Research Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2017, Vol. 9(8) 1–10
Ó The Author(s) 2017
Reproduction of real-world road DOI: 10.1177/1687814017726004
journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
profiles on a four-poster rig for indoor
vehicle chassis and suspension
durability testing

Daniel Chindamo1, Marco Gadola1 and Felipe P Marchesin2

Abstract
Indoor testing should reproduce the real-world environment in order to be effective. In this article, an efficient metho-
dology to reproduce road profiles on a four-poster rig is presented: such a method includes a complex rig control strat-
egy based on an iterative process. Road profiles come from a purposely designed set of sensors fitted on the car which
remains the same regardless of the vehicle or surface type. Particular stresses such as speed humps, potholes and man-
holes can be reproduced as well. Since there are no previous similar studies, a validation is provided by comparing road
and rig data streams and using the maximum absolute error and root mean square error as performance indexes.
Results show that the rig is able to reproduce road profiles and the related inputs to the vehicle successfully; hence, the
method is reliable and effective.

Keywords
Road reproduction, indoor testing, durability tests, four-poster test rig, chassis and suspensions testing, vehicle ride
testing

Date received: 6 February 2017; accepted: 20 July 2017

Academic Editor: Francesco Massi

Introduction particular, special applications such as motorsport and

Outdoor testing is the best way to prove the reliability
of a vehicle in terms of chassis and suspension durabil-
ity. However, long-term road tests are time-consuming
and expensive. As a matter of fact, current vehicles
show a very low failure probability, for example,
3.53 3 10e25 at 30 3 10e + 4 km.1
Indoor testing is now a consolidated activity, consid-
ered complementary to traditional road testing.
Usually, indoor chassis/suspension tests are performed
in dedicated laboratories by means of very sophisti-
cated rigs and equivalent or accelerated excitations.
According to Shafiullah and Wu,2 a 95% accuracy can
be achieved this way with regard to fatigue and dur-
ability tests.
However, sometimes even more accurate tests are
required in order to achieve fully reliable results. In
military vehicles require a very precise prediction of
their life expectancy, either on the full vehicle or on sys-
tems and components. Accurately reproducing the road
input time history on an indoor test rig is considered a
good strategy to get a reliable fatigue characterization
while saving time and money, as reported in Uberti
1
Department of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering, Automotive
Group, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Polytechnic School, University
of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Corresponding author:
Daniel Chindamo, Department of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering,
Automotive Group, University of Brescia, I-25123 Brescia, Italy.
Email: daniel.chindamo@unibs.it

Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
et al.3 Repeatability is also a significant advantage with
lab testing.
Road profile reproduction on the four poster can be
used for other purposes as well; the literature shows
that it is a key device to evaluate the friction perfor-
mance of a suspension system4 and its behaviour as far
as kinematics and compliance are concerned.5 Comfort
evaluations can also be performed allowing physicians
and engineers to better understand musculoskeletal
and/or physiological issues occurring on people driving
commercial vehicles, trucks and agricultural vehi-
cles,3,6–8 while some studies9–11 show that a four poster
can perform the same evaluations on motorcycles by
means of a purposely designed fixture. Studies9,12,13
also state that the four-poster rig has become a refer-
ence in the field of motorcycle testing.
Apart from durability, the four poster is also used
for many other types of testing such as noise vibration
and harshness (NVH),14 ride comfort,15,16 investigation
of frequency response and vibration modes with reso-
nance tracking17,18 on full vehicles, systems and single
components. It has also been used for the optimization
of vertical dynamics (e.g. for damping fine tuning) and
for active and semi-active suspension testing.19 This
sort of testing is particularly suitable for the validation
of simulation models. In the motorsport area, a so-
called seven-poster rig (i.e. a four poster with additional
actuators for aerodynamic downforce and lateral load
transfer) is often employed for setup optimization, typi-
cally to achieve a stable aerodynamic platform and/or
minimize tyre contact patch load variations, or even
just to measure real-world suspension stiffness, damp-
ing and friction as well as structural stiffness properties.
Inputs like a displacement sine sweep, a ramp or step
can be used as well as full circuit lap time histories.4,13
This article presents a methodology to record and
accurately reproduce real-world road surface profiles,
which are needed as inputs for indoor testing especially
when particular care about accuracy in reflecting real-
world conditions is required. First, the road surface
profile to be reproduced should be recorded using the
same vehicle to be tested. A set of sensors composed of
accelerometers and linear displacement transducers is
required in order to describe road inputs. One acceler-
ometer is fitted on each wheel upright and a linear dis-
placement transducer is fitted on each corner to
measure suspension travel. The installation of such a
set of sensors is meant to be simple and straightfor-
ward. Data are logged by means of a professional por-
table acquisition system and the sensor set remains the
same no matter which is the car or the test surface.
Acceleration and displacement data obtained are used
as a reference for the test rig closed-loop control system,
where vehicle-mounted sensors are part of the feedback
line as described in section ‘Software configuration’.
The test bench itself is a servo-hydraulic four-poster
rig, composed of four actuators which are closed-loop
controlled as well, where the controlled variable is the
piston shaft displacement along the vertical axis for
each vehicle corner. This control loop is part of a com-
plex iterative control system together with a system
identification strategy and the servo-hydraulic actua-
tors controls.
From 1976 onward, when Cryer et al.20 first pub-
lished their strategy for controlling a four poster for
vehicle testing, iterative control applied on automotive
test rigs is well known in the literature.21–23 This kind
of control has been chosen among others24–26 because
it features important advantages. For example, each
cycle starts and ends in a steady-state condition and the
target signals do not have to be targets for the closed-
loop controller variables as reported in Plummer.22
A validation is hence reported in the results section
by comparing ‘real-world’ data from road acquisitions
with ‘reproduced’ data from the test rig. Results show
a very low root mean square (RMS) error between the
two data streams. The difference between actual and
reproduced values is always well under 1%, hence con-
firming effectiveness, accuracy and reliability of the
proposed method. This ability to reproduce the road
environment accurately on a laboratory test rig gives
the development engineer a powerful tool to reduce the
time to market.
This article is organized as follows. The test rig is
briefly presented in section ‘The test rig’. Section
‘Materials and method’ aims at clarifying the rig con-
trol strategy and methods, including the procedure to
obtain road profiles with a simple set of sensors, while a
comparison between road data and reproduced data is
shown in section ‘Results and discussion’. Conclusion
remarks are finally given in section ‘Conclusion’.
The test rig
The so-called four-poster rig is generally used to excite
an unrestrained road vehicle through the tyres in order
to determine some of the dynamic characteristics of the
vehicle, with particular regard to the suspension system.
The excitation can be:
 fed in terms of heave, roll and pitch,
 aimed at resonance frequency tracking,
 aimed at reproducing an acceleration/load his-
tory versus time as recorded in road testing.
It is composed of four pedestals based, servo-
hydraulic linear actuators running on low-friction,
hydrostatic bearings. Each vehicle tyre contact patch
rests on a platform bolted to the actuator shaft. The
actuators are bolted on a seismic base and adjustable in
Chindamo et al.
Table 1. Test rig specifications.
Specification
Piston rod diameter 80 mm
Stroke 150 mm
Rated force capacity 40 kN
Operating pressure 210 bar
Transducer LVDT
Accumulators Pressure: 1 L, Return: 0.5 L
LVDT: linear variable differential transformer.
Figure 1. Four-poster rig.
both the longitudinal and lateral directions to accom-
modate as many different vehicles as possible within a
certain wheelbase and wheel track range. Each actuator
is driven by three servo-valves and equipped with a
membrane-type accumulator to deal with pressure
spikes.
The whole system is fed by its own hydraulic control
unit while the main power unit is equipped with a
150 kW electric motor and operates at 210 bar continu-
ously and up to 400 bar for a limited amount of time.
A feedback signal is provided by a high-precision posi-
tion sensor (linear variable differential transformer
(LVDT) type) fitted in an oil-tight compartment inside
each actuator shaft. Table 1 reports the actuators main
specifications, while Figure 1 shows the test rig layout
and its main components.
Materials and method
Control system hardware setup
Excluding the actuators themselves there are three key
elements to the controller hardware layout. The first is
the computer; this provides the main interface software,
running under WindowsÒ operative system.
Inside the computer, there is a digital signal process-
ing (DSP) card which provides real-time data acquisi-
tion and control for the system. This is linked via a
ribbon cable to the controller chassis, which contains
3
Figure 2. Control system high-level schematics.
16 digital I/O cards and 16 analogue I/O cards. The
controller is then linked to the actuators themselves and
any transducers on the rig, including those mounted on
the test vehicle (see Figure 2 for the control hardware
high-level schematics).
Software configuration
Road reproduction is the process where real-world road
profile data are duplicated on the test rig. The proprie-
tary control system is designed to give the operator
access to power unit control, programming, system
control and data processing in an integrated software
front-end.
Figure 3 shows the key elements in the simulation
process and how the controller guides the system
through a drive file. Normally, the actuator control
variable is the displacement. Four proportional–inte-
gral–derivative (PID) controllers acting in closed-loop
and using the built-in LVDT transducer (see Table 1
and Figure 1) as a feedback line drive the position of
each actuator.
Synchronized data acquisition and control signal
generation capabilities enable an advanced form of
de-convolution process (see equations (7) and (8)) to
identify the system and then produce test rig controller
drive files, as explained in Figure 4. The key elements
of this process are the expected response, the actual sys-
tem response measured through the above mentioned
suspension motion transducers and the inverse system
model.
Theoretically, if a test system is perfectly linear, the
test rig drive file could be generated in just a single pass
through the loop shown in Figure 4. However, real-
world, non-linear systems and inevitably noise require
the test rig drive signal to be generated with more than
one pass through the control loop. The number of itera-
tions required to generate the desired output depends
on the ‘gain’ settings of the control loop and on the
accuracy of the system model. Such a gain is a control
parameter acting only on the road reproduction strat-
egy without affecting the actuator control strategy
(PID).
Table 2 reports the PID tuning parameters used to
vibrate a front-engined car (see section ‘Road profiles
and test vehicle’). The difference between the front and
rear axle actuator pairs in terms of PID parameters is
due to the front-biased weight distribution of the car.
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 3. Simulation process layout.

