SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES 2006-01-1950

Influence of Suspension Properties

on Vehicle Roll Stability
Taehyun Shim and Pradheep C Velusamy
University of Michigan-Dearborn

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
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

Influence of Suspension Properties on Vehicle Roll Stability
Copyright © 2006 SAE International
ABSTRACT
Vehicle roll dynamics is strongly influenced by
suspension properties such as roll center height, roll
steer and roll camber. In this paper, the effects of
suspension properties on vehicle roll response has been
investigated using a multi-body vehicle dynamics
program.
A full vehicle model equipped with front MacPherson
and rear multilink suspensions has been used for the
study. Roll dynamics of the vehicle were evaluated by
performing fixed timing fishhook maneuver in the
simulation. Variations of vehicle roll response due to
changes in the suspension properties were assessed by
quantitatively analyzing the vehicle response through
simulation.
Critical suspension design parameters for vehicle roll
dynamics were identified and adjusted to improve roll
stability of the vehicle model with passive suspension.
Design of Experiments has been used for identifying
critical hardpoints affecting the suspension parameters
and optimization techniques were employed for
parameter optimization. This approach provides a viable
alternative to costlier active control systems for economy
class vehicles.
INTRODUCTION
With the growing popularity of Sports Utility Vehicles
(SUVs) and concomitantly increasing rollover accidents,
the reduction of vehicle rollover propensity has become
a hot research area in recent years to improve occupant
safety. Due to the high fatality rate of rollover crashes,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
has established a rollover resistance rating test as part
of its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) for
passenger vehicles that includes Sports Utility Vehicles
(SUVs). It is based on a five-star rating system, called
the Rollover Resistance Rating and designed to provide
an estimate of the rollover risk in single vehicle
accidents.
Research of active roll control system to reduce vehicle
rollover propensity is mainly focused on two areas. One
1
2006-01-1950
Taehyun Shim and Pradheep C. Velusamy
University of Michigan-Dearborn
is rollover warning system and the other is anti-rollover
system. The warning systems use a prediction algorithm
to determine the risk of impending rollover using vehicle
roll angle and lateral acceleration as inputs. They give a
warning when the signals exceed the pre-selected
threshold values so that the driver can take corrective
action to avert a rollover. The importance of accurately
predicting an impending rollover has prompted the
discovery of a number of prediction methods that have
been introduced in recent years [1-4]. The anti-rollover
system reported in literature [5-12] can be categorized
into about four different types based on its actuation
schemes: four wheel steering [5], active suspension [6-
7], active roll-bar [8-9], and differential brake [10-12].
Although active roll control systems in heavy trucks,
buses, and SUVs have shown potential for improvement
in vehicle roll dynamics, it requires additional sensors,
actuators, and sophisticated control algorithms. Not all
vehicles can afford active chassis systems to improve
roll stability. For economy class vehicles, it is highly
desirable if improved roll dynamics can be achieved by
adjusting vehicle design parameters. It is well known
that the vehicle roll motion is strongly influenced by
suspension design parameters such as roll stiffness, roll
center height, lateral load transfer, cornering forces, etc.
Thus, it is possible to alter vehicle roll dynamics by
changing certain suspension parameters. For instance,
the rollover resistance of two vehicles, which have the
same c.g. height and track width can differ according to
their suspension design parameters.
There have been some reported works that investigate
the effect of vehicle parameters on rollover propensity
[13-14] based on low order vehicle models. However,
there is a lack of public domain research to improve
vehicle rollover resistance passively, especially by
adjusting suspension design parameters with multi-body
based vehicle model. The tuning of these parameters to
improve rollover resistance must be done carefully to
preserve reasonable directional vehicle responses.
This paper investigates the feasibility of vehicle rollover
