ANALYSIS OF A TRUCK SUSPENSION DATABASE

T.-T. Fu+ and D. Cebon‡

+Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Taiwan University
‡Cambridge University Engineering Department, dc@eng.cam.ac.uk

Corrected version submitted to:

International Journal of Vehicle Design, Heavy Vehicle Systems
March, 2002

ABSTRACT
Experimental data from 61 heavy vehicle suspensions are analysed in this paper to investigate
the trends in performance of contemporary suspension designs. Two suspension databases and a
mathematical vehicle model are used to calculate the ride and roll performance of heavy
vehicles, based on the measured suspension parameters. The suspensions are divided into eight
categories according to their spring and axle types. The contribution of suspension springs to
rollover stability is evaluated, and the conflict between vehicle ride and roll stability is analysed.
Methods for resolving this conflict are discussed from the viewpoint of systematic design
principles. A comparison of measured total roll stiffness and roll centre height with rollover
threshold is conducted to search for the possible patterns of performance.
Keywords: suspension design, ride comfort, dynamic tyre forces, rollover stability

1 INTRODUCTION
In the UK, 80% of goods are transported by road [Anon, 1992 #225], mainly by heavy vehicles.
In terms of freight distance travelled (tonne-km), road transport accounts for 66% of all
transportation modes, including air, sea, rail, etc. Heavy vehicles are important component of the
national economy, but are also responsible for a significant part of the damage to roads and
bridges [Cebon, 1999 #264]. Suspension design is a key factor in the dynamic tyre forces which
are thought to contribute to this damage [Mitchell, 1991 #132; Cole, 1996 #129; Woodrooffe,
1996 #162; Cebon, 1999 #264], as well as ride comfort [Woodrooffe, 1996 #162], roll stability
[Winkler, 2000 #266], handling [Anon., 1989 #206], and braking [Hardy, 1993 #2].
There is a fundamental trade-off between the ride vibration and roll performance of heavy
vehicle suspensions. In general, in order to increase roll stability it is necessary to increase
vertical stiffness [Cole, 1996 #129]. The use of anti-roll bars alleviates this trade-off to some
extent, since they can allow the suspension to be soft in the vertical direction, but stiff in roll
[Cole, 1996 #129].
Key factors that influence roll stability are the height of the centre of gravity (CG) and track
width; the compliance (and any back-lash) of the suspensions and tyres; movement of the
payload (e.g. sloshing of fluid in a tanker); and the torsional flexibility of the vehicle frame (see
review by Winkler [Winkler, 2000 #266]).

1
Ride and dynamic tyre forces (road damage) are strongly influenced by the stiffness and damping
of the suspension [Cole, 1996 #129],. Softer suspensions generally have lower ‘natural
frequencies’ and generate lower dynamic tyre forces than stiffer suspensions [Cebon, 1999 #264;
Gyenes, 1992 #267] .
In this paper, measured suspension data from the Transportation Research Institute of the
University of Michigan (UMTRI) are analysed [Fancher, 1980 #210; Fancher, 1986 #231;
Winkler, 1992 #215]. Analytical models and assumptions are employed to fill the gaps in the
data. Analyses presented here aim to elucidate trends in the stiffness characteristics, natural
frequencies and roll performance achieved by current suspensions.

