2002-01-3105

Integral Suspension System for Motor Vehicles Based on

Passive Components
Josep Fontdecaba i Buj
CREUAT S.L.


Copyright 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the theory and results of a passive
suspension system implementation that links the four
wheels vertical movements through a central device.
This arrangement is made to define a passive kinematics
link between all wheels vertical movements that define
the elasticity and damping of all vehicle movements, roll,
pitch and rebound, as well as the resistance to axle
crossing.
The analisys made is opposite to the traditional one-
quarter-vehicle analisys, and exploits the passive
systems to provide advantages sought with active
systems.
INTRODUCTION
Conventional passive suspension systems are based on
one-per-wheel suspension elements that support the
body of the vehicle and transversal components that add
stiffness to reduce the roll movement. These two kinds of
elements define the suspension characteristics and the
dynamics of the vehicle.
Suspension elements associated to each wheel provide
the main elasticity component of the suspension, as well
as the damping means to extinguish the vehicle body
oscillations induced by the travel of the vehicle. These
suspension elements define the stiffness and damping
characteristics of all vehicle body movements such as
rebound, roll, pitch and axle crossing.
Transversal elements, usually built as torsion bars,
oppose the roll movement of the vehicle body and are
commonly referred to as anti-roll bars. There are several
arrangements of this transversal link, but in all cases, the
aim is to increase the stiffness of the suspension to the
roll movement without modifying the stiffness to rebound
and pitch.
Our analisys is based on an arrangement that links all
wheels vertical movements at one time, not only
transversely. To do so, a central device is provided to
help define the specific elasticity and damping for every
vehicle movement in an independent way. This allows
the suspension designer to independently set the
elasticity and damping characteristics for:
1. Roll
2. Pitch
3. Rebound
4. Axle crossing.

These four (4) system movements correspond to the 4
degrees of freedom that the four wheels independent
vertical movements provide.
There are several ways to implement the kinematics
relationships to have the right elasticities and damping
movements. In all cases, we have chosen passive
components that do not drag any energy from the
system except for additional features like height control.
Our study also includes two different implementations of
the system that either use:
1. Hydraulic components
2. Mechanical components

Both implementations have particular advantages. We
have built several prototypes and the development of the
system follows its own course.
CENTRALIZED SUSPENSION CONCEPT
To provide the proper relationship between all wheel
vertical movements we have worked with a layout that
includes suspension elements individually linked to each
wheels movements, and a central device that provides
the kinematics links between the individual wheel
movements.
From an intuitive point of view, the central device can be
designed to define the system movements such as pitch,
roll and rebound. The resilient and damping elements
present in the central device will characterize the main
dynamic behavior of the whole vehicle
On the other hand, the individual suspension
components associated with each wheel will be more
directly involved with the individual wheel movements
The analisys of the system will nevertheless demonstrate
the important is the system as a whole in defining not
only the system movements such as pitch, roll and
rebound, but also the system capacity to deal with
independent movements in each wheel.
SYSTEM LAYOUT
We can define the system layout as in the following
figure, where the vertical movements in each wheel are
linked to the individual suspension elements, and from
them transmitted to the central device. This central
device is in charge of distributing the efforts and
movements in order to define the dynamics of the vehicle
as well as distribute the weight between the wheels.










Figure 1
To build a passive system according to this layout we
have needed to physically transmit the efforts and moves
from each individual suspension component to the
central device. In a hydraulic solution, this is relatively
easy by means of hydraulic conduits, but on a
mechanical implementation, the movements have to be
transmitted by means of connection links or torsion bars.
The central device must provide links that connect
wheels simultaneously in a transversal, longitudinal and
diagonal way. Each link can then be connected to the
vehicle body, so the weight is transmitted to the wheels.
CENTRAL DEVICE SUSPENSION COMPONENTS
The suspension components in the central device must
provide the extra elasticity for the movements that
require a softer characteristic. This is usually the case for
the rebound and pitch movements.
The central device should also provide the axle-crossing
capacity independent from all other suspension
components. This is, in fact, the main advantage of
centralizing the suspension characteristics that could
hardly be obtained otherwise.
INDIVIDUAL SUSPENSION COMPONENTS
The suspension components associated with each wheel
movement are placed as a filter to the movements and
forces transmitted to the central device. This means that
the stiffness of both resilient and damping components
should, if alone, provide a greater or equal stiffness than
any system movement such as rebound, roll and pitch. In
our case, this will be the roll stiffness.
SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION
By the time this paper is written, several prototypes have
been built, and others are being built now. There are
several ways to define the central and individual
suspension devices, and two solutions are being sought:
1. Hydraulic implementation
2. Mechanical implementation