Figure 4. Iteration loop scheme.

Table 2. PID’s tuning parameters. model of the system and the system matrix. The model
includes the test rig, test vehicle and all the control
Parameter Symbol Gain values hardware and response transducers. In order to create
Front Rear the model, a white noise signal is used to excite the test
rig and the resulting test response is collected. The
Proportional Kp 715 655 white noise drive file and the test system response file
Integral Ki 397 342
Derivative Kd 188 160 are then used to create a general system model, or
matrix. Finally, an inverse form of the model, called
the inverse system matrix, is calculated; this is then
used to generate a trial test rig drive file required to
System model
achieve the expected response. Referring to Figure 5,
The first step in the iterative road reproduction process the complete system mathematical model involved in
– reported in Figure 4 – is to create a mathematical the process is presented in the following equations:
Chindamo et al. 5

x_ ðtÞ = A  xðtÞ + B  uðtÞ ð5Þ

The state vector is therefore
2 3 2 3
u_ u_
6 u_ 7 6 u_ 7
6 7 6 7
6 xm 7 6 xm 7
6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7
6 xm_ 7 6 xm_ 7
6 7 6 7
6 xm1 7 6 xm1 7
6 7 6 7
6 xm2 7 6 xm2 7
6 7 6 7
6 xm3 7 6 xm3 7
6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7
6 xm4 7 6 xm4 7
x ðt Þ = 6
6
7and since the control system is digital :xðk Þ = 6
7 6
7
7
Figure 5. Complete system model scheme. 6 x1 7 6 x1 7
6 7 6 7
6 x_ 1 7 6 x_ 1 7
6 7 6 7
6 x2 7 6 x2 7
6 7 6 7
6 x_ 2 7 6 x_ 2 7
6 7 6 7
Pitch movement of sprung mass 6 7 6 7
6 x3 7 6 x3 7
6 7 6 7
6 x_ 3 7 6 x_ 3 7
6 7 6 7
4 x_ 4 5 4 x_ 4 5
Iyy  u
€  a  c1  ðxm_ 1  x_ 1 Þ  a  c2  ðxm_ 2  x_ 2 Þ
x_ 4 x_ 4
+ b  c3  ðxm_ 3  x_ 3 Þ + b  c4  ðxm_ 4  x_ 4 Þ
ð1Þ ð6Þ
 a  k1  ðxm1  x1 Þ  a  k2  ðxm2  x2 Þ
+ b  k3  ðxm3  x3 Þ + b  k4  ðxm4  x4 Þ = 0 Matrices A (16 3 16) and B (16 3 4) are not
reported for the sake of brevity but they can be derived
Roll movement of sprung mass from equations (1) to (4), again with reference to
Figure 5. Finally, as stated in section ‘Software config-
t uration’, u(t) is a white noise function for the first itera-
Ixx  €
u+ 
2 tion only which in turn is the iterative de-convolution
½c1  ðxm_ 1  x_ 1 Þ + c3  ðxm_ 3  x_ 3 Þ  c2  ðxm_ 2  x_ 2 Þ process for the system identification previously men-
c4  ðxm_ 4  x_ 4 Þ + k1  ðxm1  x1 Þ + k3  ðxm3  x3 Þ tioned in section ‘Software configuration’. The de-
convolution process allows to estimate the x() matrices
k2  ðxm2  x2 Þ  k4  ðxm4  x4 Þ = 0 without moving to the transform domain.
ð2Þ The general form of this system identification pro-
cess can be written as follows
Vertical movement of sprung mass (heave)
X
n
yðnÞ = xðk Þ  hðn  k Þ ð7Þ
m  xm
€ + c1  ðxm_ 1  x_ 1 Þ + c2  ðxm_ 2  x_ 2 Þ k =0