2 THE VEHICLE MODEL

Rollover is a specific problem in heavy vehicle operations due to their large payload and high
centre of gravity (CG). The problem can occur while the vehicle is in steady turning or a
transient handling manoeuvre, such as a lane change. The main parameters involved are the CG
height, payload shifting (e.g. liquid sloshing in tanks), suspension and tyre compliance. The
propensity to rollover during steady turning can be characterised by the static rollover threshold.
This is the steady lateral acceleration which causes rollover of the vehicle [Fancher, 1985 #135].
A simple static roll plane model was used to predict the rollover threshold of vehicles from
measured suspension parameters. As illustrated in Figure 1, the model has two degrees of
freedom: sprung mass and unsprung mass roll angles ( θ r and θt ). The effect of spring stiffness
on roll motion is combined with auxiliary roll stiffness ( K raux ) into the total roll stiffness ( K rtot )
of the suspension according to the following relation:
K rtot = Kraux + 2 * ks * p 2 . (1)
In this equation, 2 * ks * p 2 is the part of roll stiffness which is contributed by vertical stiffness of
suspension springs (ks is the vertical suspension spring stiffness, and 2p is the spring centre
separation). K raux is the component of the total roll stiffness which is derived from suspension
components other than the springs, for instance, the trailing arm systems in air suspensions or
anti-roll bars in steel steering axle suspensions, etc. Symbols used in Figure 1 are defined as
follows:
ms Sprung mass.
hs Sprung mass CG height.
mu Unsprung mass.
hu Unsprung mass CG height.
hrc Roll centre height.
Krt Roll stiffness due to the vertical stiffness of tyres
Taking moments about each roll centre in Figure 1, and assuming small angles throughout, two
equations of motion can be derived:
ms Ay hs + mu Ay hu + ms g(hs − hrc )θ r = (Krt − ms ghrc − mughu )θt (2)

ms (hs − hrc )Ay + (ms g(hs − hrc ) + Krtot )θ r = − Krtotθ t (3)

Where θ r and θt are the roll angles of the sprung and unsprung masses. Arranging these into a
matrix form and using rollover threshold A y and sprung mass roll angle θ r as the state variables
gives:

2
 mshs + muhu msg(hs − hrc )   Ay  (Krt − msghrc − mu ghu )θ t 
= (4)
 ms (hs − hrc ) msg(hs − hrc ) − K rtot   θ r   − Krtotθ t 
Inverting the left hand side to eliminate the sprung mass roll angle θ r , from (4) gives:
Ay msg(hs − hrc )(K rt − ms ghrc − mughu ) + Krtot (ms ghs + mughu − Krt )
= θt (5)
g ms g(hs − hrc )(ms ghrc + mughu ) − Krtot (ms ghs + mughu )
The rollover threshold is defined as the lateral acceleration when one wheel lifts off the ground.
In this condition, the unsprung mass roll angle is:
(m s + mu )g
θt = , (6)
2Ktt
where 2t is the track width, and Kt is the tyre stiffness. (Note that Krt = 2Kt t 2 .) Substituting
(6) into (5) gives the rollover threshold.
Note that this simplified model was chosen specifically for comparing the measured suspension
data. It is not dynamically similar to any particular heavy goods vehicle, because: (i) it only has
one axle, and therefore does not account the effects of multiple axles, including roll/torsion and
bounce/pitch coupling; (ii) its inertia is all concentrated above the suspension. Nevertheless the
model is representative of the broad class of heavy vehicles to which the measured suspensions
are normally attached.

3 SOURCES OF SUSPENSION DATA

3.1 UMTRI test rig and experiments
Winkler et al at UMTRI built a test rig in 1979 to measure parameters of heavy vehicle
suspension systems [Winkler, 1980 #254]. Over the years, they have collected experimental data
for many commercially-available suspensions. The test rig is capable of testing both single-axle
and tandem-axle suspensions while they are mounted on the vehicle frame. The measurements
are made in the steady state or quasi-steady state.
The rig can be used to measure nine physical parameters for single-axle suspensions, and various
other specific parameters for tandem and steering axle suspensions. In this project, only those
parameters which are related to the ride and roll performance of heavy vehicles are analysed.
The parameters investigated here are:
(i) Roll stiffness: (total roll stiffness and auxiliary roll stiffness);
(ii) Roll centre height;
(iii) Vertical spring stiffness.
Two databases of parameters measured on the UMTRI test rig were analysed. The first is from
[Winkler, 1992 #215]. It comprises 94 suspensions including air, steel, walking-beam, torsion-
bar and coil springs. The suspensions are from steering, drive and trailer axle groups.
Suspension parameters available in [Winkler, 1992 #215] are total roll stiffness, auxiliary roll
stiffness and roll centre height. The second databases was obtained directly from UMTRI
[Winkler, 1997 #265]. It consists of 111 suspensions, for which the vertical force-deflection
characteristics are documented. Although based on the same test facility, these two databases
only have 54 suspensions in common.