resistance improvement by adjusting suspension design
parameters without significantly deteriorating handling
characteristics of the vehicle. Thus, minimizing roll in
fishhook maneuver is not the only objective, but also the
vehicle understeer should be within acceptable range.
Understeer gradient is checked using the Constant
Velocity test in this study.
The paper begins with the details of the validated multi-
body vehicle model. The methodology adopted for this
paper is discussed briefly, including the use of Design of
Experiments. Individual parameter optimization is
discussed in detail including simulation and results. This
is followed by the combined parameter optimization. The
vehicle and suspension parameters of the vehicle model
are listed in the Appendix.
Figure 1 - Schematics of front MacPherson (top) and rear
Multilink (bottom) suspensions
2
VEHICLE MODEL
Development of suspension system is an iterative
process and Multi-body Dynamic Simulation (MDS)
models are useful to evaluate and optimize important
suspension component specifications [15]. An MDS
vehicle model of a passenger sedan, with a MacPherson
front suspension and a multilink suspension at the rear
including front and rear anti-roll bars was developed
using ADAMS/Car for this study. Figure 1 shows the
schematic of front and rear suspensions. The responses
of this model were validated with measured data
including Kinematics & Compliance (K&C) test and
dynamic step steer test. Figure 2 shows validated toe
and camber curves for MacPherson suspension.
Detailed vehicle parameters are provided in the
Appendix. Moments of inertia values for the vehicle
model were calculated using regression equations [16].
Figure 2 - Validated toe and camber curves of MacPherson
suspension
ROLLOVER EVALUATION
A fixed timing fishhook maneuver was used for
evaluating roll stability of the vehicle model in this paper.
A fixed timing fishhook consists of an initial steering
input followed by a dwell time of 250 milliseconds [17]. A
counter steering input of equal magnitude follows the
dwell time, which is again followed by a 3 second pause,
as shown in Figure 3a. Steering input magnitudes are
calculated by multiplying the steering wheel angle that
produces 0.3 g lateral acceleration in the Slowly
Increasing Steer (SIS) maneuver by a scalar of 6.5.
Steering wheel angle magnitude of 18.5 degrees that
produces 0.3 g lateral acceleration in SIS maneuver for
the developed vehicle model is shown in Figure 3b.
Termination condition for the fishhook maneuver was set
as at least two inches of the two-wheel lift [17].
Figure 3a - Steering input for fishhook
Figure 3b – Lateral acceleration in the Slowly Increasing
Steer (SIS) maneuver at 50 mph
Since the developed vehicle model does not lift off
during fishhook test (speed range of 35 to 50 mph), CG
height of the vehicle model was raised from 663 to 763
mm in fully loaded condition in order to investigate the
effects of suspension design on fishhook response. With
this modification, lift off speed of the vehicle model is
now 42 mph. Normal forces of the inside wheels are
evaluated to check if they lift off during the fishhook
maneuver, i.e. if both normal forces go to zero as shown
in Figure 4a. In addition, markers were created at wheel
centers in the vehicle model to measure its vertical
movement from the ground as shown in Figure 4b. If the
wheel center rises more than 50.8 mm (2 inches) above
its static value, the wheel is considered to lift off.
3
Figure 4a - Right tire normal forces in fishhook maneuver
Figure 4b – Height of right wheel centers above ground
EVALUATION OF SUSPENSION DESIGN
PARAMETERS
Suspension geometry is primarily characterized by five
dominant parameters: toe, camber and roll center height
for both front and rear suspensions, and caster and
kingpin inclination angles (KPI) for the front suspension.
All these parameters and their change in wheel travel
(bump/rebound) affect dynamic response of the vehicle
in roll or handling or both. The location of hardpoints
determines static values and change in wheel travel for
these suspension parameters. Hardpoints are the most
elementary building blocks in ADAMS/Car that define
and parameterize all key locations in the model [18]. The
primary objective of this paper is to investigate the
influence of these suspension parameters on roll stability
and to adjust the dominant parameters by changing
hardpoints to maximize fishhook lift off speed without
significantly affecting vehicle understeer. This was
accomplished in three major stages and the steps
involved in the process are explained in the flowchart in
Figure 5.

