SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES SAE 2008-32-0068

JSAE 20084768

Optimization of Damping Characteristics

for Two Wheelers
K. Venkata Mangaraju, D. Govardan, Chandan Chavan,
R. Babu and R. Venkatesan
TVS Motor Company

Small Engine Technology Conference

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
September 9-11, 2008

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-0790 Web: www.sae.org
The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed
SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. This process requires a
minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

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
Tel: 724-772-4028
Fax: 724-776-3036

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 © 2008 SAE International
Copyright © 2008 SAE Japan
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 to Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
 2008-32-0068 (SAE) / 20084768 (JSAE)

Optimization of Damping Characteristics for Two Wheelers

K. Venkata Mangaraju, D. Govardan, Chandan Chavan,
R. Babu and R. Venkatesan
TVS Motor Company

Copyright © 2008 SAE International and Copyright © 2008 SAE Japan

ABSTRACT incorporated in production models as they were

engineered, throughout the history. It was in the fifties
In developing countries roads have a mix of high and early sixties that the twin shock, swing arm type rear
undulations as well as smooth and flat surfaces on suspension and the telescopic fork front suspension
highways. And also two wheelers are used for became more or less standard. Monoshock designs
commuting with one or two people rather than for sport. originated as early as Nineteen thirties but significant
A variety of spring characteristics are required to research and progress was made after the seventies.
maintain the ride height for solo and doubles and wide Modern sport and road racing bikes use progressive link
variety of damping characteristics are required for type Monoshock suspension, which is a relatively recent
various road conditions, loading conditions and speeds adaptation of the historical design.
to achieve desired ride and handling characteristics. Suspension systems design has advanced so much
The spring and damper characteristics that are desired those make a modern motorcycle much safer to ride
for good ride comfort will results in poor handling at high than the bikes of the past, especially considering the
speeds. Achieving a very good level of ride comfort on speed that modern motorcycles are capable of. The
rough and smooth terrains combined with an equally main function of the shock absorber is to absorb shock
good level of handling with various loading conditions in loads. But in practice it will affect a lot on ride and
the speed range of 20 to 120 Kmph is a highly handling behaviour of the vehicle. The spring and
challenging task. So most of the two wheelers are tuned damper characteristics are primary parameters that
for one loading case (solo or doubles) and either for ride effect ride comfort apart from parameters like vehicle
comfort or handling with compromise on the other. geometry, mass, tire stiffness and eyelet rubber
stiffness.
In this paper, a methodology to find shock absorber
characteristics required for various road undulations and Various authors (5,6,8) published their pioneered
loading conditions of two-wheeler is presented. A multi research on suspension characteristics for ride comfort
body dynamic model is developed with 13 DOF to study and indices to quantify ride comfort. Prof. Cossalter (1)
the behaviour of rear damper for various road inputs. studied the comfort of two-wheeled vehicles by means of
Advanced modeling techniques are used to model the a frequency-domain approach and shown the limitations
seat and front fork friction behaviour. The model is of frequency domain approach. Chandan et al (2) have
simulated with actual road input and validated with discussed the effect of damper lag on ride comfort using
experimental measurements. Simulations are carried out a parameter called Jerk and concluded that for the event
on different size and shape of road undulations like considered for study the Jerk correlates well with
pothole, hump, step up and step down with solo and subjective assessment. Venkata mangaraju et al (3)
doubles at various vehicle speeds. Damper compared the twin shock and monoshock rear shock
characteristics are optimized to achieve minimum sprung absorbers for ride and handling using time domain
mass acceleration for two payload conditions, solo and analysis. Most of the research has been published with
doubles at various speeds. a single speed and single payload. The spring stiffness
will be designed based on the load carrying capacity. So
INTRODUCTION damper characteristic is an important parameter for
engineers to tune for ride comfort. In this paper authors
Ride comfort and handling is an interesting area for are attempted to study the ride comfort on various rough
dynamics engineers from last 40 years. Automobile roads at different speeds and with two different
suspension systems play a very vital role in influencing payloads. Various simulations have been done to
ride comfort as well as handling dynamics. Today’s state optimize damper characteristics for various vehicle
of art suspension designs evolved over the years, speeds and loads. The study can be used to tune the
through innumerous iterations and has been damper for major customer requirements (comfort at low
speed on pot hole, small corrugations etc.) and with less friction is modeled as static and dynamic friction.
compromise in all other road conditions, load conditions Dynamic friction is proportional to front wheel reaction.
for various speeds.