3
3.2 The baseline vehicle
In order to use the static roll plane model to simulate vehicle performance, values of parameters
which are not provided in the suspension databases were estimated. A typical articulated heavy
vehicle was chosen as the common basis for comparing suspensions. This vehicle was a tractor /
semi-trailer with four axles. Dual radial ply tyres were assumed to be installed on the drive axle
and trailer axles. For the steering axle, single radial ply tyres were assumed.
Details of the dimensions of the baseline vehicle are provided in [Lin, 1994 #234; Fu, 1998
#260]. Table 1 provides some physical properties of the baseline vehicle. The sprung mass CG
height of trailer axle group was taken to be the same as the overall CG height of the trailer. For
steering and drive axles, the CG heights were derived from the CG height of tractor and trailer
sprung masses, using weighting factors which depended on the static load carried by each axle.
The unsprung mass CG height and half wheel track were set to 0.53m and 0.93m, respectively,
for all three axle groups.

3.3 Selection of the working database

A selection procedure was employed to construct a complete suspension database for analysis in
this project. It was necessary to use various assumptions, mainly based on the static roll plane
model and physical parameters of the baseline vehicle, to estimate missing items in the original
databases. The aim of this procedure was to make the derived working database as complete as
possible. It was also necessary to account for the fact that the static loads used in the suspension
tests do not always match the axle loads of the baseline vehicle. The selection procedure
included:
(i) Removal of suspensions which lacked information on total roll stiffness or roll centre
height;
(ii) Elimination of suspensions with more than 25% difference between their test loads and
standard axle loads;
(iii) For the suspensions without known spring vertical stiffness, the distance between spring
centres was assumed to be equal to 980 mm. The vertical stiffness was then calculated
from the roll stiffnesses and the spring centre distance using Equation 1.
The results of the selection procedure are presented in Figure 2. It contains 61 suspensions in
eight categories. They constitute the working database, used for further investigations.
In the working database, 75% of the suspensions have steel leaf springs. These include three
different axle types (steer, drive and trailer group). 16% of the suspensions in the database have
air springs. These exist in drive and trailer axle groups. There are also a few tandem drive axle
walking-beam and torsion-bar suspensions.
The origins of the suspensions and markets in which they are used are shown in Figure 3. The
majority (77%) of suspensions analysed in this paper are used in the North American commercial
market.
Typical contents of the working database are depicted in Tables 2 and 3, for 19 of the 61
suspensions in the working database. Table 2 shows the original experimental data from the
UMTRI databases. It includes descriptive information which gives the types of axle and spring
for the suspensions, their origins and applications, etc. It also includes quantitative information:
the rated load, total and auxiliary suspension roll stiffness, vertical spring stiffness and
suspension roll centre height.

4
Table 3 shows measured and calculated data corresponding to the suspensions in Table 2. In this
table, the rollover thresholds ( A y g ) were calculated using equations 5 and 6, with parameters
for the baseline vehicle.
The natural frequency ( f n , in the unit of Hz) shown in Table 3 was calculated from
1 ke
fn = (7)
2π mtesting

where, ke is the effective vertical stiffness for the combination of spring and tyres (N/m) and
mtesting is the equivalent mass (kg) derived from the suspension test load.

4 ANALYSIS OF THE SUSPENSION DATABASE

Various analyses were performed on the database. Parametric analyses were performed to
explore relationships between various suspension stiffnesses, in order to elucidate their
contributions to the total roll stiffness. The conflict between vehicle ride and roll performance
was also investigated from the suspension design perspective. This conflict is demonstrated by
the interrelationship between natural frequency and rollover threshold. The third type of analysis
examined the joint effect of total roll stiffness and roll centre height on rollover threshold, in
order to understand trends in suspension design.