Figure 5 - Methodology adopted in optimizing suspension
parameters
1. HARDPOINTS SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS – Design of
Experiments (DOE) is being increasingly used for
identification and optimization of design parameters to
improve system performance. Using DOE tool
ADAMS/Insight, all suspension hardpoints were
assessed for their influence on suspension design
parameters (toe, camber, roll center height, etc.). The
effects of individual suspension hardpoints on these
design parameters are evaluated and most dominant
hardpoints are identified.
The type of experiment to be used for screening
depends on the number of factors used and number of
levels (2-level, quadratic, cubic etc.). The full factorial
experiment is the most thorough approach for screening,
but is seldom used for screening of high number of
factors, as was the case in this study. Fractional factorial
experiment is a variation of full factorial design, where
only a subset of the runs is made. Fractional factorial
design is adopted in this paper for screening
experiments. All hardpoints in the suspension
(MacPherson or multilink) are chosen as factors for
fractional factorial screening and 2 levels are set for
each factor.
2. HARDPOINTS ADJUSTMENT - The critical
(dominant) hardpoints obtained from DOE screening are
then adjusted to produce the suspension characteristics
that improve vehicle roll stability during fishhook
maneuver. An important consideration in this stage is to
ensure that when one design parameter is changed, the
other parameters remain unaffected, so that the
4
observed difference in fishhook response is only due to
the changed parameter and not due to change of
combined parameters.
3. SUSPENSION PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION- Once
significant improvement is observed in fishhook
response by varying the suspension parameters, the
degree of change is optimized to result in best fishhook
response, i.e. highest lift off speed (vs). Understeer
gradient (K) in constant velocity test is simultaneously
checked to ensure it increases less than 10% of its
original value.
Response Surface Methods (RSM) available in
ADAMS/Insight was used for optimization. RSM is a
collection of mathematical and statistical techniques
used for modeling and analysis of problems in which the
response of interest is influenced by several factors. The
first step in RSM is to find an approximation for the
functional relationship between response and the set of
independent factors [19]. To account for curvature in the
system, a second order polynomial is used for fitting the
response as given in Equation 1. ADAMS/Insight uses
the method of least squares to estimate the parameters
in the polynomial [20].
k k
y E 0  ¦ E i xi  ¦ E ii xi 2  ¦¦ E ij xi x j   (1)
i 1 i 1 i j
INDIVIDUAL PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION
ROLL STEER - Roll steer is the steering motion of the
front or rear wheels with respect to the sprung mass that
is due to the rolling motion of the sprung mass [21].
Wheels on independent suspensions usually have
varying toe angle with bump-travel kinematics. On a
front independent suspension in roll, if the outer bump-
traveling wheel goes into toe-out and the inner
rebounding wheel goes into toe-in, the vehicle
understeers [22]. Conversely, for the rear axle, the outer
wheel should go into toe-in and inner wheel into toe-out
to produce understeer. Contribution of roll steer to
understeer gradient is given in Equation 2 [21].
wI
K rollsteer (H f  H r ) (2).
wa y
In the front MacPherson suspension of the vehicle
model, the wheel in bump goes into toe-out and the
rebounding wheel goes into toe-in, resulting in
understeer. The most critical hardpoints affecting toe
change in wheel travel for MacPherson and multilink
suspensions are obtained from DOE screening and are
listed in Table 1. tierod_inner and tierod_outer
hardpoints are known to be the most dominant
hardpoints affecting toe change in MacPherson
suspension and therefore were neglected from this
screening experiment.
Table 1 - Hardpoints affecting toe change in MacPherson and
multilink suspensions

