MECH3100

Engineering Design

Automotive Suspensions I
 Introductory overview

• Through this course I’ll give three lectures

on automotive suspension design
– Lecture 1: survey different types of
suspensions used. Elementary modeling
– Lecture 2: suspension design objectives –
kinematic.
– Lecture 3: suspension design objectives -
dynamic.
 Sources of information
• Lectures basically follow.
– T. Gillespie,fundamentals of vehicle dynamics, SAE
press,1992.
– J. Happian-Smith. An introduction to modern
vehicle design. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001.
• Other sources.
– D. Bastow. Car suspension and handling. Pentech
press London, 1990.
– R.S. Sharp and D.A. Crolla. Road vehicle
suspension systems - a review. Vehicle system
dynamics. Vol 16, no 3, 1987, pp 167-192.
– J. Ellis, Road vehicle dynamics, 1992.
 Roles of the suspension system
• Provide vertical compliance to keep tyres in
contact with road.
• Ensure steering control is maintained during
manoeuvers – maintaining attitude of wheels
with respect to road.
• Transmit forces generated at tyre-road interface
to chassis in such a way that chassis motion is
favorable.
• Isolate the chassis from road roughness.
 Suspension design …
• Involves many tradeoffs - designs represent
compromises and always fall short of the ‘ideal’
of completely satisfying requirements of
previous slide.
• Design constraints arise because of:
– Conflicts in achieving the different functions
the suspension serves.
– Mechanical conflicts between structural
members, the engine and drive-train, and
other components that must also ‘fit into’ the
vehicle.
 Taxonomy of suspension designs
Suspension designs

Solid axis Independent

Front Rear Front Rear

-Used in early - Hotchkiss - one piece - Trailing arm - Trailing arm
designs but not live. - SLA
- SLA
common nowadays - 4 link - MacPherson - Swing axle
- De Dion strut -Multi link
- Dead rear axle
 Solid axle suspensions
• Solid axles are good for carrying heavy loads but
provide poor road isolation: a bump at one wheel is
transferred across to the other.
• Advantages include low cost, simplicity, and rugged
layout. Common in trucks and small utilities but not
modern passenger cars.
• Most common solid axle suspension is the Hotchkiss
drive.
– Leaf springs supports the axle and provides directional
stability in the longitudinal or lateral directions.
– Design was common in cars of 1960s.
 Hotchkiss solid axle suspension
Solid axle

Leaf springs
Ref. T. Gillespie,
Fundamentals of Vehicle
Dynamics, SAE Press,1992, p. 239
Dampers
 Leaf springs
Laminations of steel leaf bound together

F/2 F/2

F
Hotchkiss solid axle suspension
• Good ride is hard to
achieve.
• Tapered springs often
preferred to leaf due to
high interleaf friction.
• Designer has little
control over axle motion.
• Braking and acceleration
transfer high torsional
loads to axle.
 Four link rear suspension
Upper link
Damper
(shock abs)

Coil spring

Ref. T. Gillespie,
Fundamentals of Vehicle
Dynamics, SAE Press,1992, p 240.

(image originally from Ford Motor Company.) Lower link

 Four link rear suspension

• Common in larger passenger cars.

• Two lower control arms provide longitudinal
stability.
• Upper arms control lateral forces.
• Uses coil springs (rather than leaf springs)
which leads to a better ride.
• Geometry enables better control over roll-
centre, anti-squat/anti-dive, roll steer.
 Independent suspensions
• Let one wheel move without affecting the others.
• Most modern cars employ independent front
suspensions for the following reasons:
– Packaging – provide room for engine.
– Less prone to steering vibrations, particularly
shimmy and wobble.
– Can be designed to give less roll-steer than solid
axle by having high roll-stiffness relative to vertical
stiffness.
• However they are more expensive than solid axle
designs.
 Independent suspensions

• A very common independent front

suspension is the double A-arm.
– Also called short-long arm (SLA) - US,
double wishbone - UK.
• Many variations in geometry.
• Often the top a-arm is replaced by a
single link.
 SLA front suspension

Ref. T. Gillespie, Upper A-arm

Fundamentals of Vehicle
Dynamics, SAE Press, 1992
p.243

Axes of
rotation

Lower A-arm

Steering axis
SLA Suspension

Unequal suspension arms

allow the designer to
place the instantaneous
center of rotation at desired
location by varying lengths and
of arms and their connection
points.

Similarly the roll centre

of the vehicle.
 MacPherson Strut Suspension

• MacPherson strut eliminates the need for the

top control arm.
• Invented in 1940s by Earl Macpherson of
Ford Motor Company.
• First used on UK fords in 1950s.
• Still found on many medium to family size
cars.
• Piston rod of shock absorber serve as kingpin
axis (rotation axis) of wheel.
• Lower link in form of a-arm or control links.
 Macpherson strut suspension
Ref. T. Gillespie,
Fundamentals of Vehicle
Dynamics, SAE Press, 1992 Strut
p. 244

Control arms
Macpherson strut suspension
 Macpherson strut suspension

• Simple design with wide placed anchor points

providing good transverse rotational stiffness
(good for isolating chassis against
acceleration and braking torques).
• Low packaging room - very popular for front
wheel drive cars with transverse mounted
engines.
• High overall height means that designs
usually end up higher hood and fender line.
 Other forms of independent
suspension
• There are many different variations to
independent suspensions.
• Sometimes, for inexpensive independent
suspensions, a single link is used at each
wheel instead of the two link approach for
the SLA.
• Wheel now rotates about fixed axis.
• Cheaper but more difficult to satisfy all
suspension requirements.
 Some independent suspensions using
a single link for control
a) The swing axle b) A trailing link.
suspension.

c) A longer swing d) The semi-trailing linkage

axle linkage.

