Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES

2006-01-1953

Optimization of a McPherson
Suspension System Using the
Design of Experiments Method
A. Eskandari and O. Mirzadeh
Sharif University of Technology

Sh. Azadi
K.N.T University of Technology

SAE Automotive Dynamics, Stability &

Controls Conference and Exhibition
Novi, Michigan
February 14-16, 2006
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-0790 Web: www.sae.org

Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM

By mandate of the Engineering Meetings Board, this paper has been approved for SAE publication upon
completion of a peer review process by a minimum of three (3) industry experts under the supervision of
the session organizer.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.
For permission and licensing requests contact:
SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax:
724-776-3036
Tel:
724-772-4028

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service
Tel:
877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel:
724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax:
724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2006 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
Printed in USA

Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM

2006-01-1953

Optimization of a McPherson Suspension System Using the

Design of Experiments Method
A. Eskandari, O. Mirzadeh
Sharif University of Technology

Sh. Azadi
K.N.T University of Technology
Copyright 2006 SAE International

ABSTRACT
In this research, the handling behavior of an
intermediate class passenger car has been optimized by
altering its front suspension parameters. For this
purpose, a validated virtual model of the car, constructed
by Adams/Car software, has been used. The utilized
objective function is a combination of eight criteria
indicating handling characteristics of the car. To reduce
the amount of optimization parameters, a sensitivity
analysis has been done by implementing the Design of
Experiments method capabilities. Optimization has been
done using the Response Surface Method. The obtained
optimization results show a considerable improvement in
the system response.

INTRODUCTION
The cornering behavior of a motor vehicle is an
important performance mode often equated with
handling. Handling is a loosely used term meant to
imply the responsiveness of a vehicle to driver input, or
the ease of control. As such, handling is an overall
measure of the vehicle-driver combination. The driver
and vehicle are a closed-loop system, meaning that the
driver observes the vehicle direction or position, and
corrects his/her input to achieve the desired motion. For
the purpose of characterizing only the vehicle, openloop behavior is used. Open loop refers to vehicle
response to specific steering inputs, and is more
precisely defined as directional response behavior. [1]
In this research, our objective is to find McPherson strut
parameters of a typical vehicle front suspension system
and optimize the handling behavior of the vehicle. The
McPherson strut provides major advantages in package
space for transverse engines, and thus is used widely
for front-wheel-drive cars. Because of the separation of
the connection points on the body, it is well-suited to
vehicles with unibody constructions. The strut has the
further advantages of fewer parts and the capability to

spread the suspension loads to the body structure over

a wider area.
Using ADAMS/Car software, a complete dynamic model
of the real vehicle will be constructed so it will be very
easy to vary suspension parameters and see vehicle
behavior. The most important parameters among the
front suspension parameters will be chosen by using the
Design of Experiments method. At last, an optimized
state will be obtained using the Response Surface
Methodology.

VEHICLE MODELING
Various parts such as springs, dampers, tire stiffness,
bushing stiffness, and connections, and their geometric
relationships and suspension type, greatly influence
vehicle dynamic behavior. Due to this reason, to better
identify and study vehicle performance, it is necessary to
use a complete and precise vehicle model that includes
the aforementioned elements. So, a complete model of
the real vehicle has been constructed using ADAMS/Car
software. This model has 116 degrees of freedom for
steady state cornering.
It is very difficult to troubleshoot and evaluate a very big
computer model, so at first, the vehicle has been divided
into subsystems and constructed in the software
separately. Every subsystem has been checked using
software analysis. Now it is necessary for subsystems to
be related to each other. This task has been done by
defining communicators, which are interactions of
subsystems. On the other hand, flexible parts such as
the rear axle and the front suspension anti-roll bar have
been modeled in the IDEAS software and imported in
the form of a finite element to the ADAMS model.
Figures 1 to 4 show the complete vehicle model and
some of its subsystems.

Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM

Figure 1 Complete vehicle model in ADAMS/Car.

Figure 4 Steering system model in ADAMS/Car.

After completing the full vehicle model, a series of

special analyses have been done and compared with
real vehicle test results. If these results are not close to
each other, some variations will be done on the
subsystems (If this process is successful, the model will
be verified and if not, essential changes are necessary).
Figures 5 to 7, show roll angle, steering wheel angle and
steering wheel torque of the real and modeled vehicle in
the steady state cornering with a road radius of 30
meters.