The implementation of the system that we have followed
is based on a central device that acts rigidly to the roll
movements, so the roll is completely defined by the
suspension elements associated with each wheel. We
can do this since we needed the stiffest component for
the roll movement, and the central device added the
necessary elasticity to soften the other movements such
as rebound and pitch.
The axle crossing is completely controlled by the central
device. We also provided the means to disable this
feature in case it was needed.
HYDRAULIC IMPLEMENTATION
In the hydraulic implementation, each individual wheel is
connected to the vehicle body by means of simple-acting
cylinders that transmit the vertical movements to the
hydraulic fluid.
The individual suspension elements are the
hydropneumatic expansion chambers connected to the
circuit near the cylinder on each wheel.
Each cylinder is then connected to the hydraulic central
device by means of pipes of convenient size. The central
device has the additional elasticity elements that provide
some of the system parameters of the suspension.
Heave extra elasticity and
damping components
Pitch extra elasticity and
damping components
Isostatic valve
Roll elasticity
and damping
components
The following layout indicates the hydropneumatic
expansion chambers in charge of providing both the
elasticity and damping of the system:
Figure 2
The hydraulic implementation includes the valve in the
central device to disconnect the axle crossing. This valve
has proven necessary in limit situations. The free axle
crossing makes the suspension system isostatic, this is:
the weights are independent of the surface irregularities.
This feature unfortunately disables the system to cope
with limit static or dynamic situations where more than
half the vehicle weight falls on one wheel.
The hydraulic implementation has an interesting feature,
which is that it can easily add a damping module to each
expansion chamber, therefore providing the adequate
damping coefficient to each system movement.
An immediate advantage of this feature is that we can
increase the damping coefficient for roll movements to
compensate for the increased stiffness wanted to
augment the stability.
MECHANICAL IMPLEMENTATION
In the mechanical implementation, each individual wheel
is connected to the transmission means that link the
wheel vertical movements with the central device.
Depending on the vehicle suspension geometry, we
found it convenient to use either angled levers with
connection links or torsion bars that transmit the
movements to the central device.
By using torsion bars, we provide transmission means
that have their own elasticity, simplifying the
implementation of the individual elasticity components.
The mechanical implementation provides the simplicity
and robustness of mechanical components.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to provide individual damping
that would be associated to the torsion bars in the layout
presented above. In general, the mechanical
implementation can provide the same degree of freedom
to define elasticity elements, but makes it difficult for the
design of the damping elements.
The image below shows the layout of a mechanical
system on a typical all-terrain vehicle:
Figure 3
Damping elements are in this case easily mounted
between each individual wheel and the vehicle body, not
allowing the benefits predicted before.
Nevertheless, when connecting links are used, it is
easier to implement the individual damping elements and
zero the damping of axle-crossing movements.
ELASTICITY ANALISYS
To analyze the passive system we will ignore the
suspension geometry and other details that, although
very important on a vehicle dynamics analisys, have little
to do with the concepts being presented here.
We will consider a four-
wheeled vehicle, where
each wheel can move
ideally in a vertical direction
in respect to the vehicle
body, and that interacts
with it through a force in the
direction of the movement.
WHOLE VEHICLE MOVEMENTS ANALISYS
Lets analyze every freedom degree associated to wheel
movements from a global point of view:
REBOUND MOVEMENT
We can characterize the rebound movement by the
uniform displacement of each wheel against the vehicle
body. When all wheels are in contact with a planar
surface, this displacement is equal to the vehicle body
displacement.
3
2
1
0
In this case, we
can define a
elasticity
constant that
relates forces
increments and
displacements in
the rebound
movement in the
following way:
(f
0
+f
1
+f
2
+f
3
) = K
h
(x
0
+x
1
+x
2
+x
3
)
Where K
h
is the elasticity associated with the rebound
movement. Note that we will consider all elasticities
linear for simplification purposes.
PITCH MOVEMENT
We can characterize the pitch by contrary displacement
of each front wheel in one direction, and rear wheel in
the opposite direction.
When all wheels are in contact with a planar surface, this
displacement produces the pitch movement in the
vehicle.
In this case, we can
define a elasticity
constant that relates
forces increments
and displacements
for pitch movement
in the following way:
(f
0
+f
1
-f
2
-f
3
) = K
p
(x
0
+x
1
-x
2
-x
3
)
Where K
p
is the elasticity associated with the pitch
movement.
ROLL MOVEMENT
Similarly to pitch and
rebound, we can
define a elasticity
constant that relates
forces increments
and displacements in
roll movements in the
following way:
(f
0
-f
1
+f
2
-f
3
) = K
r
(x
0
-x
1
+x
2
-x
3
)
Where K
r
is the elasticity associated to roll movement.
AXLE CROSSING MOVEMENT
Axle crossing movement is not associated to any vehicle
body movement such as pitch, roll and rebound. It is,
though, associated with the weight distribution and the
capability to adapt to uneven surfaces.
Nevertheless,
when analyzing
the forces
associated to this
movement we can
define a similar
elasticity constant
in the following
way:
(f
0
-f
1
-f
2
+f
3
) = K
x
(x
0
-x
1
-x
2
+x
3
)
Where K
x
is the elasticity associated to roll movement.
SYSTEM ELASTICITY CONCEPT
With the previous analisys, we have defined four
system constants that define the relationship between
individual wheel movements and system effects:
1. (f
0
+f
1
+f
2
+f
3
) = K
h
(x
0
+x
1
+x
2
+x
3
)
2. (f
0
+f
1
-f
2
-f
3
) = K
p
(x
0
+x
1
-x
2
-x
3
)
3. (f
0
-f
1
+f
2
-f
3
) = K
r
(x
0
-x
1
+x
2
-x
3
)
4. (f
0
-f
1
-f
2
+f
3
) = K
x
(x
0
-x
1
-x
2
+x
3
)

We can extend this simplified definition to a relationship
between forces and displacements through a elasticities
matrix:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.
f
0
f
1
f
2
f
3
|

\
|
|
|
.

Kh
0
0
0
0
Kp
0
0
0
0
Kr
0
0
0
0
Kx
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.

x
0
x
1
x
2
x
3
|

\
|
|
|
.

In this case we can define a general elasticities matrix
[R] through a base change as

R
0 0 ,
R
1 0 ,
R
2 0 ,
R
3 0 ,
R
0 1 ,
R
1 1 ,
R
2 1 ,
R
3 1 ,
R
0 2 ,
R
1 2 ,
R
2 2 ,
R
3 2 ,
R
0 3 ,
R
1 3 ,
R
2 3 ,
R
3 3 ,
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
Kh
0
0
0
0
Kp
0
0
0
0
Kr
0
0
0
0
Kx
|

\
|
|
|
.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.

Where R
i,j
defines the forces induced in each wheel j by
displacements in wheel i. In particular this matrix is
interesting as the diagonal R
i,i
shows the forces induced
in each wheel i when it experiments a displacement,
which translates into a messure of comfort.