Figure 6 shows the changes tried for toe angle in wheel

travel for MacPherson suspension. Toe change is first
decreased from the original curve, which is expected to
result in less understeer. It is then increased
incrementally in three steps until the toe change is
almost double the original curve. During all these
changes in toe, change in camber, roll center height,
caster and KPI were kept constant as seen in Figure 7.
This means that whatever change observed in the
fishhook maneuver is only due to toe change in wheel
travel. This procedure is ensured throughout individual
parameter optimization in this study. Hardpoint
modifications leading to toe change for MacPherson
suspension are listed in Table 2.

Figure 6 - Toe angle change vs. wheel travel for

MacPherson suspension

Table 2 Hardpoint modifications for toe change in MacPherson

suspension

(numbers 1 to 5 in row 1 refer to curves in Figure 6)

Roll angle response in fishhook maneuver for different

cases of toe change in MacPherson suspension is
shown in Figure 8. It is clearly seen that case 4
produces the least roll angle in fishhook, lesser than
case 5 around 2 seconds in the fishhook maneuver. This
translates to higher lift off speed for case 4 of 45 mph, 3
mph higher than the original lift off speed of 42 mph.
Also, this improvement in roll response is achieved with
minimal effect on understeer, i.e. the understeer gradient
increases negligibly from 2.12 to 2.14 deg/g for case 4
(+1%) as shown in Figure 9.
Figure 7 - Verification of unchanged suspension
parameters for toe change in MacPherson suspension

5

Figure 8 - Roll Angle in fishhook for toe change in
MacPherson
Figure 9 - Control sensitivity in Constant Velocity test for
toe change in MacPherson
For the rear multilink suspension, according to test data,
the wheel in bump goes to toe-in and the wheel in
rebound goes to toe-out, again resulting in understeer.
Results from DOE screening in Table 1 show the most
critical hardpoints affecting toe change in wheel travel
for multilink suspension.
Figure 10 - Toe angle change in wheel travel for multilink
suspension
6
Figure 10 shows the changes tried out for toe angle in
wheel travel for multilink suspension. Toe is first
increased from its original curve and later decreased
until it is almost equal in magnitude but opposite in
direction to the original direction, i.e. wheel in bump
goes to toe-out and wheel in rebound goes to toe-in,
similar to the front MacPherson. One hardpoint was
modified to result in these toe changes as listed in Table
3.
Table 3 Hardpoint modifications for toe change in multilink
suspension
For the multilink suspension, roll angle response in
fishhook maneuver for different cases of toe change is
shown in Figure 11. Roll angle is lower for case 4 which
translates to a significant increase in lift off speed from
42 to 52 mph. The understeer gradient for this case
increases by 7.5%.
Figure 11 - Roll Angle in fishhook for toe change in
multilink
Discussion - Improvement in fishhook roll response
through optimizing roll steer (toe change) is primarily
due to increase in understeer tendency. This can be
seen in both MacPherson and multilink suspensions
where increase in lift off speeds by 3 mph and 10 mph
are accompanied by increase in understeer gradient by
1% and 8% respectively. However, the understeer
increase is not too high, because too much understeer
will result in higher steering wheel angle in slowly
increasing steer (SIS), leading to higher steering wheel
input in fishhook maneuver, resulting in poor fishhook
response. Thus the fishhook maneuver is a good check
against improving roll response at the cost of very large
understeer gradients. Also, changing toe direction in rear
multilink suspension works good for the fishhook
response, increasing the lift-off speed from 42 to 52
mph.
ROLL CAMBER - Camber angle contributes to
generating cornering force, as shown in Equation 3, and
is called camber thrust. Camber thrust is generated in
the direction of tire lean. Positive camber thrust (outside
wheel leaning in and inside wheel leaning out) adds to
the tire lateral force, decreasing understeer. Conversely,
negative camber thrust (outside wheel leaning out and
inside wheel leaning in) aids understeer.

Fy CD D  CJ J (3).

Both in front MacPherson and rear multilink

suspensions, the outside wheel in bump goes into
negative camber and inside wheel in rebound goes into
positive camber, resulting in positive camber thrust and
thus less understeer. This is common practice in camber
design for passenger cars [22]. Dominant hardpoints
affecting camber change in wheel travel for MacPherson
and multilink suspensions are listed in Table 4.

Table 4 - Hardpoints affecting camber change in MacPherson and

multilink suspensions

Figure 12 shows different camber curves tried for the

MacPherson front suspension. Camber is first increased,
and then decreased in steps until camber in bump is
close to zero. Negligible change in other suspension
parameters is seen in Figure 13. Hardpoints modified to
result in these camber curves, and to keep the other
parameters constant, are listed in Table 5. Figure 14
shows similar changes tried for camber change in
multilink rear suspension and Table 6 lists the modified
hardpoints.

