renement of the surrogate model [21].
Figure 2 shows an example for the renement of a surrogate model in case of two control
parameters for the suspension test rig simulation described in Section 5. It can be observed
that an increasingly detailed surrogate model of the objective function is developed over the
iterations where the renement especially takes place in a neighbourhood of the potential
minimum.
5 Estimation of Suspension Parameters
The above optimization scheme was employed to parameterize the rubber bushings of a real-
time capable multi-link axle model in DYNA4. The multi-body model of the suspension is
depicted in Fig. 3. The axle kinematics is basically determined by the hard points N1, N2,
U1, U2, O1, O2, V1 and V2 of the rigid control arms between wheel carrier and chassis,
the hard points Q and P of the drag link between wheel carrier and steering rod as well as
the mounting points of spring, damper and anti-roll bar. Additional rubber bushings, which
each introduce one translational degree of freedom in the direction of the respective control
arm, are located at the ve linking points at the chassis. In Fig. 3, they are marked by red
triangles.
In practice, the position of the hard points as well as the elasticity and damping properties
of the force elements of the suspension can be determined with fair accuracy. However, the
parametrization of the bushing models is not straightforward, since the stiness of the rubber
bushings strongly depends on the constructional properties. Therefore, an optimization
problem is formulated which aims to estimate bushing parameters from measurements on
a suspension test rig. The elasticities of several linear springs representing the bushings
between the control arms and the chassis shall be determined by a suitable force excitation
acting on the wheel or a wheel replacement body.
In order to prove the practicability of the two-level optimization scheme, the parameter
estimation and the optimization of the experimental design were carried out with synthetic
measurements, i.e. simulation results with suitable reference values for the parameters in
demand. The underlying simulation model was a virtual suspension test rig, which emulates
a hydraulic kinematics and compliance (K&C) test rig.
The state variables x which are considered in the residual of the nonlinear least-squares
problem (6) are the translational and the rotational degrees of freedom, i.e. the x-, y- and
T. Butz, M. Stadler, B. Simeon CND-88-8888 9
Figure 3: Multi-link suspension model with rubber bushings in DYNA4.
z-coordinates as well as the toe-in, camber and caster angles, of the wheel carrier. The
unknowns p = (c
O1
, c
O2
, c
V 1
, c
V 2
, c
P
) of the parameter estimation problem are the stiness
coecients of the ve rubber bushings at the geometry points O1, O2, V1, V2 and P. Their
reference values for re-estimation were given by approximately 4000 N/m.
The external excitation which is adjusted by the optimal experimental design problem
is the applied horizontal tire force. The variables v of the excitation are given by the force
direction v

and the z-coordinate v

z
of its acting point with respect to the wheel center. The
absolute force value is varied from F
max
to F
max
as a linear function of time t [0, t
f
],
which yields the eective forces
F
x
(t) =

2t t
f
t
f

F
max
cos v

F
y
(t) =

2t t
f
t
f

F
max
sin v

in longitudinal and lateral direction, respectively.

5.1 First Parameter Estimation
For the rst parameter estimation, the initial values of the bushing elasticities in demand
are chosen with a deviation of approximately 5 % from the real reference parameters. The
initial excitation variables are v