+ c3  ðxm_ 3  x_ 3 Þ + c4  ðxm_ 4  x_ 4 Þ + k1  ðxm1  x1 Þ For n = 0

+ k2  ðxm2  x2 Þ + k3  ðxm3  x3 Þ
yð0Þ
+ k4  ðxm4  x4 Þ = 0 yð0Þ = xð0Þ  hð0Þ ! xð0Þ =
hð0Þ
ð3Þ
For n = 1
Vertical movement of each corner (unsprung mass)
yð1Þ = xð0Þ  hð1Þ + xð1Þ  hð0Þ ! xð1Þ
yð1Þ  xð0Þ  hð1Þ
mi  €xi  ci  ðxm_ i  x_ i Þ  ki  ðxmi  xi Þ =
hð0Þ
+ kti  ðxi  u1 Þ = 0, i = 1, 2, 3, 4 ð4Þ
For n = 2
Please note that m is the sprung mass of the vehicle
while mi are the four unsprung masses. ci are the dam- yð2Þ = xð0Þ  hð2Þ + xð1Þ  hð1Þ + xð2Þ  hð2Þ ! xð2Þ
pers friction coefficient, ki are the suspension stiffness yð2Þ  xð1Þ  hð1Þ  xð0Þ  hð2Þ
values while kti represents the tyre vertical stiffness. =
hð0Þ
Finally, Ixx and Iyy are respectively the sprung mass roll
inertia and pitch inertia. Please note that h() and y() are respectively the
Considering now the general form of a state-space white noise system response and the system output. In
model, equations from equations (1) to (4) can be general, x(n) can be derived rewriting the convolution
expressed in the space-state form as follows sum as follows
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 3. Test performed.

Test Surface/stress Speed (km/h)

1 Asphalt 50
2 Gravel (raw) 15
3 Pavé 30
4 Speed hump 20

X
n
yðnÞ = xðnÞ  hð0Þ + xðk Þ  hðn  k Þ ! xðnÞ
k =0
Pn1 ð8Þ
yðnÞ  k=0 xðk Þ  hðn  k Þ
=
hð0Þ

Figure 7. FFT plot for each surface.

Set of sensors
As stated in section ‘Introduction’, a specific sensor
setup for the road profile acquisition has been designed
to be affordable and simple. The sensors required are
basically single-axis accelerometers and linear displace-
ment transducers, typically MEMS accelerometers
(range up to 100 Hz), and linear potentiometers fit very
well with these specific needs.
The vehicle to be tested must be equipped with an
accelerometer and a potentiometer for each corner, that
means eight sensors overall. The accelerometers are
fitted on each unsprung mass therefore on the wheel
upright.
It is worth to highlight that there is no need to mea-
sure a fully accurate value of the vertical acceleration
and displacement for a specific road surface since the
test rig control system closes its feedback loop directly
on the vehicle-mounted sensors, as clarified in section Figure 6. Proving surfaces – 1: asphalt; 2: gravel; 3: pave; 4:
‘Software configuration’. Hence, a time-consuming speed hump.
aligning procedure is not required, provided the sensor
installation and layout remain the very same along the
whole process, that is, outdoor data acquisition phase The choice of different road surfaces at different
then rig calibration. That is to say, sensors have to be speeds comes from the necessity to test the effectiveness
rigidly and securely fixed to the vehicle, to ensure of the road reproduction process for various levels of
repeatability. road energy input and in a reasonably wide target fre-
A professional on-board data acquisition system quency range. The test vehicle was a standard BMW
stores all the data coming from the sensors in a single 3-series, MY 2010 (E91).
file which will be the target for the test rig control sys-
tem. After trial and error testing, the best logging fre-
quency was found to be 1 kHz. Results and discussion
For the sake of brevity only, the front left corner will
Road profiles and test vehicle be considered in this section. In any case, the system
Several tests performed at constant speed on different performance is comparable on all four corners. Figures
road surfaces have been carried out to prove the effec- 7–10 report comparisons between real-world and rig-
tiveness of the proposed method. Table 3 reports the generated road profile displacement data. It is worth to
complete list of tests performed while Figure 6 shows highlight that the difference between time histories of
the surfaces and Figure 7 reports FFT plots for each road and rig profiles is not visible when overlapping
surface. the two data streams because the system performance
Chindamo et al. 7

