INVESTIGATION ON EFFECT OF HUMP ON A VEHICLE SUSPENSION FOR THE COMFORTABLE RIDE

P.S.S. Prasad 1 and Anilkumar Shirahatti

2

ABSTRACT Shock absorption in automobiles is performed by suspension system that carries the weight of the vehicle while attempting to reduce or eliminate vibrations which may be induced by a variety of sources, such as road surface irregularities, aerodynamics forces, vibrations of the engine and driveline, and non-uniformity of the tire/wheel assembly. Usually, road surface irregularities, ranging from potholes to random variations of the surface elevation profile, acts as a major source that excites the vibration of the vehicle body through the tire/wheel assembly and the suspension system. Vehicle suspension is designed to make a ride comfortable at all the speed ranges of the vehicle, while the hump profile should provide an excitation to make riding conditions uncomfortable to drivers when exceeding their designed speeds. In this paper, the effect of hump on vehicle suspension system with four degrees of freedom (four-DOF) is studied. The study shows that there is a certain safe speed range for comfortable ride while passing over the hump and if driver does not keep speed of the vehicle in this range then excessive uncomfortable maximum acceleration is experienced. Keywords: hump, ride comfort, jerk, suspension travel, road holding

INTRODUCTION Speed humps are the most widely used traffic calming device. They are one response to citizen concerns about speeding and cut-through traffic in areas. The primary objective of speed humps and other traffic calming measures in general, is to improve the environment and safety of a roadway by physically controlling vehicle speeds. Another consequence of speed humps can also be a reduction in the amount of cut-through traffic (Kulkarni and Joshi, 2005). Speed humps are not the same as speed bumps. The primary objective of these two devices is to control the speed of vehicles, but they have different designs and allowable uses. A schematic of their differences is shown in Fig.1. Speed humps are raised pavement areas across a roadway. They are typically parabolic, circular, or sinusoidal in shape and are a gentle version of the speed bump. As per Indian Road Congress standards, an ideal speed hump should be four-inches high, 3.5 meters wide and should
1 2

Asst. Prof., Department of Mechanical Engineering, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore 641 004, India Corresponding author: PG Scholar, Dept. of Mech. Engg., PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore 641 004, India Email: anilmech@rediffmail.com

be painted with white zebra stripes or elongated triangles (Aklekar, 2004; DTP, 2005). Speed humps create a gentle vehicle rocking motion at low speeds but can jolt a vehicle at higher speeds.

Speed Bump

Speed Hump

FIG. 1. Schematic difference between speed bump and speed hump Speed bumps have a more abrupt design. They consist of a portion of raised pavement, but because of their abruptness their use is very restricted. In fact, most speed bumps are found in parking lots and or along private roadways. Their height is typically between three and six inches, and they are usually only one to three feet long. Speed bumps produce substantial driver discomfort, damage to the vehicle suspension, and/or loss of control if encountered at too high a speed. This is one reason speed bumps are not used on public roadways (CTRE, 2005). VEHICLE MODEL

FIG. 2. Half car model A half car model is considered for ride comfort analysis of passenger cars. Fig. 2 shows a half car (four-DOF) model which consists of sprung mass which refers to the part of the car that is supported on springs and unsprung mass which refers to the mass of wheel assembly. The tire has been replaced with its equivalent stiffness and tire damping is neglected. The suspensions, tire, sprung mass are modeled by linear springs in parallel with dampers.

Using the Newtons second law of motion and free-body diagram concept, the following equations of motion are derived.
M b X b + C f X b X f + L1 + C r X b X r L2 + K f (X b X f + L1 ) + K r ( X b X r + L2 ) = 0 J + C f L1 X b X f + L1 Cr L2 X b X r L2 + K f L1 (X b X f + L1 ) K r L2 ( X b X r + L2 ) = 0

M f X f C f X b X f + L1 K f ( X b X f + L1 ) + K tf (X f Q f ) = 0 M r X r Cr X b X r + L2 K r ( X b X r + L2 ) + K tr ( X r Qr ) = 0

(1)

To get the response of the vehicle model Eq. (1) is solved using Runga-kutta method (Hemiter, 2001; Wong, 1998; Rao, 2003). The following numerical values of the parameters of typical four-DOF half car model are used for analysis (Panzade, 2005). Mb J Mf Mr = = = = 1105 kg 4330 kg-m2 84 kg 65 kg Kf Kr K tf K tr = = = = 51000 N/m 92600 N/m 200000 N/m 200000 N/m Cf Cr L1 L2 = = = = 1510 Ns/m 1780 Ns/m 1.504 m 1.150 m

HUMP PROFILE As per Indian Road Congress standards, an ideal speed hump should be four-inches high, 3.5 meters wide and should be painted with white zebra stripes or an elongated triangle is used for analysis (Aklekar, 2004; DTP, 2005).