INDIVIDUAL ELASTICITY CONCEPT
When the system experiences a vertical movement only
in one wheel, such as is the case with small bumps
transversed at a speed where the vehicle body
movement has not yet had the time to react, we can
calculate the forces involved combining the previous
equations:
Assuming x
1
=0, x
2
=0 and x
3
=0, and a vertical movement
in one wheel with x
0
0
f
3

x
3

f
2

x
2

f
0

x
1

f
1

x
0

-f
3

-x
3

-f
2

-x
2

f
0

x
1

f
1

x
0
f
3

x
3

-f
2

-x
2

-f
0

x
1
f
1

-x
0

f
3

x
3
-f
2

-x
2

f
0

-x
1
-f
1

x
0

f
0
f
1
f
2
f
3
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
Kh
0
0
0
0
Kp
0
0
0
0
Kr
0
0
0
0
Kx
|

\
|
|
|
.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.

x
0
0
0
0
|

\
|
|
|
.

which translates into:
f
0
f
1
f
2
f
3
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
4
Kh Kp + Kr + Kx +
Kh Kp Kr Kx +
Kh Kp Kr + Kx
Kh Kp Kr Kx +
|

\
|
|
|
.
x
0

Looking at the diagonal members of matrix matrix [R] we
see that they accomplish that:
R
i i ,
f
0
x
0
1
4
Kh Kp + Kr + Kx + ( )

We can define the equivalent independent elasticity R
i,i

on wheel i as the force induced when the wheel
experiments a vertical displacement in respect to the
vehicle body while the other wheels do not:Conventional
suspension
Conventional suspension systems: springs and bars
We can confirm this result comparing it with a
conventional suspension case. If we know that every
wheel is connected to the vehicle body through a spring
of known elasticity Ks, and antiroll bars that provide a
elasticity of Kb between transversal wheels, we can
define the system elasticities as:
Kh
0
0
0
0
Kp
0
0
0
0
Kr
0
0
0
0
Kx
|

\
|
|
|
.
Ks
0
0
0
0
Ks
0
0
0
0
Ks 2 Kb +
0
0
0
0
Ks 2 Kb +
|

\
|
|
|
.

Note that both Kr and Kx are related to the antiroll bars
since the wheel displacements associated to both roll
and axle crossing act against such transversal resilient
elements, while rebound and pitch do not.
If we assume that front and rear axles are not equal, with
front and rear different values for springs and anti-roll
bars, then the elasticities matrix will become in the form:
a
b
0
0
b
a
0
0
0
0
c
d
0
0
d
c
|

\
|
|
|
.

where:
a
1
2
Ks
f
Ks
r
+ ( )
b
1
2
Ks
f
Ks
r
( )
c
1
2
Ks
f
2Kb
f
+ ( ) Ks
r
2Kb
r
+ ( ) +

d
1
2
Ks
f
2Kb
f
+ ( ) Ks
r
2Kb
r
+ ( )

Note: For simplicity we assume here that the spring and
anti-roll bars are applied vertically on the wheel hub.
Certain correction factors need to be made depending on
the suspension geometry of the vehicle.
If we consider asymetrc front/rear suspension
components, we can find that the individual elasticity
component is different front and rear:
R
0 0 ,
R
1 1 ,
1
2
a b + c + d + ( ) Ks
f
Kb
f
+
R
2 2 ,
R
3 3 ,
1
2
a b c + d ( ) Ks
r
Kb
r
+

Beeing Ks
f
and Kb
f
the front springs and antiroll barts
elasticity, and Ks
r
and Kb
r
the rear springs and antiroll
barts elasticity:
This result is obvious as we all know that in that type of
wheel movement, only the spring between that wheel
and the vehicle body is compressed, and the anti-roll bar
that connects it with the transversely opposed wheel
For the time beeing, and to simplify the core analisys we
will keep the front/rear symetry and keep Ks
f
=Ks
r
and
Kb
f
=Kb
r
.
DAMPING ANALISYS
Similarly to the elasticity analisys, we can define system
damping constants that characterize the damping of the
four system wheel movements, as well as the analisys
for the induced individual wheel reaction .
SYSTEM DAMPING CONCEPT
As with elasticity, we will consider the damping a linear
value calculated on the wheel velocity with respect to the
vehicle body.
With this in mind, we can define the coefficients:
1. C
h
: Damping for the rebound movement
2. C
p
: Damping for the pitch movement
3. C
r
: Damping for the roll movement
4. C
x
: Damping for the axle crossing movement

Based on the vertical velocity in each wheel in respect to
the vehicle body, we can define the forces caused by
such speeds with the set of damping coefficients defined
before as:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.
f
0
f
1
f
2
f
3
|

\
|
|
|
.

Ch
0
0
0
0
Cp
0
0
0
0
Cr
0
0
0
0
Cx
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.

v
0
v
1
v
2
v
3
|

\
|
|
|
.

INDIVIDUAL DAMPING COCEPT
Similarly to the elasticity analisys, when the system
experiences a vertical movement only in one wheel, such
as is the case with small bumps transversed at a speed
where the vehicle body movement has not yet had the
time to react, we can calculate the forces involved
combining the previous equations.
Assuming v
1
=0, v
2
=0 and v
3
=0, and a vertical movement
speed in one wheel with v
0
0, we get:
f
0
1
4
Ch Cp + Cr + Cx + ( ) v
0

Therefore we can define C
i,i
the equivalent independent
damping at wheel i, as the force induced when the wheel
experiments a vertical velocity in respect to the vehicle
body while the other wheels do not:
D
0 0 ,
f
0
v
0
1
4
Ch Cp + Cr + Cx + ( )

In general, on a conventional suspension using one
shock absorber per wheel, we can find that the individual
elasticity component D
i,i
at each wheel i is:
D
i i ,
1
4
Ch Cp + Cr + Cx + ( ) Cd

The simplicity of this result already give us hints of the
limitations of using only one damper per wheel.
Conventional suspension: four dampers
Conventional suspension systems have no damping
associated to the anti-roll bars. If we proceed with an
analisys similar to the elasticity, we can confirm this
case. If we know that every wheel is connected to the
vehicle body through a single damper, and the damping
coefficient is Cd we can define the system damping
coefficients as:
Ch
0
0
0
0
Cp
0
0
0
0
Cr
0
0
0
0
Cx
|

\
|
|
|
.
Cd
0
0
0
0
Cd
0
0
0
0
Cd
0
0
0
0
Cd
|

\
|
|
|
.