S.No Parameter Spec

MBD MODEL – EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION

A multi body dynamic modeling has been used to 1 Engine 4 stroke, 159.7e-6
understand the effect of various parameters on ride cubic meters, single
comfort. The model was built, by splitting the system
into 9 different subsystems, which are modeled cylinder
separately and assembled together, as shown in the 2 Engine Power 11.334 KW @ 8500
figure 1. The nine subsystems are Front fork assembly
(including headlamp, handlebar and other parts), Frame RPM
(including petrol tank, battery, seat and other parts), 3 Wheel base 1.280 m
Rear suspension assembly (swinging arm & shock
absorbers), Front and rear wheel assembly, Engine
assembly, Power transmission (Chain and sprocket), 4 castor angle 25.5 deg
Rider and Brake system.
5 Vehicle kerb 1.36 KN
weight
6 Tire spec Front –0.4318x90/90,
rear – 0.4572X100/80

Table 1: Vehicle parameters considered for study

35 Simulation
Experimental
Acceleration (m/sec^2)

15

Figure 1: Multi body dynamic model of Motorcycle -5

The subsystems are built together with appropriate

degrees of freedom and joint stiffness. Spatial position, -25
Center of Gravity, Mass, Inertia properties, Tire
parameters, spring and damper properties are the main
-45
input parameters for the model. The tire is modeled
282.625 282.675 282.725 282.775
using magic formula [7]. The parametric values of a
typical motorcycle were measured and used in the Time (sec)
model. The model has thirteen kinematic degrees of
freedom and is broadly aligned with the motorcycle Figure 2a: Acceleration on seat – Simulation vs.
model proposed by Sharp [4]. The model is similar to the experimental
model presented in paper [3]. The suspension
displacements of MBD model are validated with
experimental measurements in the paper [3]. For
completeness of the present study, Suspension The model with these refinements is validated against
displacements and seat accelerations of the MBD model experimental measurements. The validation results are
is validated with experimental measurements on a shown in figure 2 and figure 3. The curves are shifted in
pothole. The yaw response presented in the paper [3] time for better clarity. Figure 2 shows the comparison of
shows that the model needs to be improved for better suspension displacements and seat vertical acceleration
accuracy. So to increase the accuracy of the simulation on a pothole at a speed of 20 kmph.
the MBD model is refined in two areas. They are seat
modeling and front fork friction modeling. Seat is
modeled as a spring with hysteresis loss. Front fork
 80 mass while moving over a hump. After the bike crossed
70
over the hump fully, a growth in yaw response is
observed in the experimental result (secondary yaw
60 response), whereas in the MBD model (Without
Displacement (mm)

simulation
50 refinement) result, the response is better damped as
Experimental shown in figure 3. Also the frequency of oscillation in
40
experimental result is around 6.0 Hz whereas in the
30 simulation result is around 4 Hz. But the refined model
20 shows very good correlation with experimental
measurement for both frequency and amplitude of the
10
secondary yaw. The primary reason for this
0 improvement in result is due to modeling of seat
282.5 282.6 282.7 282.8 282.9 283 283.1 283.2 283.3 283.4
-10 behaviour in simulation. The rider is rigidly fixed to the
Time (Sec) frame in the model described in [3]. In the refined model
the seat is modeled such a way that the separation of
the rider from the vehicle is captured. While moving over
Figure 2b: Front suspension displacement – Simulation a hump, the rider is separated from the vehicle
Vs. experimental (momentarily will be in air) and lands again onto the
seat. This phenomena causes tire force variation, which
40
is the reason for secondary yaw response. The primary
Displacement of rear suspension (mm)