= 85 [deg] and v
z
= 0.45 [m], which is equivalent to an
almost pure lateral force acting at the bottom of the wheel. The numerical optimization
T. Butz, M. Stadler, B. Simeon CND-88-8888 10
with the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm yields a small least-squares residual and very good
agreement with the reference data for the position and the orientation of the wheel carrier.
In addition, very good estimates of the stiness coecients are already obtained which dier
less than 0.1 % from the original values [21].
0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
c_O1
c_O2
c_V1
c_V2
c_P
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
log
10
(diag(J
T
J)
1
)
Parameter Sensitivities
Figure 4: Sensitivities of the estimated bushing elasticities with the initial excitation.
A statistical analysis was carried out to determine the impact of the optimal solution on
the objective function (6). The results are given in Fig. 4 where the logarithmic diagonal ele-
ments of the covariance matrix are depicted. It turns out that except for the bushing stiness
c
O2
the sensitivity of the estimated parameters is rather low, although the correspondence
between model states and reference data is very good. This could lead to poor parameter
estimation results, especially if physical measurements were used for the optimization instead
of reference data consisting of numerical simulation results.
5.2 Optimal Experimental Design
To improve the sensitivity of the stiness coecients with respect to the least-squares resid-
ual, an optimization of the test rig excitation was carried out. For an in-depth analysis of the
numerical results, the optimization criteria (10) (13) were sampled on a ne grid within the
feasible parameter region. The characteristics of the D- and A-criteria are depicted in Fig. 5;
the characteristics for the E-criterion and the condence interval criterion were similar to the
A-criterion and are therefore not considered further. The D-criterion yields a rather smooth
surface with a distinctive minimum, while the characteristic of the A-criterion exhibits large
noise with several local minima.
The low smoothness properties are largely attributed to the limited computational ac-
curacy of the numerical simulation with the DYNA4 chassis model. While a number of
approximately eight valid digits is suciently accurate for engineering applications, such as
conceptual vehicle investigations or ECU controller tests, it has adverse eects on the optimal
experimental design problem. The accuracy of the objective function is particularly limited,
since it is based on gradients of the least-squares problem computed numerically by nite
dierences. Not surprisingly, direct search optimizers fail to nd a reasonable approximation
T. Butz, M. Stadler, B. Simeon CND-88-8888 11
0
20
40
60
80
0.4
0.2
0
0
5
10
u

[deg]
Dcriterion
u
z
[m]
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e

v
a
l
u
e
0
20
40
60
80
0.4
0.2
0
20
40
60
80
u

[deg]
Acriterion
u
z
[m]
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e

v
a
l
u
e
Figure 5: Characteristics of the D- and A-criteria for the optimal experimental design prob-
lem.
near the optimal solution, and gradients for the minimization with SQP solvers cannot be
supplied with sucient accuracy. Corresponding numerical results are given in [21].
Accordingly, the solution of the optimal experimental design problem requires robust
codes with a more global search context, such as described in Section 4.2. The numerical re-
sults which were obtained from the optimization with these algorithms are shown in Table 1.
Both methods nd similar solutions with similar nal value of the respective criterion. The
result of the optimization is that the acting point of the tire force is basically unchanged,
but the force direction is adjusted to a small positive angle. Thus, the excitation is altered
to an almost pure braking force in longitudinal direction.
While the optimization by iterative updated surrogate functions (DACE+SNOPT) ter-
minates after the a priori limited number of function evaluations n
Ev
, the computational
eort for the implicit ltering method (IFFCO) depends on the complexity, i.e. the noise
intensity, of the objective function. Due to the low simulation times of the suspension test
rig model the CPU times required for all optimizations were in the order of two hours on a
3.0 GHz Dual Pentium 4 PC.
Criterion (C(v
(0)
)) Algorithm (C(v