Figure 2 Front suspension model in ADAMS/Car.

The model is close to experiment. It is possible to

change the variables to investigate their influence on the
vehicle behavior.

Figure 5 Roll angle of the model and the real vehicle against lateral
acceleration in steady state cornering with a radius of 30m.

Figure 3 Rear suspension model in ADAMS/Car.

Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM

it or building system mathematical or hardware models

and then testing them in different conditions.
Many experiments involve the study of the effects of two
or more factors. In general, factorial designs are most
efficient for this type of experiment. By a factorial design,
we mean that in each complete trial or replication of the
experiment all possible combinations of the levels of the
factors are investigated. [3]

Figure 6 Steering wheel angle of the model and real vehicle against
lateral acceleration in steady state cornering with a radius of 30m

Factorial designs are widely used in experiments

involving several factors where it is necessary to study
the joint effect of the factors on a response. There are
several special cases of the general factorial design that
are important because they are widely used in research
work and also because they form the basis of other
designs of considerable practical value. The most
important of these special cases is that of k factors, each
of only two levels. A complete replicate of such a design
requires 2k observations and is called a 2k factorial
design. [3]
As the number of factors in a 2k factorial design
increases, the number of runs required for a complete
replicate of the design rapidly outgrows the resources of
most experiments. If experimenter can reasonably
assume that certain high-order interactions of the
parameters are negligible, information on the main
effects and low-order interactions may be obtained by
running only a fraction of the complete factorial
experiment. These fractional factorial designs are
among the most widely used types of designs for
product and process design and for process
improvement. [3]

RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY

Figure 7 Steering wheel torque of the model and the real vehicle
against lateral acceleration in steady state cornering with a radius of
30m

DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS
Experiments are performed by investigators in virtually
all fields of inquiry, usually to discover something about
a particular process or system. Literally, an experiment
is a test. More formally, we can define an experiment as
a test or series of tests in which purposeful changes are
made to the input variables of a process or system so
that we may observe and identify the reasons for
changes that may be observed in the output response.
[3]
Here, we mean from experiment either building system
hardware and a real model and then doing real tests on

Response surface methodology, or RSM, is a collection

of mathematical and statistical techniques that are useful
for the modeling and analysis of problems in which a
response of interest is influenced by several variables
and the objective is to optimize this response. [3]
In most RSM problems, the form of the relationship
between the response and the independent variables is
unknown. Thus, the first step in RMS is to find a suitable
approximation for the true functional relationship
between the response, or y, and the set of independent
variables. Usually, a low-order polynomial in some
region of the independent variables is employed. If the
response is well modeled by a linear function of the
independent variables, then the approximating function
is the first-order model

y = 0 + 1 x1 + 2 x 2 + ... + K x K +
If there is curvature in the system, then a polynomial of
higher degree must be used, such as the second-order
model

Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM
k

i =1

i =1

y = 0 + i xi + ii xi2 + ij xi x j +
i

j
i< j

The method of steepest ascent is a procedure for

moving sequentially along the path of steepest ascent,
that is, in the direction of the maximum increase in the
response. The fitted first-order model is

and the first-order response surface, that is, the contours

)
of y , is a series of parallel lines. The direction of

steepest ascent is the direction in which y increases

most rapidly. This direction is parallel to the normal to
the fitted response surface. We take as the path of
steepest ascent the line through the center of the region
of interest and normal to the fitted surface. Thus, the
steps along the path are proportional to the regression
coefficients { i } .
Experiments are conducted along the path of steepest
ascent until no further increase in the response is
observed. Then a new first-order model may be fit, a
new path of steepest ascent determined, and the
process continued. Eventually, the experimenter will
arrive in the vicinity of the optimum.
To simplify the calculations, we can introduce the
concept of coded variables that their upper and lower
levels are confined to 1 domain. Thus

i i
( max min ) / 2

Here, xi is the coded variable,

max

and

min

is the natural variable

are mean, maximum and

minimum value of the natural variable respectively.