4.1 Parametric analysis of total roll stiffness

There are two basic elements that constitute the total roll stiffness of a suspension system: the
springs and the auxiliary roll stiffening effect from the other suspension components, including
the anti-roll bars. Their relation is defined as Equation 1.
Steel suspensions obtain their auxiliary roll stiffening effect mainly from the twist of spring
leaves about a longitudinal axis and the anti-roll bar, if there is one. On the other hand, the
auxiliary roll stiffness of trailing arm air suspensions comes from the rigid axle and trailing arm
assemblies which act together like an anti-roll bar. This means that trailing–arm air suspensions,
as used in semi-trailers, are normally quite stiff in roll (see [Anon., 1989 #206] for details).
Figure 4 shows that there is a clear dependence of total roll stiffness on auxiliary roll stiffness for
all suspensions, with an overall ‘coefficient of determination’ about 0.66 (This coefficient is a
better measure of dependence than the regression slope or correlation coefficient, because it
takes account of both effects [Gujarati, 1978 #232].). Much stronger positive dependence can be
seen in air suspensions. Their coefficient of determination reaches a level as high as 0.91. On
the other hand, the dependence of steel suspensions is much lower and the coefficient is equal to
0.33. This is probably due to wide variations in the number of steel leaves and the geometry of
leaf spring components in steel suspensions. By contrast, the component designs of air
suspensions are more uniform, which makes them more correlated in roll stiffness. (The
exception is an independent air suspension, which has a particularly low roll stiffness: the lowest
point in the trailer air suspensions in Figure 4).
Steel trailer suspensions have similar levels of total roll stiffness. This is because trailer
suspensions are normally required to support heavy payloads with high centres of gravity. In
order to have satisfactory roll safety on the road, trailer suspensions are designed to be very stiff
in roll. On the other hand, the load and CG height for steering axle suspensions and the CG
height for drive-axle suspensions are relatively low when compared with trailer suspensions.
The demand for their total roll stiffness is correspondingly less. There is one exceptional drive
air suspension, which has a very high total roll stiffness. It is a European tandem axle design
with a similar layout to typical trailer suspensions.

5
A solid line of equal total roll stiffness and auxiliary roll stiffness is drawn in Figure 4. As
expected, for all suspensions, the total roll stiffness is greater than the auxiliary stiffness alone.
Trailer air suspensions and steel steering axle suspensions are all closely distributed and near to
the line. Trailer and drive axle steel suspensions are scattered away from the line of equality.
This demonstrates that auxiliary roll stiffness contributes most to total roll stiffness in trailer air
and steel steering axle suspensions, but does not make much contribution to the total roll
stiffness of trailer and drive axle steel suspensions. This point can be emphasised by calculating
the percentage contribution of auxiliary roll stiffness in the total roll stiffness, as shown in Figure
5.
In Figure 5, air suspensions have the highest percentage of auxiliary roll stiffness among all axle
groups (mostly above 70%). This is expected, since air suspensions are designed to be soft in the
vertical direction, but the trailing arm suspensions have very high auxiliary roll stiffness and
hence high total roll stiffness. For drive axle air suspensions, it is not desirable to twist the axle
and differential too much, so the auxiliary roll stiffness is often provided by an anti-roll bar. This
generally keeps the auxiliary roll stiffness lower than that of trailer air suspensions. By contrast,
auxiliary roll stiffness has a wide range of importance in the total roll stiffness of steel
suspensions, from as low as 10% in drive axles up to 70% in steering axles. This is again due to
wide variations in steel spring designs and different design considerations for the different axle
types.
Less correlation is found between total roll stiffness and vertical stiffness, as shown in Figure 6.
Except for steering axle suspensions, steel suspensions tend to have higher vertical spring
stiffness than air suspensions. Again, if all suspensions are separated into steel and air groups,
positive dependence can be found in steel suspensions with a coefficient of determination being
equal to 0.87 and negative dependence in air suspensions with a coefficient of 0.20. This trend,
together with the trend in Figure 4, confirms that vertical stiffness plays an important role in total
roll stiffness of steel suspensions, whereas auxiliary roll stiffness plays the most important role in
that of air suspensions.
Steel steering axle suspensions obtain their auxiliary roll stiffness by mounting the axle off the
centre of the steel leaf span, and by twisting the leaf springs about the longitudinal axis. Since
they have lower static load and more design emphasis on ride comfort, their vertical spring
stiffness tends to be significantly lower than that of drive suspensions. Both reasons make the
percentage of auxiliary roll stiffness in the total roll stiffness of steering axle suspensions higher
than that for other axle types of steel suspensions. Therefore, as can be seen in Figures 4 and 6,
the stiffness characteristics of steel steering axle suspensions are more similar to that of air
suspensions than the other steel suspensions.
According to [Anon., 1989 #206], steel suspensions normally do not have additional roll
stiffening mechanisms deliberately incorporated in their designs. This is why they generally
have a low proportion of auxiliary roll stiffness. However, the anti-roll bar effect of rigid axle
and trailing arm assemblies provides very stiff roll resistance for air suspensions. Their auxiliary
roll stiffness is not only high in proportion to total roll stiffness (because their vertical stiffness is
normally low) but also high in absolute terms.