Figure 12 - Camber change vs. wheel travel for

MacPherson suspension

Figure 13 - Unchanged suspension parameters for

camber change in MacPherson suspension

7
Table 5 Hardpoint modifications for camber change
MacPherson suspension
Table 6 Hardpoint modifications for camber change in multilink
suspension
Figure 14 - Camber change in wheel travel for multilink
suspension
Roll angle for case 5 is the least for different camber
curves in MacPherson suspension, as seen in Figure 15.
The lift off speed increases from 42 to 48 mph at the
cost of understeer gradient increasing by 6% to 2.24
deg/g.
Figure 15 - Roll Angle in fishhook for camber change in
MacPherson
Case 5 produces the least roll angle for different camber
curves in multilink suspension as seen in Figure 16. But
both case 4 and case 5 result in the same increase in lift
off speed from 42 to 46 mph. Since case 4 is closer to
in
Figure 16 - Roll Angle in fishhook for camber change in
multilink
original camber curve than case 5 as seen in Figure 14,
case 4 was chosen as the optimum curve. Surprisingly,
the handling characteristics hardly change for case 4,
with the understeer gradient remaining at 2.12 deg/g.
Discussion - Roll angle response improves due to roll
camber again by increasing the understeer gradient
marginally. Decreasing the camber curve results in less
positive camber thrust, and thus more understeer.
ROLL CENTER HEIGHT - Roll center is a point in the
transverse vertical plane through any pair of wheel
centers at which lateral forces may be applied to the
sprung mass without producing suspension roll [23].
Increasing the roll center height has both positive and
negative influences on vehicle roll stability. While a high
roll center reduces vehicle roll angle by decreasing roll
moment arm h1, they tend to increase jacking forces and
hence increase the vehicle CG during cornering [24].
Figure 17 - Front Roll Center Height change for
MacPherson suspension
Original roll center height of the front MacPherson
suspension is 96.3 mm. Roll center height of
MacPherson suspension is increased and decreased in
steps of 20% and 40% as shown in Figure 17.
8
Figure 18 shows the roll angle response in fishhook for
different cases of roll center height change in
MacPherson suspension. It is clearly seen that
increasing roll center height by 20% is the only case
where roll angle is less than the original. Lift off speed
increases from 42 to 48 mph for this case, with a
negligible increase in understeer gradient by 1.5%.
Similar changes to the roll center height of rear multilink
suspension produced no significant improvement in
fishhook lift-off speed.

Figure 19 - Caster change for MacPherson suspension

Figure 18 - Roll Angle in fishhook for front roll center

height change in MacPherson

Discussion - Increasing the front roll center height by

20% results in the best fishhook roll response. This
improvement could be explained by the fact that this
height is the optimum between less roll moment and
high jacking forces due to raising roll center height [24].
This explains the reason why raising front roll center
height by 40% is not as beneficial as raising it by 20%,
i.e. jacking forces at 40% increase could be very high
that negate the improvement due to less roll moment.
CASTER ANGLE - Caster angle is the angle, viewed in
side elevation, between the vertical and the steering axis
[25]. It is positive when the steering axis intersects the
ground plane ahead of the vertical through the wheel
center, resulting in positive caster trail, or mechanical
trail. Positive caster combined with forward motion
causes the steered wheels to self-center when the
vehicle has forward velocity. Typical caster angles are
around 1-20 for passenger cars [25].
Original caster angle for the vehicle model is 1.040 and it
is first decreased to 0.530 and then increased in steps to
1.310, 1.580 and 1.810 as shown in Figure 19.
Figure 20 shows the roll angle response in fishhook for
different cases of caster angle in MacPherson
suspension. It can be seen that roll angle is the least for
the highest caster angle – case 5. Lift-off speed
increases significantly from 42 to 51 mph for this caster
change.
9
Figure 20 - Roll Angle in fishhook for caster change in
MacPherson
Discussion - Higher caster angle results in higher caster
trail, which leads to high self-centering torque. For the
same steering wheel input, this increase in self-centering
torque results in the tendency of the turning wheels to
turn away from the corner, or understeer. This explains
the significant improvement in fishhook response due to
higher caster angles, i.e. increasing caster angle from 1
to 1.80 increases understeer from 2.12 deg/g to 2.14
deg/g (+1%), thus improving roll response and
increasing lift-off speed significantly from 42 to 51 mph.
KINGPIN INCLINATION ANGLE - Kingpin Inclination
(KPI) is the angle, viewed in end elevation, between the
vertical and the steering axis. Positive KPI is in the
opposite sense to positive camber angle [25]. Typical
values of KPI for passenger cars are in the range 110 to
15030’ [22]. A higher KPI results in less understeer [26].
Original KPI of the vehicle model is 13.30 and it is first
increased to 15.50 and then decreased to 110 as seen in
Figure 21.
Roll angle change is minimum for different cases of KPI
change in MacPherson suspension, as seen in the
fishhook response in Figure 22. Decreasing the KPI from
13.3 to 110 increases the lift off speed marginally by 1
mph, but increases the understeer gradient by 3% to
2.19 deg/g.