FIG. 3. Hump profile Fig. 3. shows the profile of the hump used for analysis. The excitation at front (Q f) and rear (Qr) wheel at any time t given by the hump are
Q f = (0.1016 / 2)(1 cos( wt )) Qr = (0.1016 / 2)(1 cos(w(t td )))

(2)

Where Excitation frequency, w =

2V L + L2 and Time lag, td = 1 3 .5 V

RESULTS From present investigation the following results are obtained. Fig. 4 & 5 shows the variation of maximum vertical and angular acceleration of the sprung mass respectively against speed of vehicle for four-DOF model. It can be seen that comfortable ride exists within the speed range of 25-40 km/hr when acceleration of the sprung mass is considered as the criteria for comfort. Also the jerk in this speed interval is less.

FIG. 4. Maximum vertical acceleration of sprung mass v/s speed of vehicle

FIG. 5. Maximum angular acceleration of sprung mass v/s speed of vehicle

FIG. 6. Max. vertical displacement of sprung mass v/s speed of vehicle

FIG. 7. Max. angular displaceme nt of sprung mass v/s speed of vehicle

FIG. 8. Max. dynamic tyre force (front wheel) v/s speed of vehicle

FIG. 9. Max. dynamic tyre force (rear wheel) v/s speed of vehicle

Fig. 6 & 7 shows the variation of maximum vertical and angular displacement of the sprung mass respectively against speed of vehicle. Maximum vertical displacement initially increases and then starts falling and after speed of vehicle 50 km/hr, it remains almost constant. While maximum angular displacement initially increases and then decreases and reaches very low value at higher speed. Fig. 8 and 9 shows the variation of dynamic tyre force for front and rear tyre respectively against speed of vehicle . The dynamic forces remain minimum in the range of 30-50 km/hr.

CONCLUSION The d esign of speed humps has evolved from extensive research and testing to achieve the specified speed reduction goal without imposing a high level of safety risks. When designed and installed properly, speed humps can be effective at lowering vehicle speeds and possibly reducing speed-related collisions. Speed humps can also be installed in a series to reduce speeds along an extended section of street. From present investigation it can be concluded that for four-DOF half car model with given hump dimensions and suspension parameters, comfortable ride exists within the speed range of 25-40 km/hr. Also within this speed range maximum dynamic tyre force for front and rear wheel are 4200 N and 5000 N respectively, while jerk remains very less. REFERENCES Kulkarni, N.S. and Joshi, S.G.., (2005), Optimization of the suspension system and roadway hump for better ride comfort and speed control, National seminar on Vehicle Dynamics, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, February 10-11, 2003, 7-14. Aklekar Rajendra, (2004), Speed breakers get new dimensions, available on http://web.mid-day.com/ Delhi traffic police (DTP), (2005), General information about speed breaker, available on www.delhitrafficpolice.nic.in Center for transport and research education (CTRE), (2005), Traffic and safety information series, Lowa state university, available on http://www.ctre.iastate.edu Hemiter, M.E., (2001), Programming in Matlab, Thomson Learning, Singapore. Wong, J.Y., (1998), Theory of ground vehicles, John Wiley & Sons. Rao, V. D., (2003), Vehicle Dynamics, Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi. Panzade, P., (2005), Modeling and analysis of full vehicle for ride and handling, M.E. Thesis.

APPENDIX I. NOTATION The following symbols were used for investigation Mb M f & Mr Xb Xf & Xr Kf & Kr Kft & Kfr Cf & Cr Qf & Q r : : : : : : : : : Sprung mass (kg) Front and rear unsprung mass (kg) Sprung mass vertical displacement (m) Sprung mass pitch (rad) Front and rear unsprung mass vertical displacement (m) Front and rear suspension stiffness (N/m) Front and rear tyre stiffness (N/m) Front and rear suspension damping coefficient (Ns/m) Front and rear tyre road input (m)