4.2 Combined analysis of vehicle ride and roll performance

In the following analysis, rollover threshold and natural frequency, are used as indices to
represent vehicle roll and ride performance. High values of rollover threshold and low values of
natural frequency generally mean better performance. Both indices were calculated from the
measured data in the working database.
The relationship between rollover threshold and natural frequency is depicted in Figure 7. The
best performance is towards the top left of the chart, where rollover threshold is high and natural

6
frequency is low. Trailer and drive axle suspensions are divided into two distinct groups by their
suspension types. The air suspensions have low natural frequencies and the steel suspensions
have high natural frequencies. This is due to the significant difference in vertical stiffness of
these two types of suspensions as described in previous section. The rollover thresholds of the
trailer axle suspensions are nearly constant, independent of natural frequency. Conversely, the
rollover threshold of steel-suspended drive axle suspension increases with natural frequency.
This is expected since a large proportion of their roll stiffness comes from the springs and little
from auxiliary effects (Figure 5).
Steering axle suspensions also show insensitivity of rollover threshold to natural frequency, but
they are more scattered than for the other axle types. The design of steering axle suspensions is
governed by the need to provide appropriate steering geometry through a wide range of
deflections, as well as good ride comfort for the driver; rather than providing roll stability for the
vehicle. The high rollover thresholds of the steering axle suspensions
are essentially the result of their low payload and low effective CG height. Essentially the
steering axle suspensions do not ‘pull their weight’ - they are generally capable of providing
significantly more stabilising moment than they are called upon to provide in normal operation.
Calculated natural frequencies of steering axle suspensions are between 1.0 and 1.5 Hz. For
drive and trailer steel suspensions, the natural frequencies are 1.5 to 2.5 Hz, with the frequencies
of trailer suspensions being higher than those of the drive suspensions. For drive axle and trailer
air suspensions, they are around 1.2 to 1.5 Hz. The calculated rollover thresholds of the drive
axle and trailer suspensions generally vary from 0.4 to 0.5g. This would appear to indicate that
suspension designers aim for a specific level of rollover performance.
Steel suspensions, which derive most of their roll stiffness from the vertical stiffness of the
spring elements (figure 5), generally have a high dependence of rollover threshold on natural
frequency. If the vertical stiffness of a steel suspension is reduced in order to improve its ride
performance, there will be an adverse effect on roll stability. This makes it difficult for steel
suspensions to achieve both good ride comfort and high roll stability at the same time.
Conversely, air suspensions, whose rollover thresholds have little dependence on the vertical ride
natural frequency, possess more flexibility for improving both roll and ride performance
simultaneously. This is because the function of providing roll stiffness is mostly taken away
from the air springs by other auxiliary mechanisms (i.e. the assembly of the axle and trailing
arms, etc.). The function of the air spring is mainly provision of vibration isolation, and
designers are able to improve ride and roll performance simultaneously. Adding anti-roll bars to
leaf spring suspensions has a similar effect of relieving the need of the springs to provide roll
stiffness. This separation of functions (ride isolation and roll stiffness) is considered to be good
design practice [Pahl, 1996 #6].
In addition to suspension parameters, rollover threshold is also significantly affected by effective
payload CG height. It is calculated that a 10% change in effective load height will give 12% to
14% change in rollover threshold of trailer suspensions [Fu, 1998 #260].

