SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES

2014-36-0771

Active Suspension Design Based on Geometric Parameters of a

Formula SAE Car for Roll Minimization
Jos Carlos de Carvalho Pereira,
Allan Oliveira da Silva,
Gilberto Felipe Pinho,
Marina Brasil Pintarelli,
Thiago Gouveia Rocha

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.
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2014 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The
authors solely responsible for the content of the paper.

2014-36-0771

Active Suspension Design Based on Geometric Parameters of a Formula

SAE Car for Roll Minimization
A. O. da Silva, G. F. Pinho, M. B. Pintarelli, T. G. Rocha, and J.C.C. Pereira
SAE Brasil Non Associated
Copyright 2014 SAE International

Abstract
This paper describes a methodology through which is possible
to design an active suspension control beginning on the
geometric characteristics of a double-wishbone suspension.
The used data is based on the 2011 Formula SAE car
developed by the Formula UFSC Team. A front half-car model
with two degrees-of-freedom was used, taking into account the
parameters of the suspension and considering each tire a rigid
body. The behavior of the geometric model is analyzed and
equations are generated to determine the spring deformation
due to each degree-of-freedom. Following, Lagrange's
equations are used to obtain the movement equations of the
model, which will be converted to a simplified model with the
same dynamic behavior used in the control development.
Furthermore, the methodology provides the tools for efficient
suspension design, allowing a quick conversion between the
simplified model, commonly used for calculating the initial
parameters of a new suspension, and a more close-to-reality
dynamic model, from which a behavior preview can be
obtained. This paper also proposes a control structure based
on a Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) to be used on this
equivalent model. It increases the performance optimizing the
magnitude of the vertical and lateral displacement in the
closed-loop system. The process of determining the weighting
matrices of the variables priorities using the method of the
energy of the state variables and control effort is presented.
Finally, the results achieved by simulation tests are compared
with the behavior of the system without control to prove its
efficacy.

Introduction
Aiming performance gains with the implementation of a full
active suspension in a competition vehicle, the interest in doing
a research which conducts to a future implementation of an
active suspension system in a vehicle of the Formula UFSC
team emerged. The primary objective would be the reduction
of the roll angle of the vehicle while cornering, effect due the
inertia of the sprung masses and unsprung masses.
The objective of this paper is to analyze a Double Wishbone
suspension system of one Formula SAE vehicle,
understanding its dynamic behavior and obtaining the required

equations to describe its behavior. The resultant mathematical

model is converted to a simplified model of two degrees of
freedom whose dynamic response is the same as the
response of the original model under the same conditions. The
simplified model underlies the design of a control scheme
containing actuators inserted in the suspension for the
compensation of the roll effect of the vehicle. The roll reduction
is important due the performance increase of the car by
reducing the deformation of the tire while cornering [1],
maintaining the largest possible amount of rubber in contact
with the ground. Therefore, the traction potential of the vehicle
is maximized.
This paper also presents the development of an active
suspension system using a Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR)
method. There has been a large body of research dedicated to
optimal LQR controllers for quarter, half and even full car
models [2-5]. As the main purpose of this implementation is to
reduce the roll effect in a racing vehicle, a half car model is
adopted to implement the control.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 1 describes the
vehicle data used for the development of the paper; Section 2
describes the dynamic model and its boundary conditions;
Section 3 presents the method for obtaining the equation of
motion for the system; Section 4 describes the conversion to a
simplified model for implementing the control scheme; Section
5 presents the test conditions used to calculate the dynamic
responses; Section 6 presents the method for solving the
equation of motion; and Section 7 describes de control
development. Finally, the results and conclusions are
presented in the last section.

Vehicle Data
Geometry of the suspension
The geometry selected for the study of this paper is based on
the suspension projected for the car of 2011 by the Formula
UFSC team. As the objective is to elaborate a simplified model
in which the active control is going to be implemented, a half
car model was chosen to be analyzed. In this paper, the
approximated dimensions of the front suspension were used.
Afterwards, the method can be repeated with the parameters

of the rear suspension. The control method, however, will be

done individually; it is going to be implemented separately for
each half of the vehicle.