Note: For simplicity we assume here that all dampers
are applied vertically on the wheel hub. Certain
correction factors need to be made depending on the
suspension geometry of the vehicle.
OPTIMAL CENTRAL DEVICE
Conventional suspension systems do not establish
longitudinal or diagonal links between vertical
movements of wheels. The conventional use of anti-roll
bars restricts the system elasticity and damping
constants under the following constraints:
K
h
= K
p
and C
h
= C
p

K
r
= K
x
and C
r
= C
x


These two limitations create three different problems that
compromise all conventional suspension systems:
1. The link between Pitch and Rebound elasticity and
damping coefficients make the oscillation
frequencies depend on wheel base, therefore
restricting the axles distances in the vehicle design
2. The link between Roll and Axle Crossing
compromises the traction capabilities when stability
is sought and vice versa.
3. The compromise to damp both pitch and roll with the
same set of dampers usually leaves roll damping too
weak and vertical movements damping too stiff.

It would be desirable to design a suspension system
where all system parameters can be chosen arbitrarily to
suit the needs of the suspension so three criteria are
met:
1. K
h
K
p
and C
h
C
p
so the design of the vehicle
dynamics can optimize the pitch and rebound
oscillation movements for the vehicle characteristics
that are sought.
2. K
r
and C
r
are independent, so the damping of roll
movemens can be adjusted to the vehicle roll inertia
and other stability considerations.
3. K
x
and C
x
are minimized to favor traction and braking
capacity, as well as to decrease the individual
reaction K
i
and C
i
in each wheel to increase the
comfort felt by the vehicle passengers.

FREE AXLE CROSSING: ISOSTATICITY
Freeing the axle-crossing has several advantages as we
have pointed out. Nevertheless, it implies a weight
distribution that does not depend on the surface
irregularities. We can see that :
0
0
0
0
|

\
|
|
|
.
Kh
0
0
0
0
Kp
0
0
0
0
Kr
0
0
0
0
0
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.

x
0
x
1
x
2
x
3
|

\
|
|
|
.

implies a solution with one degree of freedom:
x
0
x
3
x
1
x
2

Assuming a complete symetry in the suspension design,
then this solution is:
x
0
z
3
x
1
x
2

The existence of this solution makes the system
isostatic, this is, given any value of x
0
, x
1
, x
2
and x
3
there
is a combination of rebound, roll and pitch movements
that repositions the vehicle body to make:
f
0
f
1
f
2
f
3
0

This is the isostatic solution from the suspension point of
view. If we analyze the distribution of weights, then we
can determine that the weights in each wheel W
i

accomplishes that:
W
0
W
3
+ W
1
W
2
+

This is: Half the weight of the vehicle is supported by one
set of wheels diagonally opposed, and the other half by
the other diagonal. In fact, this relationship is obtained
through the central device, as it acts as a balance
between the two diagonal sets of wheels.
This arrangement has, though, one disadvantage, as it
cannot allow one wheel to support more than half the
weight of the vehicle. That situation could be reached in
extreme situations, by either static loads or dynamic
forces. In that case, the system would unload one wheel
and the diagonally opposite would reach the travel limit.
To solve this situation, the central device must be locked,
that is, the axle crossing must be restricted. There are
two ways to detect this situation:
1. Detecting vehicle accelerations (lateral and
longitudinal)
2. Detecting wheel load decrease

We have built our prototypes on the second premise, as
it covers both static and dynamic conditions.
ELASTICITIES ANALISYS
For a conventional suspension system, we have found
the individual spring constant to be:
K
i
= K
s
+K
b
Where K
s
is the spring elasticity and K
b
the anti-roll bar
elasticity.
Keeping all system elasticities K
h
, K
p
and K
r
unaltered,
we can decrease K
i
by minimizing the axle-crossing
elasticity in the following way:
Kh
0
0
0
0
Kp
0
0
0
0
Kr
0
0
0
0
0
|

\
|
|
|
.
Ks
0
0
0
0
Ks
0
0
0
0
Ks 2 Kb +
0
0
0
0
0
|

\
|
|
|
.

From where we get:
Ki
1
4
Kh Kp + Kr + Kx + ( )
3
4
Ks
1
2
Kb +

This means that the individual wheel elasticity is
decreased between 25% and 50% when compared with
the conventional individual elasticity.
Therefore, the forces determined on the wheel passing
over a bump will be smaller than in a conventional
system. Nevertheless, we need to neglect the effect on
all other wheels that add up to produce the same effects
on the vehicle body, which are still determined by system
parameters K
h
, K
p
and K
r
.
DAMPING ANALISYS
A similar analisys can be followed for the damping
characteristics. Nevertheless, and to compare it with the
restrictive C
h
= C
p
= C
r
, we can find that
Ch
0
0
0
0
Cp
0
0
0
0
Cr
0
0
0
0
0
|

\
|
|
|
.
Cd
0
0
0
0
Cd
0
0
0
0
Cd
0
0
0
0
0
|

\
|
|
|
.

