Nonlinear Two-Dimensional Modeling of a McPherson Suspension for

Kinematics and Dynamics Simulation

Jorge Hurel*, Anthony Mandow, Alfonso Garca-Cerezo
* Facultad de Ingeniera Mecanica y Ciencias de la Produccin,
ESPOL, 09-01-5863 Guayaquil, Ecuador. Email: jhurel@espol.edu.ec
Departamento de Ingeniera de Sistemas y Automtica
University of Mlaga, 29071 Mlaga, Spain. Email: amandow@uma.es
Abstract - This paper proposes a systematic and comprehensive development of a nonlinear two-dimensional mathematical
quarter-car model of the McPherson suspension. The model considers not only vertical motion of the sprung mass (chassis)
but also rotation and translation for the unsprung mass (wheel assembly). Furthermore, this model includes the wheel mass
and its inertia moment about the longitudinal axis. This work improves the conventional quarter-car model by incorporating
both the suspension geometry and the tyre lateral stiffness, which allows analyzing variations in kinematic parameters, such
as camber angle and track width. Besides, the paper offers an implementation of the model using Matlab-Simulink, whose
dynamics and kinematics have been validated against a realistic two-dimensional model developed with the Adams View
program.
Keywords: McPherson suspension; camber angle; dynamics simulation; inertia moment; kinematic parameters; kinematics
simulation; nonlinear 2D mathematical quarter-car model; sprung mass vertical motion; suspension geometry; tyre lateral
stiffness; unsprung mass rotation; unsprung mass translation; wheel assembly; automobiles; mechanical engineering
computing; suspensions (mechanical components); vehicle dynamics; Adams View program;
__________________________________________________________________________________________
This document is a self-archiving copy of a copyrighted publication.
Please find the published article in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AMC.2012.6197009

Citation Information
Hurel, J.; Mandow, A.; Garcia-Cerezo, A.; ,
"Nonlinear two-dimensional modeling of a McPherson suspension for kinematics and dynamics simulation," 12th IEEE
International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control (AMC), pp.1-6, 2012.
doi: 10.1109/AMC.2012.6197009
@INPROCEEDINGS{Hurel2012:AMC,
author={Hurel, J. and Mandow, A. and Garc\'{i}a-Cerezo, A.},
booktitle={12th IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control},
title={Nonlinear two-dimensional modeling of a McPherson suspension
simulation},
year={2012},
pages={1 -6},}

for

kinematics

and

dynamics

__________________________________________________________________________________________
2012 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish this material for advertising or
promotional purposes or for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or to reuse any copyrighted
component of this work in other works must be obtained from the IEEE.

The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control

March 25-27, 2012, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Nonlinear Two-Dimensional Modeling of a

McPherson Suspension for Kinematics and
Dynamics Simulation
Jorge Hurel

Anthony Mandow and Alfonso Garca-Cerezo

Facultad de Ingeniera Mecanica y Ciencias de la Produccion,

ESPOL, 09-01-5863 Guayaquil, Ecuador
Email: jhurel@espol.edu.ec, Tel: (+34) 951 952 325

Departamento de Ingeniera de Sistemas y Automatica

Universidad de Malaga 29071 Malaga, Spain
Email: amandow@uma.es, Tel: (+34) 951 952 527

AbstractThis paper proposes a systematic and comprehensive development of a nonlinear two-dimensional mathematical
quarter-car model of the McPherson suspension. The model
considers not only vertical motion of the sprung mass (chassis)
but also rotation and translation for the unsprung mass (wheel
assembly). Furthermore, this model includes the wheel mass
and its inertia moment about the longitudinal axis. This work
improves the conventional quarter-car model by incorporating
both the suspension geometry and the tyre lateral stiffness,
which allows analyzing variations in kinematic parameters, such
as camber angle and track width. Besides, the paper offers
an implementation of the model using Matlab-Simulink, whose
dynamics and kinematics have been validated against a realistic
two-dimensional model developed with the Adams View program.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Most research on suspension systems has been focused on
the analysis of control strategies for active or semi-active
mechanisms to improve the characteristics of comfort, handling and ride quality [1] [2] [3]. However, there are few works
related to the kinematic-dynamic modeling of the suspension
system [4].
The McPherson suspension is widely used in small and
medium size vehicles due to its light weight, compact size, and
cost [5]. Fig. 1 shows a McPherson suspension system, which
consists of a suspension arm, or control arm, plus a springdamper assembly (strut) rmly attached to the wheel assembly.
Large and asymmetric changes in kinematic parameters, such
as camber angle and track width, are a major problem in
modeling and controlling this type of suspension [6].
The quarter-car linear model is commonly used to analyze
the suspension dynamic behavior [7]. However, this model
does not consider the suspension system structure, which
affects signicantly the system dynamic behavior [8]. In [9],
it is shown that two types of suspension geometry produce
different responses in real systems and equivalent parameters
are proposed to improve the linear model.
In the case of the McPherson suspension, its variable
geometry provokes a nonlinear behavior, which can be
analyzed with two-dimensional models [10]. Furthermore,
three-dimensional models have been considered to study the