Dynamic Radius of the Tire

rd

0.29 m

Natural Frequency Desired

n (f)

3 Hz

Damping Ratio Desired

0.6

Dynamic Model
Model definition

Figure 1. Dimensions of the Front Suspension

The Double Wishbone model was adopted by the team. Also, it

was designed with the dimensions shown in Figure 1. In this
paper, the geometry was converted to the simplified model
presented in Figure 2. It comprehends only the bars and the
linkages of the mechanism of the suspension and its
respective dimensions.

In the development of this research, it is required to elaborate

a mathematical model which represents the system with proper
fidelity. In this regard, simplifications were adopted for the
system discretization and boundary conditions were imposed
for the model created. These specifications were settled
approaching the model behavior and the factual behavior of
the vehicle.
Thus, based on the dimensions and the geometry already
defined, the model of the Figure 3 was created, and the system
is discretized in nodes numbered from 1 to 14.

Figure 3. Mathematical Dynamic model.

Figure 2. Simplified Geometry for the Mathematical Model.

Vehicle parameters
The vehicle parameters required for the study are organized in
the Table 1. The parameters chosen by the Formula UFSC
team were based on the methodology used by [1] and it was
followed while this study was conducted.
Table 1. Vehicle Parameters.

Boundary Conditions and Simplifications

In the Figure 3, it is possible to observe some conditions
imposed and the approximations already adopted for its
simplification:
1.
2.
3.

Parameter

Symbol

Value

Sprung Mass (front)

MsI

115 kg

Unsprung Mass (front)

MusI

10 kg (each)

Stiffness Coefficient of one front suspension

spring

kI

198929 N/m

Damping Coefficient of one front suspension

damper

cI

12664 N.s/m

Moment of Inertia of the Sprung Mass (front)

JoI,body

9.94 kg.m

Moment of Inertia of the Unsprung Mass (front)

JoI,wheel

1.14 kg.m

Height of the Center of Gravity of front sprung

mass
Height of the Roll Center of the front suspension

hm

0.3 m

42 mm

Height of the Pole of the front suspension

pI

0.2 m

4.
5.
6.

The flexibility of the tires is not being considered;

The tires do not have vertical movement, only horizontal
and rotation;
The body does not have horizontal movement, only
vertical and rotation;
The roll center moves vertically with the body ( ;)
All the elements are considered rigid bodies, excepting the
damper-spring ensemble;
The displacement of all other nodes can be determined
based on two variables (as it can be seen at the sections
ahead). The independent variables of the system are:
a. ( or ): vertical displacement of the
center of gravity;
b. : rotation of the CG (node 7) around the roll
center.

Hypotheses Assumed
Some hypotheses were assumed after several mathematic
analyses and observing the system behavior under certain

conditions with the support of a geometric modeling software

and schematic drawings. The hypotheses assumed are going
to be properly proven or refused in the development of the
equations.
1.
2.
3.

For the obtainment of the solution, the term kinetic energy

in relation of the translational inertia was disregarded, only
its rotational inertia was considered;
Both sides of the car behave symmetrically for vertical
displacements of the center of gravity and inversely while
under roll effect
The effects of the vertical movement of the center of
gravity ( ) and of the variation of the roll angle () under
the deflection of the spring are independent. Therefore,
the spring deflection is a function with two variables
linearly independent.

Determination of the model equations

As the Lagrangian formulation is used to obtain the movement
equations of the system, it is required to set the equations
which represent the spring and the damper deflection with the
two degrees of freedom established ( and . As well as the
deformation energy of the system and its dissipative function
can be defined, both required in the chosen formulation. Also,
it is needed to establish the movement equations of the
masses for the obtainment of the kinetic energy of the system,
another value required in the Lagrangian formulation.

Interpolated equations

The software SolidWorks has proven to be a good tool in the

analyses of the spring deflection, one alternative for obtaining
the spring deflection due the roll and the vertical movement of
the vehicle was formulated. Introducing several different
boundary conditions in the geometric model created utilizing
the software; it is possible to collect the associated spring
length for each case.