It is easy to give a general algorithm for determining the
coordinates of a point on the path of steepest ascent.
Assume that the point x1 = x 2 = ... = x n = 0 is the
base or origin point. Then
1. Chose a step size in one of the process variables,
say x j . Usually, we would select the variable we
know the most about, or we would select the
variable that has the largest absolute regression
coefficient

2. The step size in the other variable is

xi = )

When the experimenter is relatively close to the

optimum, a model that incorporates curvature is usually
required to approximate the response. In most cases,
the second-order model is adequate.

optimize the predicted response. This point, if it exists,

will be the set of x1 , x 2 ,, xk for which the partial

i =1

and i ,

variables.

Suppose we wish to find the levels of x1 , x 2 ,, xk that

k )
) )
y = 0 + i xi

xi =

3. Convert the xi from coded variables to the natural

j / x j

for i=1,2,,k, ij

)
)
)
y
y
y
=
= ... =
= 0 . This point, say
derivatives
x1 x2
xk
x1,s , x2,s ,, xk ,s , is called the stationary point. The
stationary point could represent (1) a point of maximum
response, (2) a point of minimum response, or (3) a
saddle point.

We may obtain a general mathematical solution for the

location of the stationary point. Writing the second-order
model in matrix notation, we have

) )
y = 0 + X b + X BX
Where

x1
x
X = 2
.

xk

)
1
)

b = 2
.
)
n

)
)
)
11 , 12 / 2 , ..., 1k / 2
)
)

22 , ..., 2 k / 2

B=
.

kk
sym.

That is, b is a (k1) vector of the first-order regression

coefficients and B is a (kk) symmetric matrix whose
main diagonal elements are the pure quadratic

coefficients ( ii ) and whose off-diagonal elements are

one-half the mixed quadratic coefficients ( ij , i

j ).
)
The derivative of y with respect to the elements of the

vector X equated to 0 is

)
y
= b + 2 BX = 0
X
The stationary point is the solution to the above
equation, or

1
X s = B 1b
2
Furthermore, we can find the predicted response at the
stationary point as

Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM

) 1
)
ys = 0 + X sb
2

O= translational stiffness of the lower control arm and

anti-roll bar connection bushing (20%)

The matrix form of the least square normal equation is

P= Lateral stiffness of the tires

)
X y = X X

Here, all of the variations for parameters A to J are in

millimeters.

Where

FULL VEHICLE ANALYSIS

y1
y
2
y= .

.
y n

1 ( x11 ) ( x 21 )
1 ( x ) ( x )
12
22

= .
.
.

.
.
.
1 ( x1n ) ( x 2 n )

... ( x k1 )
... ( x k 2 )
...
.

...
.
... ( x kn )

0'

1
= .

.

k

In general, y is an (n1) vector of the observations, X is

an (np) matrix of the levels of the independent
variables, and is a (p1) vector of the regression
coefficients. [3]

PARAMETERS
It is necessary to identify the front suspension
parameters that are thought to have considerable effects
on the handling behavior of the vehicle. These
parameters can be coordinates of connections, damping
coefficient and stiffness of the springs, bushings, tires,
etc. The selected parameters and upper and lower limits
of their allowed variations are
A= x-comp of lower control arm exterior end (-10, 20).
B= y-comp of lower control arm exterior end (-20, 5).
C= z-comp of lower control arm exterior end (0, 20).
D= x-comp of strut lower end (-20, 10).
E= y-comp of strut lower end (-20, 0).
F= z-comp of strut lower end (0, 20).
G= x-comp of tie-rod to knuckle arm attachment (-20, 0)
H= y-comp of tie-rod to knuckle arm attachment (0, 20)
J= z-comp of tie-rod to knuckle arm attachment (-15, 0)
K= Rotation stiffness of the anti-roll bar (20%)
L= Stiffness coefficient of the springs (20%)
M= Damping coefficient of the dampers (20%)
M= Rotational stiffness of the lower control arm interior
end bushing (20%)

In this research, two types of analyses have been used.