)) n
Ev
CPU [s] v

[deg] v
z
[m]
D 10.32
DACE+SNOPT -0.53 186 6915 14.93 -0.5
IFFCO -0.68 138 5180 13.11 -0.5
A 53.54
DACE+SNOPT 0.458 186 7024 3.12 -0.44
IFFCO 0.533 252 9403 4.54 -0.41
Table 1: Results of the experimental design optimization for the estimation of the bushing
stinesses.
5.3 Second Parameter Estimation
The modied excitation for the suspension test rig model is used in a further parameter
estimation. Due to the similar results for both experimental design criteria, we only con-
T. Butz, M. Stadler, B. Simeon CND-88-8888 12
sider the optimal solution for the D-criterion. Compared to the rst estimation, the second
parameter optimization yields an even improved accuracy of the estimates. Since synthetic
reference data was used, the stiness coecients for the bushing models can be re-identied
up to computational accuracy.
Also the actual aim of the optimal experimental design problem was achieved which was
to increase the sensitivity of the model parameters in demand with respect to the considered
vehicle states. A second sensitivity analysis reveals that the impact on the objective function
of the parameter estimation problem was signicantly improved for all parameters (Fig. 6).
This holds especially for the bushing stiness c
O1
which exhibits maximum sensitivity and
highest accuracy of the numerical estimate.
1 0.5 0 0.5
c_O1
c_O2
c_V1
c_V2
c_P
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
log
10
(diag(J
T
J)
1
)
Parameter Sensitivities
Figure 6: Sensitivities of the estimated bushing elasticities with the optimized excitation.
Thus, the proposed optimization scheme is able to design ecient rig tests with systematic
excitation of the bushing elasticities and to compute reliable parameter estimates. However,
the feasibility of this approach in case of reference data from physical measurements is still
to be investigated.
6 Conclusions
A two-level optimization scheme has been presented which allows the estimation of unknown
chassis model parameters for the commercial vehicle simulation package DYNA4. The basic
parameter estimation task yields a nonlinear least-squares problem which is numerically
solved by a Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. To increase the sensitivity of the unknown
parameters with respect to the least-squares objective, the parameter estimation scheme has
been enhanced by a method for optimal experimental design. Possible optimization criteria,
such as the D- and A-criteria, have been formulated which basically aim at minimizing the
approximate condence region of the estimated parameters. For the solution of this problem
two suitable robust numerical algorithms have been described, i.e., an implicit ltering quasi-
Newton method and an optimization by iteratively updated surrogate functions from the
design and analysis of computer experiments.
T. Butz, M. Stadler, B. Simeon CND-88-8888 13
Numerical results have been reported for a sample application, the estimation of bush-
ing stinesses for a real-time capable multi-body suspension model. Based on synthetic
reference data from simulation results, it is possible to re-identify the unknown parameters
accurately. Optimizing the excitation for the underlying virtual suspension test rig further
improves the sensitivity of the parameters in demand and thus allows to nd more reliable
and even more accurate estimates. However, for the optimal experimental design problem,
the low smoothness prerequisites of the objective function turned out to be problematic for
common optimization codes. The successful minimization is mainly attributed to the use of
optimization codes that are appropriate for very noisy problems.
Overall, this investigation shows that the parameter estimation results can be improved
by excitation strategies that are determined by solving the optimal experimental design
problem. Although the latter improvement had no considerable eect on the accuracy of the
parameter estimation results in the case of synthetic reference data, well-conditioned opti-
mization problems are especially important in the presence of measurement errors, e.g., when
using physical measurements. Moreover, the measuring eort at test rigs or in eld tests may
be reduced by carrying out experiments with systematically optimized control variables and
external excitations. The feasibility of our approach for more complex parameter estimation