Discussion - Higher KPI has a tendency to reduce

understeer [26]. This is reflected in the results where
reducing the KPI from 13.3 to 110 increases understeer
by 3%, also resulting in a marginal improvement in lift-off
speed by 1 mph. However, the improvement in fishhook
response due to KPI is not as significant as that due to
camber or caster change.

Figure 21 - KPI change for MacPherson

Figure 22 - Roll angle in fishhook for KPI change in

MacPherson Figure 23 - Suspension parameter change in
MacPherson combined parameter optimization

COMBINED PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION
The optimization tool available in ADAMS/Insight was
used for combined parameter optimization. Critical
hardpoints affecting each of the parameters discussed
before were used as factors for the optimization as listed
in Table 7. Maximum roll angle during fishhook
Table 7 Hardpoints used as factors for MacPherson combined
parameter optimization
maneuver is defined as the response and the objective
is to minimize roll angle. Response Surface Methods
(RSM) were used for the optimization run and full
factorial method was used with quadratic runs, i.e. -1, 0
and +1. Hardpoint coordinates that would result in
minimum roll angle are obtained automatically from
ADAMS/Insight optimization and are listed in Table 8.
Only toe, camber and caster are significantly affected
due to these automatic hardpoint changes as seen in
Figure 23.

10
Table 8 Final modified hardpoints for MacPherson combined
parameter optimization
Roll angle response of the vehicle resulting from
ADAMS/Insight optimized MacPherson geometry does
not differ much from the original roll response as seen in
curves 1 and 2 of Figure 25. This is explained by the fact
that optimization in ADAMS/Insight is run at constant
speed of 42 mph (lift off speed of original vehicle) and
with constant steering wheel input. But when the
hardpoints are modified according to ADAMS/Insight
optimization, understeer gradient increases drastically
from 2.12 to 2.6 deg/g (+23%), which results in higher
steering wheel angle for 0.3 g lateral acceleration in
Slowly Increasing Steer maneuver and consequently
higher steering wheel for fishhook maneuver (1980).
Figure 24 - Steering Wheel Input in fishhook for
MacPherson’s combined parameter optimization
Figure 25 - Roll Angle in fishhook for MacPherson’s
combined parameter optimization
The very high steering wheel input, seen in Figure 24,
results in practically no improvement in roll angle due to
optimized MacPherson geometry.
11
To solve this problem, toe change in wheel travel in
Figure 23 was brought back to its original slope by
adjusting the tierod_outer_z hardpoint. This only
changes toe, with negligible change in the other
parameters. This change reduces the understeer
gradient from 2.6 to 2.22 deg/g. Steering wheel
magnitude for fishhook is now only 1420 in this condition
and roll angle reduces significantly as seen in curve 3 of
Figure 25. The lift-off speed increases drastically from
42 to 58 mph due to this combined parameter
optimization in MacPherson suspension.
Discussion - Combining the individual improvements in
MacPherson parameters through automatic optimization
in ADAMS/Insight provides the best response overall in
this study. Camber is decreased and caster is increased,
as was done in the individual parameter optimization.
However, toe change is retained constant as discussed
before. By decreasing the understeer from 2.6 to 2.22
deg/g to offset very high steering wheel input, the lift-off
speed increases drastically from 42 mph to 58 mph. This