Quasi-static analyses that find dynamic equilibrium
solutions for the full vehicle model at increasing,
successive values of lateral acceleration, in contrast to
open-loop and closed-loop analyses, do not include
transient effects [2]. We performed constant radius and
velocity cornering analyses to evaluate our full vehicles
under-steer and over-steer characteristics. The constant
radius cornering analysis holds the turn radius constant
and varies the vehicle velocity to produce increasing
amounts of lateral acceleration. The constant velocity
cornering analysis holds the vehicle velocity constant
and varies the turn radius to produce increasing
amounts of lateral acceleration [2]. Also, we performed
an open loop step steer analysis, to obtain time-domain
transient response metrics. The most important
quantities to be measured are: steering wheel angle,
yaw rate, vehicle speed and lateral acceleration. During
a step steer analysis, ADAMS/Car increases the
steering input from an initial value to a final value over a
specified time. [2]
It is necessary for us to know the vehicle behavior at
critical conditions. Also, we must obtain comparable data
from the full vehicle analysis.
Here, our purpose is to change the suspension
parameters according to the selected fractional factorial
design and test the vehicle to obtain the same amount of
lateral acceleration for each run. This means that we
must know the final steering amount that produces that
acceleration for each suspension setup. This will be
obtained by doing the quasi-static analyses mentioned
earlier.

OBJECTIVE FUNCTION FOR EVALUATING

HANDLING BEHAVIOR OF THE MODELED
VEHICLE
The objective function must be selected so that it can
represent the handling behavior of the vehicle. The
objective function can be a linear combination of some
quantities with corresponding weighting factors in the
following form
11

F = Wi X i
i =1

Where

Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM

X1= Yaw velocity overshoot

Effect of Design Parameters on Lateral Acceleration Overshoot

X2= Yaw velocity rise time

DoE Effects

X3= Lateral acceleration overshoot

X4= Lateral acceleration rise time
X5= Roll angle steady state response

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2

X6= RMS of the under-steering coefficient

Design Parameters

X7= RMS of the steering torque

Figure 10 Effects of design parameters on lateral acceleration

overshoot

X8= RMS of the steering sensitivity

And the weighting factors are
W1= W2= W3= W4=0.5 and W5= W6= W7= W8=1

Effect of Design Parameters on Lateral Acceleration Rise Time

DoE Effects

Selection of the weighting factors are made based on

the importance of each quantity and can be changed.

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
15 7

Here, we have used a 2V

fractional factorial design

with 256 runs. The sensitivity analysis results are shown

in Figures 8 to 15. The overall effect of the parameters
on the objective function is shown in Figure 16. It is
evident that the most important parameters are P, J, L,
C, G, A, K, M, H and B.

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1

Design Parameters

Figure 11 Effects of design parameters on lateral acceleration rise time

Effect of Design Parameters on Yaw Velocity Overshoot

0.8
0.6
0.4

Effect of Design Parameters on Roll Angle Steady State Response

0
-0.2
-0.4

0.4

0.2

-0.6

-0.8
-1

-0.2

DoE Effects

DoE Effect

0.2

-1.2
Design Parameters

-0.4
-0.6
-0.8

Figure 8 Effects of design parameters on yaw velocity overshoot

-1
-1.2
Design Parameters

Figure 12 Effects of design parameters on roll angle steady state

response

DoE Effects

Effect of Design Parameters on Yaw Velocity Rise Time

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1

Design Parameters

Figure 9 Effects of design parameters on yaw velocity rise time

Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM

Effect of Design Parameters on Understeering Coefficient RMS

Effect of design parameters on the objective Function

1.5

0.5
0
-0.5

-1
-1.5

DoE Effects

DoE Effects

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2

Figure 13 Effects of design parameters on under steering coefficient

RMS

0.4
0.2

DoE Effects

0
B

Figure 16 Result of sensitivity analyses of the parameters

OPTIMIZATION OF THE VEHICLE HANDLING

USING RSM

Effect of Design Parameters on Steering Torque RMS

Design Parameters

Design Parameters

-0.2

-0.4
-0.6
-0.8

Here, we start with the first-order model for

approximating the functional relationship between the
response and the set of independent variables. These
independent variables are specified earlier using the
sensitivity analysis.
The first step is to change the natural variables to the
coded variables as mentioned earlier so that all of the
starting points have zero values. Now, its time to find

-1
-1.2
Design Parameters

10 3

regression coefficients. To do so, we use a 2V

Figure 14 Effects of design parameters on under steering torque RMS

factorial design that includes 128 runs. Generators of

this design are

I = ABCGH = ACDEJ = ACDFK

Using this design, we have determined objective
function values for each run. Thus, a (1281) vector of
the observations, y, and a (12811) matrix of the levels
of the independent variables, X, have been obtained.
Using the following formula

Effect of Design Parameters on Steering Sensitivity RMS

0.8
0.6

DoE Effects

0.4
0.2
0
-0.2

-0.4
-0.6
-0.8

)
X y = X X
The (111) vector of the regression coefficients , is

-1
-1.2
Design Parameters

= {3.029, 0.070, 0.000, 0.101, 0.074, 0.013, -0.117,

0.051, 0.105, 0.012, -0.188}

Figure 15 Effects of design parameters on steering sensitivity RMS

Thus the path of steepest ascent has been obtained.