978-1-4577-1073-5/12/$26.00 2012 IEEE

6SULQJGDPSHU
DVVHPEO\

&RQWURODUP

:KHHO
DVVHPEO\

Fig. 1: McPherson suspension.

McPherson kinematics [5] [11]. However, none of these models accounts for tyre dynamics.
In the linear model of a quarter-car suspension system, the
tyre is analyzed as a rigid element, so neither vertical damping
[12] nor lateral deection [4] are considered. These features
are included in a nonlinear two-dimensional model of a double
wishbone suspension [4], where a small variation in the
points describing the suspension geometry greatly affects the
kinematic-dynamic response of the system. This is specially
relevant in the McPherson case, where tyre spring stiffness
has been considered in two-dimensional [13] and multi-body
dynamic models [14] that neglect tyre damping and lateral
deection.
This paper proposes a systematic and comprehensive development of a nonlinear two-dimensional mathematical model
of McPherson suspension. The model considers that the sprung
mass (chassis) moves vertically, and that the unsprung mass
(wheel assembly) experiments a two-dimensional motion of
rotation and translation. In addition, the model includes the
wheel mass and its inertia moment about the longitudinal axis.
Generalized coordinates Zs and Zu are used to generate a

system of two nonlinear differential equations. Thus, the model

takes into account the geometrical structure, as well as the tyre
damping and lateral stiffness, which have not been considered
in other related works. This model allows analyzing variations
in the kinematic parameters of the McPherson suspension that
cannot be studied with the conventional model: the camber
angle and the track width [15].
Furthermore, the paper describes the implementation of
the model using Matlab-Simulink. Simulation allows to analyze the system dynamic behavior versus road obstacles
and depressions. Moreover, to validate the results, these have
been compared with a realistic two-dimensional model of
the McPherson suspension developed using the Adams View
program.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The development of two-dimensional nonlinear mathematical model
based on kinematic-dynamic equations is performed in section
II. The nonlinear model generated using the Simulink software
and the validation model developed by Adams View program
are shown in section III. A comparative analysis of kinematicdynamic parameters obtained in the two models is done in
section III-C. Finally, conclusions are presented in section IV.
II. T WO - DIMENSIONAL NONLINEAR MODEL OF
M C P HERSON SUSPENSION
A representation of the proposed model is shown in Fig.
2(a), where the main elements of the McPherson suspension
system are: 1) Chassis, 2) Control arm, 3) Strut, and 4) wheel
assembly. The sprung mass displacement is Zs , the unsprung
mass displacement is Zu , and the disturbance of the road is
Zr . The meaning of the other parameters is shown in table II.
The corresponding kinematic model is presented in Fig. 2(b)
as a four-bar mechanism, with suspension key points indicated
by letters M, Q, P, C, T, and N. The global reference frame
has its origin in G, with its Y and Z axes aligned with the
horizontal and the vertical directions, respectively. The state of
this mechanism can be dened by two generalized coordinates
(Zs and Zu ), that correspond to the degrees of freedom of the
system.
Moreover, the proposed model is valid if the following
considerations are made:
The chassis undergoes a vertical motion.

Zs

Zs

Bs
Ks

a)

Zu

Kt
Kt
l

Bt

Zr

All suspension system elements except the tyre are rigid.

The control arm and the spring-damper assembly have
negligible masses.
The wheel assembly is subject to rotation and translation
motions.
All joints are considered as ideal.
Dampers and springs have a linear behavior.