reason for improvement in the result is due to modeling

35 of seat behaviour in simulation, which simulates the rider
Simulation separation from the seat.
30
Experimental
25 RIDE COMFORT ANALYSIS
20
In the previous section, MBD model is validated with
15 experimental results. The refined model has shown very
good correlation with experimental results. Using this
10 model various simulations were carried out on various
tracks as shown in figure 4a. The front and rear
5
suspension stiffness and damper properties considered
0
for the study are shown in figure 4b and 4c. In this
282.550 282.650 282.750 282.850 282.950 283.050 283.150 283.250 283.350 paper, sprung mass displacement, vertical acceleration
time (sec) and pitch acceleration is chosen for comparison of
various tracks. Each event of track will have series of
Figure 2c: Rear suspension displacement – Simulation positive and negative values of displacements and
Vs. experimental accelerations. The maximum value of each parameter
from its mean position is considered for ride comfort
evaluation.
8 Yaw rate (Experimental)

Yaw rate - simulation

4
Yaw rate -Simulation
Yaw rate (deg/sec)

(Refined model)

0
157.9 158.2 158.5 158.8 159.1 159.4

-4

-8
Time (sec)

Figure 3: Yaw rate of the vehicle while moving over a

hump

The simulation and experimental results shows

reasonably good match for both amplitude and Figure 4a: Simulation tracks of Hump, pothole, and step
frequency. Figure 3 shows the yaw rate of the sprung up & step down (dimensions are in meters)
RIDE COMFORT VARIATION WITH SPEED -SOLO

In this section the results of the vehicle simulated on

various tracks at various speeds with solo condition are
presented. The suspension characteristics considered
are the production spring and damper characteristics of
a vehicle tuned for slow speeds under solo condition.

Figure 5 shows body vertical acceleration for different

speeds ranges from 4 to 20 m/s in solo condition on the
tracks as shown in the figure 4. On pothole, Body
acceleration is increasing with vehicle speed up to
7m/sec and it is decreasing substantially at higher
speeds. Where as for hump the behaviour is opposite.
And for small corrugations, the shock level is less and its
variation is arbitrary with increase of speed.

80
800
70 Figure 5: Body vertical acceleration at various speeds for
600
60 solo.
Load kgf

50
Force kgf

400 40
30
200 20
10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 -40 10 60 110
Deflection mm Deflection mm

Figure 4b. Rear and front spring stiffness considered for

study

Figure 6: Body vertical displacement at various speeds

for solo.
Figure 4c. Rear and front suspension damping
characteristic curves considered for study Figure 7 shows body pitch accelerations for different
speeds. Over the selected speed range the variation in
body pitch acceleration is arbitrary for hump and small
Figure 6 shows maximum change in body position from corrugations as shown in Figure 7. At pothole the body
its mean position in vertical direction at different speeds. pitch acceleration is decreasing with increase in speed.
Positive value of body displacement indicates, body is The variation in pitch acceleration is very low at small
moving in upward direction from mean position and corrugations over this speed range. The trends of
negative value indicates its movement in the downward vertical and pitch accelerations are same.
direction from mean. For all speeds body displacement
is positive at hump and it is increasing with increase in RIDE COMFORT VARIATION WITH SPEED -
speed.
DOUBLES
At pothole for all speeds the maximum body
In the previous section the results of the vehicle
displacement is negative and decreasing with increase
simulated on various tracks at different speeds with solo
in speed is the reason for low body accelerations. At
condition is presented. In this section the results of
small corrugations for low speeds body position is above
similar analysis with doubles is presented. The
the mean position and at high speeds maximum body
motorcycle model is simulated with rider and pillion of
displacement is below the mean position i.e. body
same mass and inertia properties at various speeds.
displacement is negative.
 displacement is in downward direction from mean
position and this value is approximately constant with
increase in speed.

Figure 10 shows body pitch accelerations at all events

for selected speeds. The trend is similar to body
accelerations. But the magnitude of pitch acceleration
with doubles is significantly less compared to solo which
is the reason for better comfort to the rider with doubles.
But the pillion vertical acceleration will be more than the
rider acceleration due to amplification factor because of
pillion seating position.