Figure 4. Evaluation of the spring deflection under the vertical

displacement of the center of gravity.

Figure 5. Graphic of the spring deflection under the effects of vertical

displacements of the center of gravity.

The spring deformation due the effect of the is graphically

represented by the Figure 5. As shown, the function of the
spring deflection is well represented by a linear function. Also,
it is important to restate that the behaviors of both springs are
the same under any variations, but inverse for the effects
of . Therefore, the equations were obtained:


(1)

(2)

The dampers own an analog behavior as they are mounted

with the springs. Thus, the equations of the dampers are:


(3)

(4)

Furthermore, imposing combined boundary conditions was

possible to prove that both degrees of freedom and
are independent. Some of the results obtained are shown at
Table 2.
Table 2. Error due to the use of Equation (1) to calculate the
deformation of the spring.
Vertical
Displacement
(mm)

Roll
Angle 
(degrees)

-15

1.0

-15

5.0

-60

1.0

-60

5.0

Obtained
Equations
(mm)

Absolute
Error
(mm)

Relative
Error
(%)

8.86

8.93

0.07

0.7

23.85

23.61

0.24

1.0

25.03

24.68

0.35

1.4

40.78

39.37

1.41

3.5

SolidWorks
(mm)

Moreover, it can be observed that the error increases when the

values of and are elevated. Accordingly, the
approximations and hypotheses are valid for small values of
and, such as and .

Coupled and Uncoupled Analytical Equations

Based on the assumption that the spring deflection is a
function with two variables linearly independent, it was possible
to obtain a function with two variables which represents the
total deflection utilizing the superposition principles. The Figure
4 represents the imposition procedure of a vertical
displacement of the center of gravity.

Attempts were made to determine coupled equations for the

horizontal and vertical movement of each node. However,
those equations resulted in extremely complex functions for the
spring deflection and impeded the development of the model.

Furthermore, uncoupled analytical equations for the spring

deflection were obtained after approximations and calculations,
yet the error was substantially higher comparing to the results
of the interpolated equations. The advantage of analytical
equations is that they allow optimization analyses: in this case,
a new equation for the spring deflection can be determined
almost instantly after modifying some parameters of the
suspension.

Obtaining the motion equations

The motion equations are obtained by applying the Lagrange
Equation [6], illustrated by the Equation (5), to the expressions
of the kinect , potential and dissipated energies,
and the virtual work of the systems components. The
advantage of using the Lagrangian Mechanics instead of the
Newtonian is that vectorial equations are eliminated from the
formulation. The energies equations used to calculate the
dynamic response of the system are scalar, which simplify the
procedure. Thus, it begins by calculating the energy equations.

(5)

On which indicates the degree of freedom of index

To obtain the energy equations for the system, the equations
developed in the previous sections and the boundary
conditions already defined are considered.

Kinetic Energy
The most significant parcel of the kinect energy is that of the
sprung mass. Considering it concentrated on a rectangular
prism of mass and moment of inertia related to the
roll center, its kinect energy is given by the Equation (6).

(6)

Since the wheels do not incline with the same angle the body
of the car do, such inclination is described as a function of
and through the interpolation method described on the
previous sections. Therefore, the Equations (7) and (8) give
the angle of each wheel as a function of the two degrees of
freedom of the system and the error associated to the use of
these equations is presented in Table 3.

(7)

(8)

Table 3. Error due to the use of the Equation (7) to calculate the angle
of the wheel.
Vertical
Displacement
(mm)

Roll
Angle 
(degrees)

SolidWorks
(degrees)

Obtained
Equations
(degrees)

-15

1.0

0.33

0.32

0.0064

1.9

-15

5.0

3.21

3.21

0.0048

0.2

Absolute
Error
(degrees)

Relative
Error (%)

-60

1.0

-0.88

-0.87

0.0131

1.5

-60

5.0

1.94

2.01

0.0747

3.9

Since the error is at acceptable levels, the kinect energy of the

wheels is given by the Equation (10).

(9)

(10)

Adding together the two parcels, car and wheels, the total
kinect energy is given by the Equation (11).