Figure 8. Test on asphalt surface at 50 km/h constant.

Figure 9. Test on gravel surface at 15 km/h constant.

8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 10. Test performed on paved surface at 30 km/h constant.

Figure 11. Test performed on a speed hump at 20 km/h constant.

Chindamo et al.
Table 4. Errors summary.
Test Acceleration MAE Displacement MAE
1 0.32% 0.25%
2 0.57% 0.66%
3 0.44% 0.48%
4 0.95% 0.98%
MAE: maximum absolute error; RMS: root mean square.
is very good. Therefore, the absolute error has been
reported for each sensor as well. Also, RMS errors
have been reported in Table 4 for completeness.
The test performed on good quality (smooth) road
pavement at 50 km/h is reported in Figure 8. It shows
very low acceleration and displacement levels. Under
these conditions, the system can replicate road data
very well, the maximum absolute error (MAE) being
0.32% for unsprung mass acceleration and 0.25% for
displacement.
Figure 9 shows the test performed on an off-road
gravel surface. In this case, amplitudes are higher as
expected and many other frequencies come into play.
Under these conditions, errors are slightly higher but
still very low.
Results of the test carried out on the paved surface
are shown in Figure 10. In this case, inputs coming
from the road are lower in terms of amplitude to those
of Figure 8 but at higher frequencies. Errors are still
well under 1%.
Finally, in Figure 11, results of the test performed
on a speed hump are shown. Data represent something
very similar to an impulse, under this condition the
worst reproduction performance occurs: acceleration
MAE is 0.95% while displacement MAE is 0.98%.
Table 4 summarizes the errors for each single road
reproduction test.
Conclusion
In this article, a method to record and reproduce road
profiles and vertical inputs on an indoor test rig has
been presented. The road surface acquisition method is
effective but also very cheap because only two common
transducers per corner are required: a single axis accel-
erometer and a potentiometer. The test rig hardware is
very simple as well and the MATLABÒ-based iterative
control system has been proven to be fully reliable.
Servo hydraulic control loop is very easy to set up and
tune since it is based on a closed-loop PID controller
which acts only on the actuator’s displacement, result-
ing in a more time-saving procedure.
Validation has been provided comparing real-world
data and test rig data; results show that maximum errors
are around 1% during every test, even during special
9
Acceleration RMS Displacement RMS
0.18% 0.16%
0.18% 0.20%
0.19% 0.23%
0.35% 0.33%
surfaces reproduction such as speed humps. Moreover, a
correlation between the error and the energy contribu-
tion of the surface to be reproduced (see Figure 7) can be
seen. The higher is the energy contribution of the road
surface, the higher will be the error.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
1. Makoto A. Bayesian analysis for the results of fatigue
test using full-scale models to obtain the accurate failure
probabilities of the Shinkansen vehicle axle. Reliab Eng
Syst Safe 2002; 75: 321–332.
2. Shafiullah AKM and Wu CQ. Generation and validation
of loading profiles for highly accelerated durability tests
of ground vehicle components. Eng Fail Anal 2013; 33:
1–16.
3. Uberti S, Gadola M, Chindamo D, et al. Design of a
double wishbone front suspension for an orchard/vine-
yard tractor: a kinematic analysis. J Terramechanics
2015; 57: 23–39.
4. Benini C, Gadola M, Chindamo D, et al. The influence
of suspension component friction on race car vertical
dynamics. Vehicle Syst Dyn 2016; 55: 1–13.
5. Marchesin FP, Gadola M, Benini C, et al. Upright
mounted pushrod: the effects on racecar handling
dynamics. In: Proceedings of the 24th international sym-
posium on dynamics of vehicles on roads and tracks, Graz,
Austria, 17–21 August 2015. Taylor & Francis.
6. Jayasurya HPW and Sangpradit K. Dynamic perfor-