reflects the potential of suspension geometry
optimization in significantly improving the fishhook
response.
CONCLUSION
The effects of suspension design parameters on vehicle
roll stability have been investigated during fixed timing
fishhook maneuver by adjusting suspension hardpoints
of a multi-body dynamic vehicle model.
Significant improvement of lift off speed was achieved
without greatly increasing understeer tendency. These
experiments can be useful in initial suspension design
for rollover prone vehicles, especially sports utility
vehicles and trucks.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of Institute
for Advanced Vehicle Systems (IAVS) at University of
Michigan-Dearborn.
REFERENCES
1. Frimberger, et al, 2000. “Algorithm Concepts for
Rollover Detection to Activate Advanced Restraint
Systems”, Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper
No: 2000-01-0057.
2. Rakheja, S. and Piche, A. 2000. “Development of
Directional Stability Criteria for an Early Warning
Device”, Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper
No: 902265.
3. Chen, B. and Peng, H., “Rollover Warning for
Articulated Vehicles Based on a Time-To-Rollover
Metric”, Proc. of ASME International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition, Nashville,
TN, November 1999
4. Hyun, D. and Langari, R., “Modeling to Predict 21. Gillespie, T.D. 1992. “Fundamentals of Vehicle
Rollover Threat of Tractor-Semitrailers”, Vehicle Dynamics.” Society of Automotive Engineers.
System Dynamics, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp.401-414, 2003. 22. Reimpell, J., Stoll, H. and Betzler, J.W. 2001. “The
5. Furleigh, D.D., Vanderploeg, M.J., and Oh, C.Y, Automotive Chassis – Engineering Principles.”
1988. “Multiple Steered Axles for Reducing the Society of Automotive Engineers.
Rollover Risks of Heavy Articulated Trucks”, Society 23. SAE J670e Vehicle Dynamics Terminology
of Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 881866. 24. Hac, A., 2002. “Rollover Stability Index Including
6. Watanabe, Y. and Sharp, R.S., “Mechanical and Effects of Suspension Design” Society of Automotive
Control Design of a Variable Geometry Active Engineers, Paper No: 2002-01-0965.
Suspension System”, Vehicle System Dynamics, 25. Bastow, D., Howard, G. and Whitehead, J.P. 2004.
Vol. 32, p.217-235, 1999. “Car Suspension and Handling.” Society of
7. Cecj, I., “Anti-Roll and Active Roll Suspension”, Automotive Engineers.
Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol.33, pp.91-106, 2000. 26. Ledesma, R. and Shih, S. 2001. “The Effect of
8. Konik, D., Bartz, R., Barnthol, F.,Bruns, H., and Kingpin Inclination Angle and Wheel Offset on
Wimmer, “Dynamic Drive-the New Active Roll Medium-Duty Truck Handling.” Society of
Stabilization System from the BMW Group-System Automotive Engineers, Paper No: 2001-01-2732.
Description and Functional Improvements”, AVEC
2000. CONTACT
9. Sampson, D.J.M. and Cebon, D., “Active Roll
Control of Single Unit Heavy Road Vehicles”, Taehyun Shim (Assistant Professor)
Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 40, No.4, pp229- Department of Mechanical Engineering,
270, 2003. University of Michigan-Dearborn
10. Wielenga, T, 1999. “A Method for Reducing On- 4901 Evergreen Road
Road Rollovers—Anti-Rollover Braking”, Society of Dearborn, MI 48128, U.S.A.
Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 1999-01-0123. Tel: +1-313-593-5127 Fax:+1-313-593-3851
11. Palkovics, L., Semsey, A., Gerum, E., “Rollover E-mail: tshim@umich.edu
Prevention System for Commercial Vehicles-
Additional Sensorless Function of the Electronic LIST OF SYMBOLS