(11)

Potential Energy
To obtain the total potential energy of the system , it is
necessary to consider the parcel of each spring, which are
given by the Equations (12) and (13).

(12)

(13)

By substituting on the equations above with the

functions described by the Equations (1) and (2), it is possible
to write the total potential energy as function of the two
degrees of freedom of the system, as shown in the Equation
(14).

(14)

Dissipated Energy
Since the spring and the damper are coupled in the assembly,
the function for the dissipated energy is obtained the same way
as for the potential energy, giving the Equation (15) for the total
dissipated energy.

(15)

Applying the Lagrange Equation

The Equation (5) is applied for each degree of freedom,
resulting on the Equations (16) and (17).

(16)

(17)

The equation of motion is written as shown in the Equation

(18), being and the matrices of mass, damping,
and stiffness, respectively, being the vector of degrees
of freedom and being the vector of perturbations acting
on the system.

(18)

Calculating each term of the Equations (16) and (17) and

writing them in the form given by the Equation (18), the results
are the terms of the equation of motion for the system as
shown below.

(19)

Figure 6. Simplified model with 2 degrees of freedom.

The Figure 6 presents a simplified model with the same

degrees of freedom defined for the dynamic model developed
for the Formula vehicle suspension. Its equations of motion are
given as, for each DoF:

(20)

(22)

(21)

(23)

With these terms, the equation of motion for the system is

defined. However, the vector of perturbations remains to
be determined, which will be done in the section denominated
Test Conditions.

Organizing the Equations (22) and (23) in the matrix form give:

Model Conversion

This section discusses the conversion procedure from the

dynamic model developed for the car into a simplified 2 DoF
model (Figure 6). The goal of the conversion is to facilitate the
implementation of a control algorithm for an active suspension.
The motion equations for the simplified model can be obtained
analytically, and it has the same form which was described in
the Equation (18). Therefore, comparing the equations
obtained for both models, it is possible to find values for the
equivalent spring stiffness , equivalent damping
coefficient , equivalent sprung mass ( , equivalent
moment of inertia and equivalent track width that
cause the simplified model to present the same dynamic
behavior of the previous model.

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

Which are directly compared to the Equations (19), (20) and

(21), respectively, to give:

(28)

Thus, the values for the equivalent variables are:

(29)

(30)

  

(31)

 

(32)

(33)

(34)

(35)

Which provide a 2 DoF simplified model with the same

dynamic response of the suspension model developed
previously in this paper.

Test Conditions
To study the dynamic behavior of the vehicle, it is necessary to
determine which perturbation forces are acting on the model.
Thus, to allow a coherent analysis, the perturbations must
match with the reality in which the system under study is
inserted. In this case, the car experiments roll momentum due
to curves and maneuvering on a Formula SAE track.
In the 2 DoF model presented, the types of perturbations that
can be imposed to the system are a vertical force ,
considered as constant and equal to the weight of the car, and
a roll momentum that varies depending on the track,
being defined as a time dependent function.

Calculating the roll momentum

The track chosen to allow the study of the vehicle behavior
was the Skidpad competition track. The reason for this choice
is that the course induces considerable roll momentum in the
car and has its parameters (curve radius, course average time,
etc.) well defined.

Figure 7. FSAE Skidpad Track Layout.

The track (Figure 7) is formed by two pairs of concentric circles

positioned in the shape of an eight. The center of the two
pairs are at 18.25m of distance. The inner circle have a
diameter of 15.25m and the outer circles have a diameter of
21.25m, which gives a track width of 3m. Furthermore, the
entrance and the exit are located between the pairs of circles,
and both are defined by lines tangent to the inner circles. This
allows the calculation of the curve radius , considering the
car says in the middle of the track:


(36)

The roll momentum experimented by the vehicle is caused by

the action of the inertia of the sprung and unsprung masses,
whose point of action is at a certain distance from the roll
center of the car. Thus, a momentum that causes the vehicle
body to incline is generated [1].
According to [1], the roll momentum have two parcels. The first
is related to the inertia force of the sprung mass, given by the
Equation (37). The Equation (38) gives the second parcel,
which is related to the unsprung masses. The Figure 8
illustrates the effect of the variables over the roll momentum. In
this case, only the front sprung and non-sprung masses are
considered.