4.3 Combined analysis of suspension parameters and rollover threshold

Roll centre height and total roll stiffness are the most important suspension parameters affecting
rollover threshold [Winkler, 2000 #266]. They are both available as measured quantities in the
working database. In this section, the relationship between these two parameters and the
calculated rollover threshold of the suspensions is investigated.
Figures 8 and 9 show the roll centre height plotted against total roll stiffness for the suspensions
in the database, together with contours of constant rollover threshold A y g , plotted using

7
equations 5 and 6. Figure 8 shows drive and trailer suspensions, while figure 9 shows steering
axle suspensions. The values of rollover threshold are indicated by numbers plotted on the
contours. The contours span the range of from zero to an upper limit Ay / g , which was
max
calculated from Equations 5 and 6, assuming infinite suspension roll stiffness K rtot → ∞ . This
gives:
Ay  Krt  (m + mu )g
= − 1 s (8)
g max  ms ghs + mu ghu  2Kt t

This limit is the highest rollover threshold that suspensions of a specific axle type can achieve.
For the drive axles and trailer axles in figure 8, using the parameters of the baseline vehicle, the
maximum rollover threshold is Ay / g = 0.5574 . For the steering axle suspensions shown in
max
figure 9, the limit is Ay / g = 0.8009 .
max

Note that Equation 8 does not contain the roll stiffness K rtot or roll centre height hrc . So the
limits can be determined simply from the relevant geometry, masses and tyre stiffnesses.
In order to make a comparison between drive and trailer suspensions, the same ‘baseline’ axle
loads and CG heights were assumed in the calculations of the rollover threshold for all
suspensions.
There is no strong relationship between roll centre height and total roll stiffness for the various
suspensions in figure 8. Some correlation exists between these parameters for steel suspensions,
because the roll centre heights are determined by the geometry of leaf springs. Stiffer multi-leaf
steel suspensions normally require more spring leaves, which pushes the roll centre to a higher
location. On the other hand, because the roll centres of air suspensions are determined by the
geometric configurations of components which are not normally influenced by the stiffness of
the air bags, the location of roll centre height and the suspension roll stiffness are independent.
One particular trailer air suspension has the lowest roll centre height, at about 100 mm. It is an
independent air suspension for which the roll mechanism is different from the other trailer air
suspensions of the rigid axle type.
The results for steering axle suspensions are plotted separately in Figure 9 because their loading
conditions are quite different from those of the other two axle types. Their roll centre heights are
essentially constant, and independent of roll stiffness. This is because their values of vertical
spring stiffness are very similar to one another, as demonstrated in Figure 6. All of these
suspensions have similar leaf spring configurations, which keep their roll centre locations at
approximately the same level. The constant roll centre height is also a consequence of the
requirement to minimise roll-steer effects generated by the steering linkage. As shown in this
figure, the roll centre heights are all about 450 mm. Data points for the tandem walking-beam
suspensions lie outside the range of data for steel suspensions. The walking-beam steering axle
suspensions have an entirely different duty from other suspensions (particularly for military
usage), with a different steering mechanism, and a different mechanism defining the position the
roll centre. This leads to their significantly different performance, as shown in figure 9.