Obtaining:
Ci
1
4
Ch Cp + Cr + Cx + ( )
3
4
Cd

This means that the individual damping is decreased
25% when compared with the conventional individual
damping, while maintaining the same damping
characteristics for the system movements such as pitch,
roll and rebound.
It is important to note that these individual elasticity and
damping decreases do not alter any of the global
suspension characteristics from a chassis control point
of view. This is important, as they would alter the
oscillation frequencies and the stability for which the
suspension was designed.
Conventional Example
Lets take a sports car suspension as an example. Lets
assume that the springs and anti-roll bars have the
following rates:
Ks
f
18
kN
m
Ks
r
22
kN
m
Kb
f
75
kN
m
Kb
r
15
kN
m

Then, if we ignore the suspension geometry and assume
these values applied on the wheel hubs, the elasticities
matrix would be:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
20
2
0
0
2
20
0
0
0
0
220
116
0
0
116
220
|

\
|
|
|
.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.

177
159
0
0
159
177
0
0
0
0
63
41
0
0
41
63
|

\
|
|
|
.
=

If we free cross-axle movements, we get:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
20
2
0
0
2
20
0
0
0
0
220
0
0
0
116
0
|

\
|
|
|
.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.

93
75
84
84
75
93
84
84
26
26
37
15
26
26
15
37
|

\
|
|
|
.
=

Which shows how forces are distributed it over all wheels
when an individual input is taken. This can clearly be
seen on the first column of the resulting matrix, where it
indicates the effect on each wheel for an input in wheel
0.
While this is interesting by itself, it is more interesting to
see the effect on damping elements.
Lets assume the following damper characteristics:

Cd
f
3.5
kN
m s
1

Cd
r
2.5
kN
m s
1

This translates into a damping matrix of:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
3
.5
0
0
.5
3
0
0
0
0
3
.5
0
0
.5
3
|

\
|
|
|
.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.

3.5
0
0
0
0
3.5
0
0
0
0
2.5
0
0
0
0
2.5
|

\
|
|
|
.
=

Freeing axle crossing we would get:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
3
.5
0
0
.5
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
.5
0
|

\
|
|
|
.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.

2.625
0.875
0.875
0.875
0.875
2.625
0.875
0.875
0.625
0.625
1.875
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.625
1.875
|

\
|
|
|
.
=

Which shows how the damping forces are distributed
over all wheels reducing the maximum value of any
wheel component.
To optimize further these values we could consider yet:
a) Increase the damping of roll to attain a
reasonable fraction of the critical damping of
the roll movement.
b) Slightly decrease the damping of pitch and
rebound to attain a similar fraction of the
critical damping of these two movements.
It is also of interest to note that the torsional forces on
the vehicle body created by both the elasticity and
damping elements have been reduced despite the fact
the roll stiffness has been maintained.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Several prototypes have been built to confirm the
theorys advantages. In this paper we focus the study in
the hydraulic implementation made on a 1990 Range
Rover model, known because of the traction capability
and the tendency to roll.
All tests have been conducted at IDIADA, who has run
the tests independently with its own equipment,
instrumentation and personnel, and has postprocessed
and analyzed the data obtained.
TESTED CONFIGURATIONS
We have conducted tests on three diferent
configurations of the suspension:
1. Original suspension
2. Axle free HARD
3. Axle free SOFT

These suspensions have been characterized by four
elasticity and damping matrices as follows:
K
configuration
: System Elasticities Matrix kN/m
R
configuration
: Individual Elasticities Matrix kN/m
C
configuration
: System Damping Matrix kN/(ms
-1
)
D
configuration
: Individual Damping Matrix kN/m(ms
-1
)

The original vehicle was characterized by the following
suspension parameters:
Front springs: 23 kN/m
Rear springs: 33 kN/m
Wheel spring: 230 kN/m
Front dampers
(b/r avrg.)
: 2.9 kN/m
Rear dampers
(b/r avrg.)
: 4.3 kN/m
(*)

Front roll center Z: 340mm
Front Springs base: 1000mm
Rear Springs base: 1100mm
Wheels base: 1650mm
Rear roll center Z: 480mm
Anti roll bars: none
Weight: 2123 Kg
C.G. height 650mm (aprox)
X_Inertia: 420Kgm
2
(aprox)
Y_inertia: 3700Kgm
2
(aprox)

(*): Rear dampers equivalent constant

Taking into account the vehicle suspension geometry,
two live axes, the spring and wheel bases, we can
configure this suspension with the following matrices that
we will identify as Conf 1 during the instrumented tests:
K
original
28
5
0
0
5
28
0
0
0
0
18
4
0
0
4
18
|

\
|
|
|
.
:= R
original
18.5
4.5
0
0
4.5
18.5
0
0
0
0
27.5
5.5
0
0
5.5
27.5
|

\
|
|
|
.
=

C
original
4.4
1.5
0
0
1.5
4.4
0
0
0
0
2.3
0.5
0
0
0.5
2.3
|

\
|
|
|
.
= D
original
2.6
0.3
0.25
0.25
0.3
2.6
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
4.1
1.8
0.25
0.25
1.8
4.1
|

\
|
|
|
.
=


Note the poor anti-roll efficiency of springs in this type of
suspension geometry.
These matrices, when taken into account the wheel
spring effect, configure the vehicle own frequencies of:
f
roll
1.384Hz = f
pitch
1.096Hz = f
heave
1.092Hz =


The same vehicle was used to install the prototype
system with free axle-crossing built with hydraulic
components.
It is to be noted that the non-linearity of hydropneumatic
springs would require some additional analisys that falls
outside the scope of this paper. The hydraulic conduits
and the fluid viscosity have pressure losses associated
that will make the axle crossing not completely free. We
will ignore these effects for the linear characteristics
obtained from the tests.
The tested prototypes are:
Prototype Conf 2 with high anti-roll effect and free axle-
crossing:
K
hard
23.7
0.8
0
0
0.8
23.7
0
0
0
0
65.6
0
0
0
10.3
0
|