mance and ride comfort evaluation of the seat suspension
system in a small agricultural tractor to attenuate low-
frequency vibration transmission. Agric Eng Int: CIGR J
2014; 16: 207–216.
7. Matthews J. An analogue computer investigation of the
potential improvement in tractor ride afforded by a flex-
ible front axle. J Agric Eng Res 1967; 12: 48–54.
8. Rill G, Salg D and Wilks E. Improvement of dynamic
wheel loads and ride quality of heavy agricultural
10
tractors by suspending front axles. In: Proceedings of the
3rd international symposium on heavy vehicle weights and
dimensions, Queens College, Cambridge, 28 June–2 July
1992. London: ICE Virtual Library.
9. Kharul R, Balakrishnan S, Karedla D, et al. Virtual test-
ing and correlation for a motorcycle design. SAE Int J
Mater Manuf 2010; 3: 541–549.
10. Uberti S and Gadola M. Design of a new high-end street
bike. In: 11th international design conference, DESIGN
2010, Dubrovnik, 17–20 May 2010, pp.1741–1752. Bris-
tol: Design Society Administration.
11. Tuluie R and Ericksen GS. Racing motorcycle design
process using physical and virtual testing methods (SAE
technical paper). In: Motorsports engineering conference
and exposition, Dearborn, MI, 13–16 November 2000.
Warrendale, PA: SAE.
12. Spickenreuther M, Bersiner F and Fricke E. Realistic
driving experience of new vehicle concepts on the BMW
ride simulator. SAE technical paper 2012-01-1548, 2012.
13. Cambiaghi D, Gadola M and Vetturi D. Suspension sys-
tem testing and tuning with the use of a four-post rig. In:
Motorsports engineering conference and exposition, Dear-
born, MI, 16–19 November 1998. Warrendale, PA: SAE.
14. Vanhees IG and Maes IM. Vehicle suspension characteri-
sation by using road simulation on a 4 poster test rig. In:
Proceedings of the 2002 international conference on noise
and vibration engineering, ISMA, Leuven, 16–18 Septem-
ber 2002. Leuven: KU Leuven.
15. Ibicek T and Thite AN. In situ measurement of discom-
fort curves for seated subjects in a car on the four-post
rig. Adv Acoust Vib 2014; 2014: Article 239178.
16. Ibicek T and Thite AN. Quantification of human discom-
fort in a vehicle using a four-post rig excitation. J Low
Freq Noise V A 2012; 31: 29–42.
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
17. Karajagikar JS, Rajhans NR, Ahuja BB, et al. Vibration
analysis on driver seat for small cars (SAE technical
papers). In: Symposium on international automotive tech-
nology, SIAT 2011, Pune, India, 19–22 January 2011.
Warrendale, PA: SAE.
18. Goktan AG and Yetkin A. Road load data estimation on
multiaxial test rigs for exhaust system vibrations (SAE
technical paper). In: SAE 2002 world congress, Detroit,
MI, 4–7 March 2002. Warrendale, PA: SAE.
19. Czop P and Sqawik D. A high-frequency first-principle
model of a shock absorber and servo-hydraulic tester.
Mech Syst Signal Pr 2011; 25: 1937–1955.
20. Cryer BW, Nawrocki PE and Lund RA. Road simula-
tion system for heavy duty vehicles. SAE technical paper
760361, 1976.
21. Dursun U and Bayram T. Tracking control solution for
road simulators: model-based iterative learning control
approach improved by time-domain modelling. Gazi Univ
J Sci 2012; 25: 435–446.
22. Plummer AR. Control techniques for structural testing: a
review. Proc IMechE, Part I: J Systems and Control Engi-
neering 2007; 221: 139–169.
23. Hay NC and Roberts DE. Iterative control in automotive
testing. Proc IMechE, Part I: J Systems and Control Engi-
neering 2007; 221: 223–233.
24. Dodds C and Plummer A. Laboratory road simulation
for full vehicle testing: a review. SAE technical paper
2001-26-0047, 2001. DOI: 10.4271/2001-26-0047.
25. Chen J-Y, Wang H-D, Zhou J-C, et al. Progress in multi-
exciter vibration testing control technology. J Vib Shock
2011; 30: 69–73.
26. Gizatullin AO and Edge KA. Adaptive control for a
multi-axis hydraulic test rig. Proc IMechE, Part I: J Sys-
tems and Control Engineering 2007; 221: 183–198.