A. Kinematics of the two-dimensional model

The suspension kinematics is analyzed using the displacement matrix method [16]. The nite displacement of the wheel
assembly in a plane can be formulated as a rotation and a
translation by the following matrix:

a11 a12 YC (a11 YC0 + a12 ZC0 )

[D]wheel = a21 a22 ZC (a21 YC0 + a22 ZC0 ) , (1)

0

where YC and ZC are instantaneous coordinates of the wheel

center C, and YC0 and ZC0 correspond to their initial equilibrium values. The coefcients are a11 = a22 = cos, and
a12 = a21 = sin, where is the wheel assembly rotation
about the X-axis, i.e., the camber angle. Note that for a vehicle
model, the initial equilibrium state is given by a set of constant
positions of M, Q, P, C, T and N, where camber angle is
zero. The instantaneous coordinates (YN , ZN ), (YT , ZT ) and
(YP , ZP ) of suspension points N, T, and P, shown in Fig.
2(b), can be derived using (1) with the initial equilibrium
coordinates (YN 0 , ZN 0 ), (YT 0 , ZT 0 ) and (YP 0 , ZP 0 ):

YN Y T Y P
YN 0 Y T 0 Y P 0

Z
N ZT ZP = [D]wheel ZN 0 ZT 0 ZP 0 (2)
1

Equation (2) can be solved in conjunction with the constraint

conditions imposed by the suspension mechanism. Then, the
following equation system is obtained after linearizing equations by considering small angles, i.e., cos
= 1 , sin
= ,
and knowing that ZC = ZC0 + Zu :
YN YC b
ZN + a

(3)

=
=

ZN 0 + Zu
c

(4)
(5)

ZT 0 + Z u

(6)

Y P YC f

(7)

ZP + e

Z P 0 + Zu

(8)

YT YC d
ZT + c

Zu

C
Q

Zr

b)

Fig. 2: Representation of the nonlinear model (a), and its

corresponding kinematic model (b).

where constants are obtained from the initial equilibrium

coordinates: a = YN 0 YC0 , b = ZN 0 ZC0 , c = YT 0 YC0 ,
d = ZT 0 ZC0 , e = YP 0 YC0 , and f = ZP 0 ZC0 .
Equations (3)-(8) describe the kinematic behavior of the
wheel assembly (i.e., points C, P, N, and T) and relate and
Zu , but they do not account for the behavior of Q and M.
System motion is illustrated in Fig. 3 for the case of negative
Zr . The gure shows the length of the control arm (L1 ),
the distance between Q and M (L2 ), which are constants, as

ZP 0 + Zu
YP 0 m2
m(n ZP 0 Zs )
sigma(
+
+
e
e
e
LYP 0 + Zs
)
(13)
e

=
Zs

L2
Z

= sigma(n ZP 0 Zs + YP 0 m (L + Zs )(ZP 0
2Zs )),
(14)

where sigma is dened as:

L3

J0

T0

L1

L03

sigma =

Y
C

Zu

and S is introduced to stand for its denominator.

To simplify the expressions above, the following denitions
can be introduced:

Zr
GYtl

Fig. 3: Illustration of suspension motion. Dashed lines represent the initial equilibrium conguration, and solid lines
represent the instantaneous values.
well as the length of the spring-damper assembly (L3 ), the
control arm angle (), and their corresponding initial values
(L03 and 0 , respectively). Note that this motion provokes a
tyre deection with lateral Yt (i.e., a track width variation)
and vertical Zt components.
Three more equations are obtained from the system geometry:
2

(YP YQ ) + (ZP ZQ )
YP
ZP

1
1
= ,
LYP 0 + mZP 0 2mZs
S

(L1 )

L1 cos(0 + )

L1 sin(0 + ) + Zs ,

d

e

fm
f YP 0
) + (m2 + L2 )(
ZP 0 )
e
e
f YP 0
fm
) + L(
ZP 0 ) + 2(m2 + L2 )
ZP 0 (L +
e
e
n(L +

s = a + b Z s

a = LYP 0 + mZP 0

b = 2m
l = a2 f  + b j 

c = f ZeP 0 e

j  = a e  d  b 


j +2a f Z +b f

Zs2

s
A=
S2
i = mZP 0 + LYP 0

g =

k  = a i  b  h

ZP 0
e

h = mn + (m2 + L2 )YP 0

o = n + mYP 0 LZP 0


C = q + 4a Zs + 2b

Zs2

s = c g  R YC0
u  = e +

which can be linearized by an expansion in Taylor series of

rst order and by considering small angles. The resulting
three linear equations are the following:

p = 2L 2ZP 0
q  = a  p b  o 
t  = d +

Ri
e

Rh
e

m  = a  u  b  t

Using these constants in (12) and computing the rst

and second derivatives with respect to time yields compact
expressions of YC , its velocity, and its acceleration:
YC