\
|
|
|
.
= R
hard
25.275
2.375
13.825
13.825
2.375
25.275
13.825
13.825
18.975
18.975
31.225
6.725
18.975
18.975
6.725
31.225
|

\
|
|
|
.
=

C
hard
3.1
0.4
0
0
0.4
3.1
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0.1
0
|

\
|
|
|
.
= D
hard
2.775
0.725
1.025
1.025
0.725
2.775
1.025
1.025
0.975
0.975
2.325
0.375
0.975
0.975
0.375
2.325
|

\
|
|
|
.
=


And its own frequencies once wheels are taken into
account:
f
roll
2.197Hz = f
pitch
1.016Hz = f
heave
1.013Hz =


Prototype Conf 3 with intermediate anti-roll effect and
free axle-crossing:
K
soft
26.1
4.5
0
0
4.5
26.1
0
0
0
0
30.2
0
0
0
8.3
0
|

\
|
|
|
.
= R
soft
16.275
5.325
5.475
5.475
5.325
16.275
5.475
5.475
9.625
9.625
24.925
5.675
9.625
9.625
5.675
24.925
|

\
|
|
|
.
=

C
soft
2.6
0.1
0
0
0.1
2.6
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
|

\
|
|
|
.
= D
soft
2.1
0.6
0.75
0.75
0.6
2.1
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
2
0.5
0.75
0.75
0.5
2
|

\
|
|
|
.
=


And its own frequencies:
f
roll
1.729Hz = f
pitch
1.062Hz = f
heave
1.058Hz =


The damping values on the prototypes were choosen to
obtain an adequate fraction of the critical damping. Note
how roll damping was increased along with roll
stiffeness, while pitch damping was decreased.

TESTS PERFORMED
the following tests were performed during July-2002 at
the IDIADA AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY facilities:
Steady State Circular Test (ISO 4138)
Pseudo-Random steering Input Test (ISO 7401,
TR 8725)
Step Steer test ((ISO 7401)
Energy Level Measurement

These tests where performed with the aim to measure
the chassis control and the effect of the free axle
crossing. The two changes were supposed to have a
direct effect on the vehicle behaviour and comfort.
We also wanted to measure the effect on handling and
cornering, which some results show.
All tests have been carried out at IDIADA Automotive
technology center on every configuration


RESULTS OF STEADY CIRCULAR TEST (ISO 4138)
AVERAGE (LEFT-RIGHT response)
Parameter Unit Conf 1 Conf 2 Conf 3
steer,Ackermann [] 81.754 84.361 84.252
ratio [-] 21.667 22.358 22.329
K, linear [/ m/s] 6.601 5.178 5.913
K, 5 m/s [/ m/s] 22.052 19.910 31.873
K, linear [/ m/s] 0.999 0.497 0.872
K, linear [/ m/s] -0.595 -0.571 -0.582
K, 5 m/s [/ m/s] -1.061 -1.007 -1.402
(/)max [s
-1
] 0.169 0.170 0.166
vx, (/)max [kph] 49.214 47.457 47.566
max [] 6.263 3.881 6.258
ay,max [m/s
2
] 5.988 6.211 5.805
vx,max [km/h] 58.552 59.084 57.942


/ 7
0
/ 7
0
s m
linear
s m

[* m/s] 3.791 3.104 3.077
Normalised responses in respect to ratio
K / ratio, linear [/ m/s
2
] 0.304 0.234 0.266
K / ratio, 7 m/s [/ m/s
2
] 1.005 0.897 1.447
Normalised responses in respect to ratio and wheelbase
K / (ratio*WB) , linear [/ m/s
2
] 0.115 0.089 0.101
K / (ratio*WB), 7 m/s [/ m/s
2
] 0.381 0.340 0.549

From this test we have extracted two results with
significant differences on roll and understeer gradient for
average right-left response:
The first relevant aspect of this tests is data related to roll
gradient in the linear range from 0ms
-2
to 4ms
-2
:
AVERAGE (LEFT-RIGHT response)
Experimental Unit Conf 1 Conf 2 Conf 3
K
, linear [/ m/s] 0.999 0.497 0.872


The roll gradient K
,
improves on the prototypes Conf 2
and Conf 3. Nevertheless it can be noted that the results
are highly conditioned by the relatively soft tires used.
Tires static elasticity has been meassured to be
230N/mm which, along with the wheel and spring base
has been taken into account to provide the following
theoretic results:
Theoretic
Wheel K

[/ m/s] 0.126 0.126 0.126

Suspension K

[/ m/s] 0.862 0.278 0.513

Total K

[/ m/s] 0.988 0.404 0.640

Both prototype configurations display a higher Roll
gradients than expected. We may look into the non
linearity of hydropneumatic springs and the center-of
mass position to explain the discrepancy.

The second relevant aspect i data related to understeer
gradient in the linear range from 0ms
-2
to 4ms
-2
:
Experimental Unit Conf 1 Conf 2 Conf 3
K

/ ratio, linear [/ m/s

2
] 0.304 0.234 0.266
The understeer gradient K

/
ratio
in Conf 2 and Conf 3
shows a more neutral vehicle. This is assumed to be the
result of the isostaticity that reduces the weight
differences in all wheels.
To calculate spring forces we can define body
movements related to the spring compressions as:
Heave
Pitch
Roll
Axle X
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.
x
0
x
1
x
2
x
3
|

\
|
|
|
.

To calculate the forces in a pure roll movement on a flat
surface we can use then the elasticities matrix in the
following manner :
f
0
f
1
f
2
f
3
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
K
0 0 ,
K
1 0 ,
K
2 0 ,
K
3 0 ,
K
0 1 ,
K
1 1 ,
K
2 1 ,
K
3 1 ,
K
0 2 ,
K
1 2 ,
K
2 2 ,
K
3 2 ,
K
0 3 ,
K
1 3 ,
K
2 3 ,
K
3 3 ,
|

\
|
|
|
.