Brake System”, Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 32,
pp 285-297, 1999. y : response or dependent variable
12. Chen, B. and Peng, H., “Differential-Braking-Based x : factor or independent / regressor variable
Rollover Prevention for Sport Utility Vehicles with k : number of factors
Human-in-the loop Evaluations”, Vehicle System ȕ : regression coefficients
Dynamics, Vol. 36, No.4-5, pp.359~389, 2001. ȯ : error in response
13. Whitehead, R., Travis, W., Bevly, D., and Flowers, K rollsteer : understeer gradient due to roll steer, deg/g
G., 2004. “A Study of the Effect of Various Vehicle
Properties on Rollover Propensity”, Society of Hf : front roll steer coefficient, deg steer/deg roll
Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 2004-01-2094. Hr : rear roll steer coefficient, deg steer/deg roll
14. Baumann, F. and Eckstein, L., 2004. “Effects I : Roll angle, deg
Causing Untripped Rollover of Light Passenger ay : lateral acceleration, g
Vehicles in Evasive Maneuvers”, Society of Fy : Lateral force, N
Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 2004-01-1057. CD : Cornering stiffness coefficient
15. Edara, R. and Shih, S., 2004. “Effective Use of D : Slip Angle, deg
Multibody Dynamics Simulation in Vehicle CJ : Camber stiffness coefficient
Suspension System Development” Society of J : Camber angle, deg
Automotive Engineers, Paper No: 2004-01-1547. K : Understeer gradient, deg/g
16. Wade Allen, R., Klyde, D.H., Rosenthal, T.J. and a : longitudinal distance of CG from front axle,m
Smith, D.M. 2003. “Estimation of Passenger Vehicle b : longitudinal distance of CG from rear axle,m
Inertial Properties and Their Effect on Stability and u : forward velocity, m/sec
Handling” Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper G : steer angle, deg
No: 2003-01-0966. h1 : height of roll moment arm from CG to roll axis
17. Forkenbrock, G.J., Garrott, W.R., Heitz, M. and
O’Harra, B.C., 2003. “An Experimental Examination APPENDIX
of J-Turn and Fishhook Maneuvers That May Induce
On-Road, Untripped, Light Vehicle Rollover” Society Vehicle Parameters
of Automotive Engineers, Paper No: 2003-01-1008. Total weight : 1546 kg (3,408.3 lb)
18. ADAMS/Car Training Guide, MSC.Software Front axle weight : 777.4 kg (1,713.9 lb)
Corporation. Rear axle weight : 768.6 kg (1,694.4 lb)
19. Montgomery, D.C., 2001. “Design and Analysis of Wheelbase : 2611.1 mm (102.8 in)
Experiments”, Fifth Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Front track width : 1489.1 mm (58.6 in)
20. Using ADAMS/Insight, MSC.Software Corporation. Rear track width : 1476.4 mm (58.1 in)
12
Height of CG : 763 mm (30.0 in)
Suspension Parameters
Front spring rate : 20.7 N/mm (2338.8 lb.f/in)
Rear spring rate : 20.6 N/mm (2327.5 lb.f/in)
Front roll center height : 96.3 mm (3.8 in)
Rear roll center height : 171.1 mm (6.7 in)
Front roll stiffness : 908000 Nmm/deg
(159015.1 lb.f.in/deg)
Rear roll stiffness : 403000 Nmm/deg
(70576.1 lb.f.in/deg)
Front rollbar stiffness : 508000 Nmm/deg
(88964.4 lb.f.in/deg)
Rear rollbar Stiffness : 214000 Nmm/deg
(37477.1 lb.f.in/deg)

Abbreviated Suspension Hardpoints

lca_outer : lower_control_arm_outer
lca_rear : lower_control_arm_rear
lca_front : lower_control_arm_front
strut_lwr_mount : strut_lower_mount
tr_outer : track_rod_outer
ll_outer : lateral_link_outer
tr_inner : track_rod_inner
ll_inner : lateral_link_inner
tierod_outer : tierod_outer
top_mount : (strut)top_mount
ula_outer : upper_lateral_outer
ula_rear : upper_lateral_rear
ula_front : upper_lateral_front
spring_lwr_seat : spring_lower_seat

13