YP 0 YP + (ZP 0 2Zs )ZP

YP + L

n ZP 0 Zs

(10)

Y C

ZP + m

L + Zs ,

(11)

YC

(9)

f  = 2L

where n, L, and m are regrouped constants:

f
1
Zu + (d + e Zs + f  Zs2 )
e
S
f

Zu + AZs
e
f
2l
Zu + AZs +
.
e
S 3 Z s2
c

(15)
(16)
(17)

Similarly, using (13) gives the expressions for :

n = YP20 + ZP2 0 ;

L = L1 sin0 ;

m = L1 cos0 .

Equations (3)-(11) dene a linear system with nine unknowns variables, which can be solved in terms of Zs and
Zu . This produces expressions for the kinematics of each
suspension key point. For the sake of simplicity, only the
solutions for YC , , and , (i.e., those needed for the dynamical
analysis), are shown below:
fm
f (ZP 0 + Zu )
+ sigma((L +
)(n ZP 0 +
e
e
f YP 0
ZP 0 + 2Zs )) (12)
Zs ) + (m2 + L2 + LZs )(
e

YC = e

1 
Zu

(h + i Zs )
e
eS
Z u
k
=
2 Z s
e
eS
u
Z
k
2b k  2
=
2 Zs +
Z ,
e
eS
eS 3 s
and using (14) produces control arm velocity:

g +

1
(o + p Zs + 2Zs2 )
S
q  + 4a Zs + 2b Zs2
Zs .

S2

(18)
(19)
(20)

(21)
(22)

Then, the tyre lateral deection Ytl (see Fig. 3) is computed

from the C position difference:
=

Ytl

(YC R) YC0 .
(23)

Then, with (12) and (13):

f +R
1
Zu + (t + u Zs + f  Zs2 ). (24)
e
S
This expression is partially derivative respect to the generalized variables:
(Ytl )
m + 2a f  Zs + b f  Zs2
F
=
= 2
(25)
Zs
S2
S
(Ytl )
f +R
(26)
=
Zu
e
B. Dynamics of the two-dimensional model
Ytl

s +

The kinetic energy T , potential energy V , and dissipation

energy D of the suspension system are given by the following
expressions:
1
1
1
ms Z s2 + mu (Y C2 + Z u2 ) + IC 2
(27)
2
2
2
1
1
1
Ks l2 + Kt Zt2 + Ktl Ytl2
(28)
V =
2
2
2
1
2 + 1 Bt Z 2 ,
Bs l
(29)
D =
t
2
2
where ms and mu are chassis and wheel masses, respectively,
IC corresponds to wheel inertia around the X-axis, Ks is the
suspension spring stiffness, Kt and Ktl represent tyre vertical
stiffness and tyre lateral stiffness, respectively, R is the tyre
effective radius, Bs and Bt stand for the suspension and tyre
damping coefcients, respectively, and l is the deection of
the spring-damper assembly given by:
T

l = L3 L03

(30)

Moreover, applying the cosine law and considering small

angles in Fig. 3:
(L3 )2 = (L03 )2 + k

(31)

where constant k is dened as:

k

B 0.5 L03

(32)

Zu Z r

(33)

Using the Lagrange method, the dynamic equations of the

motion are determined. The Lagrangian L is given by the
kinetic and potential energies of the system.
L=

1
1
1
ms Z s2 + mu (Y C2 + Z u2 ) + IC 2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
Ks l Kt Zt Ktl Ytl2
2
2
2

The terms given by products of derivative are negligible.

Replacing each part of the Lagrange equation (35) with (29)
and (34), yields a nonlinear differential equation as a function
of Zs .
Y C
l

+ IC
+ Ks l
Zs
Zs
Z s

(Ytl )
l = 0
+Ktl Ytl
+ Bs l
Zs
Zs

ms Zs + mu YC

(36)

Determining their partial derivatives and substituting in (36)

IC k 
IC k 2
f mu A
+
)
Z

(
) Zu
s
e2 S 4
e
e2 S 2
2
(kC) Bs
kCKs
l03
Ktl F E
+
(1 0.5 ) +
Zs +
4BS 4
2S 2
B
S2
Ktl F  f + R
Zu ) = 0 (37)
+ 2 (s +
S
e
Applying Lagranges equation with the second generalized
coordinate Zu
(ms + mu A2 +

d L
L
D
[
]
+
=0
dt Z u
Zu
Z u

(38)