problems and in the presence of physical measurements is still to be investigated.
References
[1] I. Bauer, H. G. Bock, S. Korkel, J. P. Schl oder. Numerical methods for optimum exper-
imental design in DAE systems. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics
120, 2000, 1-25.
[2] E. Biber. Identikation der Lastparameter von Industrierobotern. Diploma Thesis, Zen-
trum Mathematik, Technische Universit at M unchen, 2000.
[3] T. Butz, O. von Stryk, C. Chucholowski, S. Truskawa, T.-M. Wolter: Modeling Tech-
niques and Parameter Estimation for the Simulation of Complex Vehicle Structures. In:
M. Breuer, F. Durst, C. Zenger (eds.): High-Performance Scientic and Engineering
Computing. Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering 21, Springer-
Verlag, 2002, 333-340.
[4] P. Eberhard, U. Piram, D. Bestle: Optimization of Damping Characteristics in Vehicle
Dynamics. Engineering Optimization 31, 1999, 435-455.
[5] B. Esterl, T. Butz, B. Simeon, B. Burgermeister. Real-time integration and vehicle
trailer-coupling by algorithms for dierential-algebraic equations. Vehicle System Dy-
namics 45 (9), 2007, 819-834.
[6] T. D. Choi, O. J. Eslinger, P. A. Gilmore, C. T. Kelley, H. A. Patrick. Users Guide
to IFFCO. Technical Report, Center for Research in Scientic Computation, North
Carolina State University, 2001.
[7] J. Dongarra, E. Grosse. Netlib Repository. http://www.netlib.org, 2006.
T. Butz, M. Stadler, B. Simeon CND-88-8888 14
[8] M. Gilg. Parameteridentizierung und -optimierung am Beispiel einer Hinterachskine-
matik. Diploma Thesis, Zentrum Mathematik, Technische Universit at M unchen, 2004.
[9] P. E. Gill, W. Murray, M. A. Saunders. Users Guide for SNOPT 5.3: A Fortran
Package for Large-Scale Nonlinear Programming. Technical Report SOL 97-3, Stanford
University, 1997.
[10] P. E. Gill, W. Murray, M. A. Saunders, M. H. Wright: Some Theoretical Properties
of an Augmented Lagrangian Merit Function. In: P. M. Pardalos (Ed.): Advances in
Optimization and Parallel Computing, North Holland, 1992, 101-128.
[11] P. E. Gill, W. Murray, M. A. Saunders, M. H. Wright: Users Guide for NPSOL 5.0: A
Fortran Package for Nonlinear Programming. Technical Report NA 98-2, Department
of Mathematics, University of California, San Diego, 1998.
[12] T. Hemker, K. R. Fowler, O. von Stryk. Derivative-Free Optimization Methods for Han-
dling Fixed Costs in Optimal Groundwater Remediation Design. In: P. J. Binning, P. K.
Engesgaard, H. K. Dahle, G. F. Pinder and W. G. Gray: Proceedings of the XVI In-
ternational Conference on Computational Methods in Water Resources, Copenhagen,
19-22 June 2006.
[13] C. T. Kelley. Iterative Methods for Optimization. Frontiers in Applied Mathematics 18,
SIAM, 1999.
[14] S. K orkel. Numerische Methoden f ur Optimale Versuchsplanungsprobleme bei nichtlin-
earen DAE-Modellen. PhD Thesis, Interdisziplinares Zentrum f ur Wissenschaftliches
Rechnen, Universitat Heidelberg, 2002.
[15] T. W. Lohmann, H. G. Bock. A Computationally Convenient Statistical Analysis of
the Solution of Constrained Least-Squares Problems. Technical Report, Zentrum Math-
ematik, Technische Universitat M unchen, 1996.
[16] J. J. More. The Levenberg-Marquardt Algorithm: Implementation and Theory. In: A.
Dold, B. Eckmann (eds.). Numerical Analysis. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 630,
Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1978, 105-116.
[17] H. B. Nielsen. DACE. http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/hbn/dace/, 2006.
[18] F. Pukelsheim. Optimal Design of Experiments. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
1993.
[19] Rill, G., Simulation von Kraftfahrzeugen, Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1994.
[20] M. J. Sasena. Flexibility and Eciency Enhancements for Constrained Global Design
Optimization with Kriging Approximations. PhD Thesis, University of Michigan, 2002.
[21] M. Stadler. Optimale Versuchsplanung zur Identizierung von Fahrzeugparametern.
Diploma Thesis, Zentrum Mathematik, Technische Universit at M unchen, 2006.
T. Butz, M. Stadler, B. Simeon CND-88-8888 15
[22] TESIS DYNAware. DYNA4 User Manual. M unchen, 2008.
[23] W. J. Welch, R. J. Buck, J. Sacks, H. P. Wynn, T. J. Mitchell, M. D. Morris. Screening,
Predicting, and Computer Experiments. Technometrics 34, 1, 1992, 15-25.
T. Butz, M. Stadler, B. Simeon CND-88-8888 16