Ref. J. Ellis,
Road Vehicle Dynamics
p. III-5
 ‘Jacking’
• Swing axle jacking effect.
– Inside wheels ‘tuck’ under on a turn.
• Camber thrust reduces cornering force leading to
over-steer instability.
– Noticeable on VW beetles (the old ones)

Ref. T. Gillespie,
Fundamentals of
Vehicle
Dynamics, SAE
Press, 1992, p. 247
 Half-car static analysis

• If we’re going to do any systematic

suspension design we need models that tell
us about how the design of the suspension
determines its properties.

L
b a
1/2 car model
V
h

Fzr Fzf
 Half car static analysis

• In static equilibrium,
∑ Fz = 0 ⇒ mg − Fzr − Fzf = 0
∑ τ = 0 ⇒ Fz b − Fz a = 0
r f
(about cog)

L
b a
V

Fzr Fzf
 Half car Static Analysis

• Rearranging
⇒ mg = (1 + a b)Fz f

Force on rear a b a a
Fzr = Fz f b = mg ⋅ = mg
wheel L b L

Force on front b b
Fz f = mg = mg
wheel a +b L
Half car acceleration & weight transfer
• Assume a rear wheel drive (this helps us to
visualize but is otherwise not important)
• If the vehicle is accelerating forward the drive
forces acting at the wheels are
Fx = m ax
L
b a
Fx
V
Drive force h

Fzr Fzf
 Half car acceleration & weight transfer
• If we shift the drive force to the COG we have
Fx = m ax
and a resulting torque equal to
τ = Fx h = m ax h

L
b a
Fx
V
h Force decreases
Force increases
by m ax h/L
by m ax h/L Fzr Fzf
Half car acceleration & weight transfer

• There is an increase in normal tyre force on the rear

of the vehicle due to the acceleration.
• This is called a weight shift or dynamic weight
transfer.
• The weight transfer tries to pitch chassis backwards -
‘Power squat’ or ‘rear jounce’.
• Likewise deceleration pitches chassis forward -
‘Rebound’ or ‘dive’.
• One goal of a suspension design is to counteract the
pitch of the vehicle - rear suspension deals with
jounce; front with dive.
 Suspension geometry for anti
squat

• Think of the suspension as being functionally equivalent to

a trailing arm with respect to reaction forces and moments
on the vehicle.
• Consider the system with 2 control arms and neglect static
vertical loads.
 Suspension Geometry
P1 and P2 are the reaction forces felt by the
control arms.
P1
θ1 τ
Z1
θ2
P2 o
e Z2
Drive force
d
Fx
Fz Vertical reaction
to control arm forces
d= distance to projection intersection
e = height to projection intersection Based on Fig 7.11 of T. Gillespie,
Fundamentals of vehicle dynamics
SAE Press,1992, pp 249.
 Trailing arm analysis
• Summing the forces and moments

ΣFhoriz: Fx + P1 cosθ1 – P2 cosθ2 = 0 (1)

ΣFvert: Fz – P1 sinθ1 – P2 sinθ2 = 0 (2)
Σmo: fxz2 – P1 cosθ1 z1 = 0 (3)

Eq (3) gives
Fx z 2
P1 =
z 1 cos θ1
 Trailing arm analysis

Eq (1) gives
P2 cos θ2 = Fx + P1 cos θ1 = Fx + Fx z2
z1

Fx 1 + 2 
z
 z1 
P2 =
cos θ2
 Trailing arm analysis
Eq (2) gives
Fz = P1 sin θ1 + P2 sin θ 2

z2  z2 
= Fx tan θ1 + Fx 1 +  tan θ 2
z1  z1 
 Trailing arm analysis
• From geometry,
z1 + z2 − e e − z2
tan θ1 = tan θ 2 =
d d
z2  z1 + z2 − e  z 2  (e − z 2 ) 
⇒ Fz = Fx   + Fx  
z1  d  z1  d 

 e − z2 
+ Fx  
 d 
 Trailing arm analysis
z2 z1  e − z2 
= Fx + Fx  
z1 d  d 
e
= Fx
d
Fz e
⇒ =
Fx d

We see that the portion of the drive torque Fx

transmitted to vertical force is determined by
distances e and d

(At intersection torque reaction of control arm can be resolved system

into vertical and horizontal forces no moments imposed on the body)
 Summary/what’s next
• We’ve surveyed various suspension types and
looked developed simple model that hopefully
will tell us something anti-squat.
• Next lecture on suspensions will look at how
we might realize anti-squat and anti-dive
suspensions from this analysis.
• Similarly we will look at how the design of a
suspension can be used to achieve anti-roll.