(37)

(38)

Being:
x
x
x
x
x

sprung weight on the front axle;

friction coefficient between tires and road;
unsprung weight on the front axle;
front suspension pole height;
dynamic radius of the tire;

(39)

x
x

height of the gravity center of the front sprung mass;

height of the roll center of the front suspension.

Figure 9. Velocity as a function of the curve radius for different friction

coefficients.

With the values defined for the variables of the Equation (39), it
is possible to calculate the maximum roll momentum during the
Skidpad course:

Figure 8. Variables that influence the roll momentum of a vehicle with
independent suspensions.

[1] also brings the following relation

(42)

Therefore, observing that the momentum increases over time

until reaching its maximum value during the moment that the
car is entering the curve, and considering the track parameters
and the velocity defined, the following profile for the roll
momentum as a function of time is generated:

(40)

Which allows inferring that:

(41)

Being:
x
x
x

vehicle velocity [m/s];

curve radius[m];
gravity acceleration [m/s].

Thus, it is possible to build a graph (Figure 9) relating the curve

radius and the maximum velocity with which it can be
performed for a given , inducing the maximum roll
momentum that will act on the car during the curve. Since it is
a competition vehicle that use racing tires, the friction
coefficient considered to calculate the maximum roll
momentum is , which gives a maximum velocity
.

Figure 10. Roll momentum as a function of time during the Skidpad

course.

Calculating the response as a function of time

To obtain the dynamic response of the vehicle as a function of
time it is necessary to solve the Equation (18). It can be done
by applying a discretization and estimating the solution for
each discrete time step by using the Taylor Series limited to
the third order [6]. In this solution, the behavior of the system at
the present instant is calculated based on its behavior
on the previous time instant according to the Equation (43),
on which represent the vector of degrees of freedom of the
system.

(43)

Applying the necessary algebraic manipulations and

differentiating to find the velocity and acceleration vector, the
Equations (44), (45) and (46) are obtained as follows:

 

(44)

The control variables and disturbance were selected as

described below:

(51)

(52)

(45)

(46)

With and being:

(47)

(48)

The Equation (44) gives the solution for the vertical

displacement and roll angle. The Equations (45) and (46) give,
respectively, the velocity and the acceleration in the degrees of
freedom stipulated.
These equations can be solved iteratively with a computational

tool such as MATLAB . The procedure start at with

known initial conditions and . The acceleration is
then calculated inserting these conditions in the Equation (46).
The solutions will be presented in the last section of this paper,
in comparison with the controlled (closed loop) behavior.

Control Development
In order to increase its performance, it was developed an
active suspension system control to the 2DoF model described
in the Figure 6, using an LQR as control structure. This
development is discussed in this section.

and represent respectively the actuator force

on the left and right side of the vehicle.  represents a vertical
load applied to the vehicle and a moment  scroll arises for
instance in a curve. From the chosen vectors, the system
matrices can be obtained:

(53)

(54)

(55)

(56)

(57)

System Model by State Space Representation

For the mathematical modeling, it was chosen a state of space
representation, alternatively to a representation by transfer
function due to the amount of variables that influence the
performance of the vehicle.
In order to establish a compromise between the simplicity of
the model and the accuracy of the results to be achieved within
a range of operation is chosen as state variables: velocity and
displacement of the center of gravity, velocity and
displacement of the roll angle.


(49)

Through the state vector and the obtained model, it is

organized the system of equations (50) in order to obtain a
time-invariant linear system of the form:

(50)

Definition of Control Structure

An LQR was chosen for the control of the modeled system.
The advantages to use LQR compared to project by pole
allocation is that it may have results strongly degraded by the
presence of zeros in the transfer function and the choice of the
poles arent trivial in a multivariable system [7].
Furthermore, LQR proposes an optimal solution for a quadratic
criterion associated to the energy of the state variables and
control signals [8]. The quadratic criterion to be minimized is
represented by a cost function, chosen as in the Equation (58).