From the ride comfort analysis it is observed that hump

and pothole are quite opposite events for solo and
doubles. So it is difficult to arrive, single suspension
characteristics to achieve optimal comfort for both hump
and pothole. The suspension system that is good at
Figure7: Body pitch acceleration at various speeds for hump will give poor ride comfort at pothole. With doubles
solo.
the trend of ride comfort parameter is different compared
to solo.
Figure 8 shows body vertical acceleration for different
speeds at all events and its variation is random. For
speed range of 4-13 m/s the body vertical acceleration at
hump and pothole are following same trend. After this
speed range, ride comfort on pothole is better than the
hump but the variation over speed range is arbitrary for
both the events. Body acceleration at hump is shooting
up in the speed range of 13-16 m/s, which is not a
normal cruising speed on humps. The body acceleration
at small corrugations is minimum and constant for speed
range of 4-13 m/s.

Figure 9: Body displacement for different speeds with

doubles.

Figure 8: Body vertical acceleration for different speeds

with doubles.

Figure 9 shows body displacement from its mean

position at all speeds. At hump the maximum body
displacement is increasing with increase in speed and
reaching maximum value at 16 m/s. After this speed the
maximum body displacement is coming down with
increase in speed as shown in figure 9. At pothole the
maximum body displacement is decreasing with
increase of speed. As shown in figure 9, at small
corrugations the maximum body displacement is in
upward direction from mean position for low speeds. Figure 10: Body pitch acceleration for different speeds
with doubles.
After crossing 8 m/s speed the maximum body
DAMPER OPTIMIZATION

From the previous section, it is understand that different

damper characteristics are required to achieve best
comfort based on payload (solo/doubles), size and
shape of the event for various speeds. From the study it
is concluded that body vertical acceleration is one of the
best response parameter can be considered for damper
optimization. For simplicity one event of the track (pot
hole) is considered for damper optimization. The
objective of the optimization is to minimize body vertical
acceleration by varying rear damper characteristics. The
optimization is carried out at various speeds and for both
solo and doubles.

DAMPING OPTIMIZATION FOR SOLO Figure 12: Ride comfort improvement over the speed
range with optimized dampers.
In this section the results of optimization of rear shock
absorber damping characteristics to improve the ride
comfort are presented. Damping optimization has been
attempted to improve ride comfort at selected event
pothole for all speeds. All the simulations for damper
optimization were carried out with solo.

Fig.11 shows the body vertical acceleration at pothole

for baseline damper characteristics and optimized
damper characteristics. The optimization is done using
trial and error process. So several simulations are
required to achieve the best damper characteristics to
get the optimal level of vertical acceleration. Both
damper characteristics shows similar trend with speed.
The vertical acceleration levels of optimized damper
show 15 – 45% of shock level improvement over
baseline damper.

Figure13. Percentage variation of damping change for

optimized damper from baseline damper characteristics
with speed -solo

Figure 12 shows the percentage of improvement in

vertical acceleration with optimized damper compared to
vertical acceleration with baseline damper on pothole for
different speeds. The improvement is around 15-20% at
low speeds and 40-45% at higher speeds. It is important
to note that the optimized damping characteristics will
not guarantee the best comfort for other events and
payloads. The numbers 1 to 7 on each histogram of
figure 12 are the optimized damping characteristic
numbers. The optimized dampers at each speed from 4
to 20 m/s are numbered as 1 to 7 respectively. Figure 13
shows the percentage of decrease of both compression
and extension damping of optimized damper compared
to baseline damper. For example, at speed 4 m/s, the
optimized damping set is numbered as 1 and it is
obtained by reducing compression and extension
Figure 11: The body acceleration at pothole for different damping from baseline damping by corresponding
speeds. indicated percentages as shown in figure 13.
DAMPING OPTIMIZATION FOR DOUBLES

In the previous section damper optimization was done

for solo condition at various speeds. Similar analysis has
been performed for doubles and results are presented in
this section. Figure 14 shows the body vertical
acceleration at pothole for both baseline and optimized
dampers. The results show that the improvement with
optimized damper is huge compared to solo. So as
mentioned earlier the baseline damper is tuned for solo,
which is not good for doubles.
Figure 15 shows the percentage of improvement in
vertical acceleration with optimized damper compared to
vertical acceleration with baseline damper on pothole for
different speeds.