Similarly, using (29) and (34) in (38) gives a nonlinear

differential equation as a function of Zu :
Y C
(Ytl )

+ IC
+ Ktl Ytl
mu Zu + mu YC

Zu
Zu
Zu
+Kt (Zu Zr ) + Bt (Zu Zr ) = 0 (39)
Substituting the partial derivatives in (39)
k  IC
f 2 mu
IC
f mu A
+ 2 2 )Zs
+ 2 )Zu (
2
e
e
e
e S
Ktl E(f + R) Ktl (f + R)2
Ktl s (f + R)
+

Zu
e
e2
e
+Kt (Zu Zr ) + Bt (Zu Zr ) = 0 (40)
(mu +

III. C OMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE MODEL

2L1 L2 sin0 ,

Combining (30) and (31) the deection l is determined, which

gives:

l =
(L03 )2 + k L03
l
Zt

Applying Lagranges equation with the rst generalized coordinate Zs

d L
L
D
[
]
+
=0
(35)

dt Zs
Zs
Z s

(34)

This section presents implementation details of the proposed

nonlinear model in Simulink. Furthermore, this model is
compared with a realistic dynamic response from a twodimensional model developed with the Adams/View software.
A. Proposed nonlinear model implementation in Simulink
A Simulink block diagram can be dened from (37) and
(40) to obtain the dynamic response of the nonlinear system
(See Fig. 4). The disturbance generated by the road (Zr ), is
performed in Simulink using a square wave signal of amplitude
50 mm, 40 s of period with a phase shift of 15 s.
The values used for the key points and other parameters of
the suspension system have been extracted from the Adams
database for the McPherson suspension (see tables I and II).

C. Comparative analysis

..
Zs

1
s

Out1In1
Zs

In1
Out1
In2

.
Zs

1
s

Zs

BodyZsNL

Subsys1
In1
Out1
In2

Subsys2
In1
Out1

Subsys8

In2

Subsys5

Out1In1

Zs

Subsys6
Out1In1

Subsys7

Out1In2
In1

Subsys12

Out1 In2
In3

Subsys10
ktl*(sp)*(f+R)/e

..
Zu

-K-

1
s

S-9

Out1
In1

.
Zu

1
s

Zu

Zu

Zu

TireSimulink

kt
bt

.
Zr

ktl*(((f+R)/e)^2)

du/dt
Derivative

Zr(road)

Zr

Pulse
Generator

Fig. 4: Simulink blocks diagram

TABLE I: Suspension key points at initial state [m]
YC0 = 0.4279

ZC0 = 0.0388

YQ0 = 0.0

ZQ0 = 0.0

YN 0 = 0.2341

ZN 0 = 0.1803

YP 0 = 0.2490

ZP 0 = 0.0608

YT 0 = 0.2179

ZT 0 = 0.3782

YM 0 = 0.2049

ZM 0 = 0.5249

TABLE II: Model Parameters

ms = 439.4

Sprung mass (chassis)

kg

mt = 42.3

Unsprung mass (tyre)

kg

Ks = 38404.0

Suspension stiffness

N/m

Bs = 3593.4

Suspension damping

N s/m

Kt = 310000.0

Tyre vertical stiffness

N/m

Ktl = 190000.0

Tyre lateral stiffness

N/m

Bt = 3100.0

Tyre damping

N s/m

R = 0.3

Tyre effective radius

IC = 1.0

Wheel inertia moment on X-axis

kg m2

The dynamic behavior of the suspension system due to

road perturbations (bumps and potholes) is illustrated in Fig.
6, where the sprung mass displacement is shown for both
the Adams/view and the proposed models. There is a good
agreement between both responses, where it can be observed
that the motion amplitude for a pothole is lower than for a
bump. Moreover, an acceptable correlation between the two
responses is also achieved in Fig. 7, which shows the sprung
mass acceleration versus time.
Regarding kinematics, the proposed model allows analyzing
variations in the camber angle and the track width Yt that
are not considered in the conventional linear model. For this
analysis it is assumed that the chassis is xed (i.e., Zs = 0)
and that the wheel center is subject to a vertical displacement
[4]. In these experiments, the vertical displacement has as
an amplitude of 0.1 m. Results are presented in Fig. 8 and
Fig. 9 for the camber angle and the track width variation,
respectively, against wheel vertical motion.
In general all the experiments have shown a good agreement
between the proposed model and the Adams model. Small
differences can be attributed mainly to linearization of the
motion equations about the equilibrium position.