0
0
Roll
0
|

\
|
|
|
.

Provided the simetries that take place in the prototype
vehicles used, the Roll value is 4 times the spring
compression/extension on roll (wheel equivalent
displacement).
In our case, under a lateral accelleration of 4ms
-2
, the
original vehicle experiments a roll that compresses outer
springs to a wheel-equivalent displacement of about
40mm, while inner springs experiment a similar
extension.
If we calculate the suspension forces distribution on the
wheels for the original configuration on a flat surface and
at an accelleration of 4ms
-2
we get about 30% more
antiroll effect on the rear axle, thus reducing the
understeer behaviour of the vehicle in Conf 1:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
28
5
0
0
5
28
0
0
0
0
18
4
0
0
4
18
|

\
|
|
|
.

N
mm
4
0
0
40mm
0
|

\
|
|
|
.

0.56
0.56
0.88
0.88
|

\
|
|
|
.
kN =

Nevertheless, any solution that involves freeing the axle
crossing would neutralize the steer effect related to
suspension stiffeness as can be seen in the following
calculation using the same elasticities matrix for a Roll of
40mm at each wheel:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
28
5
0
0
5
28
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
4
0
|

\
|
|
|
.

N
mm
4
0
0
40mm
0
|

\
|
|
|
.

0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
|

\
|
|
|
.
kN =

With our prototipes, and the accordingly reduced roll for
the same acceleration, the wheel forces distribution
becomes neutral in Conf 2:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
23.7
.8
0
0
.8
23.7
0
0
0
0
65.6
0
0
0
10.3
0
|

\
|
|
|
.

N
mm
4
0
0
11mm
0
|

\
|
|
|
.

0.722
0.722
0.722
0.722
|

\
|
|
|
.
kN =

And in Conf 3:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|

\
|
|
|
.
1
26.1
4.5
0
0
4.5
26.1
0
0
0
0
30.2
0
0
0
8.3
0
|

\
|
|
|
.

N
mm
4
0
0
24mm
0
|

\
|
|
|
.

0.725
0.725
0.725
0.725
|

\
|
|
|
.
kN =

Note: The forces here calculated only include the
component induced through the suspension due to the
body roll, not the reaction to the lateral acceleration
applied to the center of roll. Such reaction would add to
the above values the forces in the rear and front wheels
1
2
a M 480 mm
WheelBase
1309N =
.
and:
1
2
a M 340 mm
WheelBase
927N =
.

respectively.
The change in forces distribution would have had a
greater impact on weight distribution on any car where
the suspension didnt have so little effect against roll. In
this way the steer component change becomes almost
neglectable. Tests results confirm this end, showing a
very small (probably neglectable) reduction in the
understeering former suspension. The following diagram
shows how slip angles are not significantly influenced by
the better distribiution of weights introduced in Conf 2
and Conf 3.
-7.5 -5 -2.5 0 2.5 5 7.5
-10
-7.5
-5
-2.5
0
2.5
5
7.5
10
Conf 1
Conf 2
Conf 3

RIGHT
Sideslip angle []
LEFT
-- -- -- Rear
--------- Front
Lateral acceleration [m/s]
Figure 4: Sideslip Angle vs. Lateral Accelleration
The remaining understeer gradient obtained at IDIADA is
probably the result of tire pressures used (front: 1.9bar
and rear: 2.4 bar) since any other factor related to
geometry design remained unchanged. For all three
configurations, wheel pressures were determinant. to the
inherent understeer behaviour.
During the handling tests, though, this and other
prototypes have shown a more balanced weight
distribution (thus a higher cornering grip) has become
more evident on irregular surfaces, and specially with
large slip values. In these situations, the steering of the
vehicle is more predictable due to the reduced force
fluctuations, thus slip fluctuations, introduced by road
bumps.
RESULTS PSEUDO-RANDOM STEERING INPUT
TEST (ISO 7401, TR 8725)
The random steering test was performed to measure the
response at a different frequencies of steering input. The
following two figures show the three configurations,
where we can appreciate how Conf 2 and Conf 3
elliminate the gain near frequency 1Hz detected in Conf
1 due to the original suspension underdamped roll.
Figure 4: Roll versus Lateral Accelleration
Node 1 shows the soft and underdamped roll behaviour
in the original suspension Conf 1. while Conf2 and
Conf3 stay much more controlled in the range of body
frequencies from 0 to 2Hz.
Node 2 should be neglected as it is the result of
moderate roll angles under small accelleration values.
Nevertheless, it is to be noted that even in that case,
Conf2 and Conf3 keep roll and roll rate under control
although we are closer to the higher roll own frequency.

Node 2 Node 1
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
0.5
1
1.5
Conf 1
Conf 2
Conf 3
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
-180
-120
-60
0
60
120
180
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
0.5
1
Delay ()
Coherence
: ay-roll
Delay (sec)
Gain [/m/s2]
Frequency (Hz)
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
5
10
15
Conf 1
Conf 2
Conf 3
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
-180
-120
-60
0
60
120
180
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
0.5
1
Delay ()
Coherence
: ay-rollR
Delay (sec)
Gain [/s/m/s2]
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 5: Roll velocity versus Lateral Accelleration
RESULTS STEP STEER TEST ((ISO 7401)
The step steer test shows the effect of a single steering
movement. This is useful to measure the effect of a
separate input.
The diagrams obtained show clearly the roll control when
compared to the original suspension. This is attained
with the specific damping to roll.