(58)

The control law that stabilizes the system and minimizes the
cost J is where is the optimal

control gain and P is the only positive definite solution to

Riccati equation given below:

(59)

First of all, It was verified that the system is stabilizable and,

thus, LQR can be implemented with the definition of the
matrices and . For the definition of these matrices, it
was calculated the energy of each state variable in an open
loop trial, and the control variables had estimated its order of
magnitude. From this it was chosen the following values:

(60)

(61)

Figure 12 - Comparison of the roll speed in open-loop (blue) and

closed-loop (red).

With the definition of the matrices, its possible to calculate the

optimal controller for this criterion. In the following section, the
results obtained from the implementation of the simulation

from Mathworks will be

model in MATLAB/Simulink
presented.

Simulation Results and Analysis

As a way of prove the efficacy of the Active Suspension in a
Skidpad Test, it was done a several simulation to compare the
behavior between the system with and without control.

Figure 13 - Comparison of the roll acceleration in open-loop (blue) and

closed-loop (red).

With the generated graphs from the simulation, it is observed

that the performance improvement was good enough to justify
its implementation. In the case of roll angle , the focus of
this work, the new maximum and minimum values are shown
below, compared with their values in open loop:

Figure 11 Comparison of the roll angle in open-loop (blue) and

closed-loop (red).

  

(62)

(63)

(64)

(65)

The graph below shows the control effort necessary to achieve

this result.

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Figure 14 - Force applied by the actuators to attenuate the rollover of

the vehicle.

Conclusions
From the developed work, it is possible to conclude that an
active suspension can provide a great impact on the roll angle
reduction. Moreover, despite existing other ways to reduce the
roll effect, as increasing the stiffness of the springs or using
stabilizer bars, an active suspension is a more versatile
solution because it is possible to do several consecutive tests
changing the parameters in order to find a better tuning. For
other solutions, it would be necessary to produce a new
mechanical component.
An active suspension also gives an adaptable response for
each condition, meaning that the dynamics would be optimized
for each scenario.
In this paper, it was presented a methodology where a
simplified half-car suspension mathematical model was
obtained based on the geometric parameters of a doublewishbone suspension. By implementing a feedback control
scheme on this model, satisfactory results were achieved
regarding the minimization of the roll effect on the vehicle. This
allows the conclusion of the performance gains and fine-tuning
that are made possible by the active suspension system
described.
There are expectations for its experimental validation by a
possible use of the presented method in one of the next
vehicle to be designed by the Formula UFSC team.

References
1.

2.
3.

Leal, L.C.M. da Rosa, E. and Nicolazzi, L. C., Uma

Introduo Modelagem Quase Esttica de Veculos
Automotores
de
Rodas,
Internal
Publication
GRANTE/EMC/UFSC, Florianpolis 2008.
Rajamani, R., 2006. Vehicle dynamics and control, second
ed. Springer.
Chai, L., and Sun, T., 2010. The design of LQG controller
for active suspension based on analytic hierarchy
process. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2010.

Esmailzadeh, E., and Fahimi, F., 1997. Optimal adaptive

active suspension for a full car model. Vehicle Systems
Dynamics, 27, pp. 89 107.
Hrovat, D., 1997. Survey of advanced suspension
developments and related optimal control applications.
Automatica, 33(10), pp. 1781 1817.
Pereira, J. C. C., Anlise Dinmica de Sistemas
Mecnicos, Florianpolis: Departamento de Engenharia
Mecnica - UFSC, 2013. 243 p.
Ogata, K. 2009 Modern Control Engineering, Ch. 10. fifth
ed. Prentice Hall.
Neto, A. T., Coutinho, D., & Barbosa, K. A. (2003, August).
Sistemas Multivariveis: Uma abordagem via LMIs.
Retrieved March 05, 2014, from Departamento de
Automao e Sistemas - UFSC:
http://www.das.ufsc.br/~trofino/disciplinas/das6600/book.pdf
Definitions/Abbreviations

CG

center of gravity

DoF

degrees of freedom

LQR

Linear quadratic regulator