5 CONCLUSIONS
(i) Analyses in this paper have explored the characteristics of various existing suspensions.
Both experimental data and analytical methods were applied to generate a complete
suspension database. Levels of theoretical performance were investigated for different
suspension designs.

8
(ii) The vertical stiffness of an air spring does not contribute much to its total roll stiffness in a
typical air suspension system. Therefore, it has little effect on the rollover threshold. Steel
leaf spring suspensions have more influence on the rollover performance.
(iii) One of the design trends of a suspension system is to separate the functions of ride and roll
performance into different components. In particular, the duty of spring elements in
providing roll stiffness can be released and the conflict in achieving both good ride comfort
and rollover performance can the be partially resolved. Typical examples are the
introduction of anti-roll bars in steel suspensions and the auxiliary roll stiffening
mechanisms in air suspensions.
(iv) The design of suspensions for steering axles is governed by factors other than rollover
performance, so the rollover performance normally exceeds practical operation
requirements.
(v) Designers of drive axle and trailer axle suspensions appear to aim for a rollover threshold
of 0.4 to 0.5g, and achieve this with a wide range of design parameter variants.

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are very grateful to Mr Chris Winkler of UMTRI for providing valuable suspension
data. Thanks also to the Ministry of Education in Taiwan, ROC for the financial support to Dr
Fu during this project. This work was also supported by the members of the Cambridge Vehicle
Dynamics Consortium. At the time of writing, the Consortium consists of the Universities of
Cambridge and Cranfield together with industrial partners from the European vehicle industry:
Tinsley Bridge Ltd, ArvinMeritor, Koni BV, Qinetiq, Pirelli, Shell. Volvo Global Trucks,
General Trailers, Mektronika Systems and Fluid Power Design.

7 REFERENCES

9
8 TABLES

Item Steering Drive axle Trailer axles

axle
Sprung mass (kg ) (axle loading) 6062 9179 8750
Sprung mass CG height ( m ) 1.17 1.68 1.79
Unsprung mass per axle ( kg ) 706 1107 792

Vertical stiffness of tyre ( N / m ) 8.76 × 105 1.75 × 10 6 1.75 × 10 6

Table 1 Properties of the baseline vehicle

10
 Table 2
Axle Type of Rated L. Tot. R. Stiff. Aux. R. Stiff. Vert. Stiff. R C H
Type origin kN N/m mm

measurements.
Axle no. Susp. Type Spring Type Leaf/Clamp kN-m/deg kN-m/deg
drive single steel flat (9) NA 71.2 10.73 1.16 8.06E+05 780
drive single steel flat (14) NA 93.4 9.69 2.26 1.15E+06 719
drive tandem 4-spring steel flat (7) NA 80.05 6.17 1.13 8.18E+05 677
drive tandem 2-spring steel flat (9) Eur 77.85 9.19 1.24 9.57E+05 657
drive tandem 2-spring steel taper (2) NA 75 10.8 0.8 1.19E+06 863
drive tandem 2-spring steel taper (3) Eur 77.85 7.22 1.36 6.82E+05 334
drive tandem walking-beam flat NA, M 71.15 5.12 2.03 3.69E+05 930
drive tandem torsion-bar torsion-bar NA 71.15 8.11 0.79 8.73E+05 638
steer single steel flat (6) Eur 62.3 2.52 1.24 2.13E+05 515

11
steer single steel flat (9) NA 53.4 2.77 1.47 2.45E+05 473
steer single steel flat (10) NA 64.9 2.88 1.07 3.04E+05 473
steer tandem walking-beam flat NA, M 62.3 4.87 1.69 3.79E+05 927

Ver. Stiff. : Vertical stiffness of the spring ( k s ).