Figure 15: Ride comfort improvement over the speed

range with optimized dampers for doubles.

Figure 14: The body acceleration at pothole with doubles

over the speed range.

At intermediate speeds the optimized damper shows

80% improvement over baseline damper. Similar to solo
optimized dampers for doubles also indicated with
numbers 1 to 7. But these values are different from
damping values optimized for solo. Figure 16: Percentage variation of damping change for
The result (figure 13, 16) shows that for doubles, the optimized damper from baseline damper characteristics
compression and extension damping has to be with speed -doubles.
decreased significantly compared to solo optimized
damping values to achieve best comfort.

The results shows a general phenomena, lower the __ Optimized damping

damping is better for ride comfort, but it should be - - Baseline damping
Suspension displacement

adequate for not to excite the vehicle natural modes.

Vehicle with doubles will have more sprung mass and
Inertia which results in low vehicle natural frequencies
and difficult to excite the vehicle natural modes. So the
damping requirement for doubles is less than solo to
achieve best comfort. Figure 17 shows shock absorber
displacement on pothole at 7 m/s speed for both
baseline and optimized damper characteristics.
It shows that the vehicle with optimized damper will have
more number of body oscillations compared to vehicle
with baseline damper, which will create stability
Figure 17: Damper displacement at pothole for 7 m/s
problems for the vehicle. speed.
CONCLUSION REFERENCES

1. Cossalter V., Alberto Doria, Stefano Garbin and

A multi body dynamic model is developed for Lot R. Frequency domain method for evaluating
ride comfort analysis and validated with experiments. the ride comfort of a motorcycle, Vehicle system
The seat and front fork friction is modeled to improve the dynamics Vol. 44: 339-355, 2006.
accuracy of MBD model. Various simulations were done
2. Sharp R. S. and Alstead C. J., Experimental
on different tracks at various speeds with two different
study on effect of damper lag on motorcycle ride
payloads to understand its effect on ride comfort.
comfort, SETS 2006-32-0096.
Variation of vertical accelerations with speed is arbitrary
for hump and small corrugations with solo and for all 3. Venkata Mangaraju K., Yogaraja V., Karthik.M,
events with doubles. Where as on pothole it decreases Dora K.B., Babu R., Venkatesan R. Kinematic
with increase in speed. The reason for arbitrariness of and dynamic analysis of monoshock rear
the results needs to be investigated. The results shows suspension, SETC 2004-032-0020
that the requirement of the damping to achieve best
4. R. S. Sharp, vehicle system dynamics, ”The
comfort will vary based on size and shape of the event
lateral dynamics of motor cycles and bicycles”
and payload. The shock level variation with speed is
14(4-6), 265-283(1985).
different for solo and doubles. The same event of track
requires different damping values for different speeds 5. Tony Foale,” Motor cycle handling and chassis
and payloads to achieve the best comfort. The vehicle design” 2003
with doubles needs less damping compared to solo for
the best ride comfort but suffers in vehicle stability. The 6. Vittore Cossalter, “Motor cycle dynamics”, Race
study is useful to design adjustable suspensions for dynamics, Greendale, I 53129
various road and load conditions. 7. Hans Pacejka “ Tyres and vehicle dynamics”
8. T. D. Gillespie, SAE-114, 1992., ”
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Fundamentals of vehicle dynamics
The authors would like to express thanks to Mr. Vinay
Harne, Senior Vice President (R&D), and TVS MOTOR
COMPANY LTD. for his continued support to the present
study. We also thank the management of TVS Motor
Company Ltd. for allowing us to publish this work. We
are happy to thank our colleagues for their help and
assistance during this study.