Figure 6: Step Steer Time diagrams
RESULTS ENERGY LEVEL MEASUREMENT
The increment of damping to roll should reduce the
comfort measurements. Nevertheless, an adequate
damping of pitch and rebound movements have reduce
the measurements at the seat reel.
The following chart shows the results on the three
configurations:
RMS energy levels
0,000
0,500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Roll Pit ch RollR Pit chR Seat Rail
Signal
R
M
S

l
e
v
e
l
Original
Isost atic 1
Isost atic 2
Figure 7: Autopower results
The Autopower frequency analisys shows the expected
response at higher frequencies due to the increased
damping to roll.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
roll
pitch
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A
u
t
o
p
o
w
e
r

l
e
v
e
l


[
d
B
]
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
rollR
pitchR
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
conf 1 conf 2 conf 3
Seat Rail
Range Rover at 90 km/h
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 8: Autopower Frequency Analisys
CONCLUSIONS
The centralized suspension system provides two major
advantages for suspension design.
First advantage is the availability of extra parameters to
design the elasticity and damping coefficients of a
vehicle suspension. Current suspension designs, where
underdamped roll movements is common place, can be
improved by implementing an appropiate damping for
pitch, roll and rebound. This should help to maximize
comfort as it can avoid excessive damping of pitch and
rebound in the conventional suspension compromises
curently taken.
Second advantage is the better weight distribution on
static and dynamic conditions. This effect has been
proved to favour the neutral characteristics of the
vehicle, but the main consequence is a reduction of the
effect of road irregularities on the vehicle steering
control.
Reduced roll rate
peak for Conf 2 and
Conf 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
80
85
90
95
100
105
v
x


[
k
p
h
]
Conf 1 Conf 2 Conf 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
d
e
l t
a


[

]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
s
l i p


[

]
Front
Rear
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
a
y


[
m
/
s

]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
r
o
l l

[

]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
p
i t
c
h


[

]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-7.5
-5
-2.5
0
2.5
5
7.5
10
r
o
l l R


[

/
s
]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
p
i t
c
h
R


[

/
s
]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-2.5
0
2.5
5
7.5
10
12.5
15
y
a
w
R


[

/
s
]
Subjective evaluations demonstrate a specially better
steering control cornering over slipery surfaces. This is
justified by the reduced effect that bumps and surface
irregularities cause on the wheel forces, and thus on the
slip angle fluctiations. This stresses how important is the
achieved better distribution of vehicle weight on dynamic
conditions.
And important enough, the tests show how these
improvements on chassis control have been attained
with a rather moderate change on comfort
measurements.
FUTURE RESEARCH
Our current developments are the design of a
commercially viable suspension system.
Our plans include three areas of future research:
1. Optimal use of non-linear hydropneumatic
springs
2. Pneumatic springs
3. Semiactive damping modules

The experience so far is that stiffness to both pitch and
roll can be controlled without sacrifying excessive
comfort by designing apropriate spring devices that are
progressively stiff, which is feasible when using
hydropneumatic or air springs.
Pneumatic springs applied to the suspension system will
provide the desired weight-independency of oscillation
frequencies that neither mechanical nor hydropneumatic
systems provide. There are several other advantages of
using semiactive components that we want to
experiment within the future.
Semiactive damping modules are the obvious step for a
passive system that already provides many benefits to
the suspension characterization. The use of such
components can add:
Weight-dependent damping
Adaptive damping

Geometry control is now being studied by many groups
at one axle level. With a centralized system, we can
study the advantages that the full vehicle model analisys
provides.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge the help from the IDIADA team to help
us on the preparation of the instrumented vehicles and
the analisys of the results, as well as the S.I.P. for the aid
in their off-road facilities.
REFERENCES
1. Performance of Limited Bandwidth Active
Suspension Based on a Half Car Model. (S.M. El-
Demersdash, University of Helwan) (981118)
2. Optimization of Active and Passive Suspension
Based on a Full Car Model (ElSayed M. ElBaheiry
and Dean C. Karnopp, University of California
Davis). (951063)
3. Influence of Active Suspensions on the Handling
Behaviour of Vehicles Experimental and
Theoretical results G.Keuper, K.H.Senger, R.Stoller,
R.Walter - Robert Bosch GmbH. (945061)

CONTACT
Josep Fontdecaba, an Industrial Engineer Graduated
from the Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya. Hes
currently leading the development of the CREUAT
suspension system at CREUAT S.L.
JosepF@creuat.com
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
IDIADA AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY, LAlbornar POB
20 E-43710 Santa Oliva (Tarragona) Spain
S.I.P. Outdoor Activities, Carretera s/n 25289 Bassella
(Lleida) Spain.
DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS
System Elasticity: Set of Elasticity values related to all
the vehicle body movements plus axle crossing once we
consider grouped wheel movements for pitch, rebound,
roll and axle crossing.
System Damping: Set of damping values related to all
the vehicle body movements plus axle crossing once we
consider grouped wheel movements for pitch, rebound,
roll and axle crossing
Individual Elasticity: Elasticity related to one wheel
when it moves while the vehicle body and all other
wheels are kept still.
Individual Damping: Desiliency related to one wheel
when it moves while the vehicle body and all other
wheels are kept still.
Isostatic Valve: Valve in the hydraulic version of the
central device that determines whether the suspension
becomes isostatic or not.

SYMBOLS:
steer,Ackermann Steering angle at very low speed
ratio Overall steering ratio
K Understeering gradient
K Roll gradient
K Sideslip gradient
(/)max Maximum of yaw velocity / delta gain
vx, (/)max Forward speed at maximum of (/)max
max Maximum roll angle
ay,max Maximum lateral acceleration
vx,max Maximum forward speed


/ 7
0
/ 7
0
s m
linear
s m

Area between recorded steering angle and
linear regression of steering angle
K / ratio Normalised understeer gradient
K/ / ratio Normalised sideslip gradient
K / (ratio*WB) Steer coefficient (= Stability factor)
K/ / (ratio*WB) Directional coefficient
- All the gradients are calculated with
respect to ay
Notes:
- The linear range has been defined from 0
to 4 m/s