trailer single trailing-arm air overslung NA 80.1 12.32 10.73 4.06E+05 557

R C H : Roll centre height of the suspension (hrc ).

trailer single trailing-arm air (iso) overslung NA 89 17.74 13.56 3.62E+05 571
trailer single trailing-arm air ind Eur 89 14.24 10.17 4.86E+05 100
trailer tandem trailing-arm air underslung NA 71.15 8.93 6.08 3.40E+05 615

Tot. R. Stiff. : Total roll stiffness of the suspension ( K rtot ).

trailer tandem 4-spring steel flat NA 71.15 13.56 1.13 1.41E+06 795
trailer tandem 4-spring steel flat Eur 84.5 16.16 2.26 1.47E+06 736
trailer tandem 4-spring steel taper (3) NA 71.15 11.72 2.95 1.05E+06 592

Aux. R. Stiff. : Auxiliary roll stiffness of the suspension ( K raux ).

Suspension experimental data from [Winkler, 1992 #215; Winkler, 1997 #265]
Rated L. : Rated load of the suspension. It is also the testing load applied in the
Table 3 Samples of calculated data for the suspensions listed in Table 2. See Figure 1 for
definition of the variables. Additional parameters are: k t - tyre stiffness, and t - half
wheel track.

12
9 FIGURES

m s Ay

ms g

θr

hs
Κrtot
θt
h rc

m u Ay
hu
m ug
Krt Degrees of freedom

Figure 1 The static roll plane model

25 23

20

15 12
11
10
6
4
5
2 2
1
0
drive- drive- drive- drive- steer- steer- Trailer- Trailer-
air steel torsion walking steel walking air steel

Types of axles & suspensions

Figure 2 Population of the working database

13
 50 47

40

30

20
10
10
2 2
0
Europe- Europe- North North
commercial military America- America-
commercial military

Market origin

Figure 3 Market origin of the working database

1.2E+6 Drive-air

1.0E+6 Drive-steel

8.0E+5 Drive-torsion

6.0E+5 Drive-walking

4.0E+5 Steer-steel
Line of Equity
2.0E+5 Steer-walking

0.0E+0 Trailer-air
0.0E+0 2.0E+5 4.0E+5 6.0E+5 8.0E+5 1.0E+6
Trailer-steel
Aux. roll stiffness (N-m/rad)

Figure 4 Relationship between total and auxiliary roll stiffness

14
 100
90

Percentage of Kraux in Krtot (%) 80

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Drive Drive Drive Drive Steer Steer Trailer Trailer
-air -steel -torsion -walking -steel -walking -air -steel
Type of suspensions

Figure 5 The percentage of auxiliary roll stiffness in total roll stiffness

1.2E+6 Drive-air

1.0E+6 Drive-steel

8.0E+5 Drive-torsion

6.0E+5 Drive-walking

4.0E+5 Steer-steel

2.0E+5 Steer-walking

0.0E+0 Trailer-air
0.0E+0 5.0E+5 1.0E+6 1.5E+6
Trailer-steel
Vertical stiffness (N/m)

Figure 6 Relationship between total roll stiffness and vertical stiffness

15
Figure 7 The relationship between rollover threshold and natural frequency

1700

Upper limit, Ay/g = 0.5574

1500

1300

1100
Drive-air

900 Drive-steel

Drive-torsion
700
Drive-walking

500 Trailer-air

Trailer-steel
300
Stability limit,
Ay/g = 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.55
100
1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08

Total Roll Stiffness (N-m/rad)

Figure 8 Combined analysis for drive and trailer axle suspensions

16
 1200
Upper limit, Ay/g = 0.8009

1000
0.75
0.7

0.6
800
0.5

600

Stability limit, Ay/g = 0.0

400

200 Steer-steel

Steer-walking

1.00E+4 1.00E+5 1.00E+6

Total roll stiffness (N-m/rad)

Figure 9 Combined analysis for steering axle suspensions

17