Choosing a step size in one of the process variables and
computing the step size for other coded variables, and
then running the model for these steps, we have
obtained the objective function values for each step as
depicted in the Figure 17. This Figure shows that there
is no decrease in the observed response. Therefore, we
conclude that for this case, the first order model can not
lead us to the optimum position and it is necessary to
select a higher order estimation model.

Downloaded from SAE International by Univ degli Studi di Bologna, Sunday, May 04, 2014 07:44:54 AM

Thus we have a constrained optimization problem. Using

a suitable algorithm for solving this problem, we will
have these values for point of maximum observed
response based on the second-order model

Objective Function Value

Linear Model
3.3
3.2
3.1

Xs= {1, -1, 1, -1, 1, -1, 1, 1, -1, 1}

3
2.9
2.8
2.7
0

10

15

20

25

Using the second-order model, the objective function

value for the obtained point is y=4.2412. If we do
another run for this point on the ADAMS/Car model, the
objective function will take the following value

Steps Taken

y= 4.2373
Figure 17 Steepest ascent method for first order estimation model

Comparing this value with the one obtained using the

regression model shows good conformity of the secondorder model.

It is necessary for the second-order estimation model to

take into account the pure quadratic coefficients ( ii )

and the mixed quadratic coefficients ( ij , i

j ). For

this reason, we have added the interaction terms

10 3

columns to the original 2V

fractional factorial design.

After adding individual upper and lower limit runs for

each factor and determining which runs to augment the
original design with and which runs to omit from the
design to de-alias interactions of potential interest, we
will have a (1501) vector of the observations, y, and a
(15066) matrix of the levels of the independent
variables, X. Now, it is easy to obtain regression
coefficients for the model using the following relation

= ( X X )1 X y
Next step is to form the b and B matrixes of the second
order model as mentioned earlier and use the
aforementioned formula

1
X s = B 1b
2
to obtain the values of the coded variables at the
stationary point. These values are shown in the following
table
Xs= {-0.632, -4.968, -6.359, -5.661, -2.555, -1.424,
2.557, -5.731, -0.435, 2.366}
It is evident that almost all of the coded variables have
exceeded their allowed variations. This shows that we
havent found the acceptable stationary point and it is
necessary to apply the following conditions for all of the
variables

1 xi 1 i = 1, 2, ...,10

CONCLUSION
By using a fractional factorial design, one can reduce the
amount of the runs that is necessary to identify the
system by assuming that higher order interactions are
negligible. Here, there were 15 parameters, each of
them in two levels, and a complete factorial design
required 215 runs. But a resolution V fractional factorial
design with a good precision was used and required 2157
runs.
Selection of the most important parameters for
optimization purpose can be done by implementing
sensitivity analysis that, here, reduced the amount of the
parameters from 15 to 10.
In the initial state of the vehicle, the objective function
was yinitial=2.6469 and the objective function at the
optimized state is yfinal=4.2373. This shows that we have
more than a 60 percent increase in the objective function
value. This means that the vehicle handling has been
optimized up to 60 percent.

REFERENCES
1. Gillespie,
T.D.,
Fundamentals
of
Vehicle
Dynamics, First Edition, Society of Automotive
Engineering, 1992.
2. ADAMS/CAR
Documentation,
Mechanical
Dynamics Inc, 2000.
3. Montgomery, D.C., Design and Analysis of
Experiments, Fifth Edition, John Wiley & Sons,
2001.

CONTACT
Eskandari, A. MSc student, Mechanical Engineering
Dept, Sharif University of Technology
a_eskandari@mehr.sharif.ir
Mirzadeh, O. MSc student, Mechanical Engineering
Dept, Sharif University of Technology
o_mirzadeh@mehr.sharif.ir
Azadi,Sh., Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering
Dept, K.N.T. University of Technology
sh_azadi@yahoo.com