5
1

Damper
4

Chassis

Wheel assembly
6

B. McPherson model in Adams

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Restrictions
Translational joint
Rotacional joint
Spherical joint
Cilindrical joint
Spherical joint
Fixed joint
Translational joint

2
3
7

Fig. 5: Adams model of McPherson suspension.

Adams model
Nonlinear model

0.07
Sprung mass displacement (m)

The Adams/View software can be used as a model validation

tool [9] [13] [4] as it provides realistic simulation of multibody dynamics. In this case, a two-dimensional model of
a quarter-car suspension system has been implemented as
illustrated in Fig. 5. The following motion restrictions have
been dened: the chassis motion is guided by translational
joints; the control arm is connected to the chassis with a
rotational joint and to the wheel assembly with a spherical
joint; the spring-damper assembly is modeled as a cylindrical
joint that is coupled to the chassis via a spherical joint and
whose bottom end is xed to the wheel assembly; the tyre
is modeled as a translational joint for the vertical deection
with a spring for the lateral deection. The road disturbance
(Zr ) is given in Adams/View by the following composition of
functions:

Control arm

0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03

Zr = ST EP (T IM E, 15.00, 0, 15.01, 50)

+ST EP (T IM E, 35.00, 0, 35.01, 50)

(41)

10

15

20

25
30
Time (s)

35

40

45

50

Fig. 6: Zs response for nonlinear and Adams models.

guration of the system, the tyre damping, and the tyre lateral
stiffness. These improvements allow analyzing variations in
kinematic parameters, such as camber angle and track width,
that cannot be addressed with the conventional model.
Besides, the paper has offered an implementation of the
model using Matlab-Simulink. Results have shown a good
agreement between the proposed model and a realistic twodimensional model developed with the Adams View program.
Future work includes using the model within a real-time
suspension control system.

Sprung mass acceleration (mm/s2)

20000
Adams Model
Nonlinear Model
15000

10000

5000

5000
3

3.5

4
Time (s)

4.5

Fig. 7: Acceleration for nonlinear and Adams models.

V. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported in part by the Spanish Project
DPI2008-00553. The rst authors stay at the University of
Malaga is funded by Escuela Superior Politecnica del Litoral.

0.1
Adams Model
Nonlinear Model

Wheel vertical motion (m)

0.08

R EFERENCES

0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
3

0
1
2
3
Camber angle (degree)

Fig. 8: Wheel vertical motion vs. Camber angle.

0.1

Wheel vertical motion (m)

0.08

Nonlinear model
Adams model

0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1

0.04

0.03
0.02
0.01
Track width variation (m)

Fig. 9: Wheel vertical motion vs. track width variation.

IV. C ONCLUSION
Even if commercial multi-body dynamics simulation software can be used to analyze vehicular suspension from physical modeling, mathematical models, such as the linear quarter
car model, are used because of their favorable cost, simulation
time, and low processing capacity requirements.
This paper has presented a two-dimensional nonlinear
mathematical model of the McPherson-type suspension that
considers vertical motion of the sprung mass (chassis) and rotation and translation for the unsprung mass (wheel assembly).
This model is an improvement over the conventional two-mass
quarter car vehicle because it incorporates the geometrical con-

[1] X.-m. Dong, M. Yu, C.-r. Liao, and W.-m. Chen, Comparative research
on semi-active control strategies for magneto-rheological suspension,
Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 59, pp. 433453, 2010.
[2] J. Sun and Y. Sun, Comparative study on control strategy of active
suspension system, in Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation (ICMTMA), 2011 Third International Conference on, vol. 1,
jan. 2011, pp. 729 732.
[3] A. Abu-Khudhair, R. Muresan, and S. Yang, Fuzzy control of semiactive automotive suspensions, in International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, 2009, pp. 2118 2122.
[4] K. P. Balike, S. Rakheja, and I. Stiharu, Development of kinetodynamic quarter-car model for synthesis of a double wishbone suspension, Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 49, no. 1-2, pp. 107128, 2011.
[5] D. A. Mantaras, P. Luque, and C. Vera, Development and validation
of a three-dimensional kinematic model for the mcpherson steering and
suspension mechanisms, Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 39, pp.
603619, 2004.
[6] H. V. Deo and N. P. Suh, Axiomatic design of automobile suspension
and steering systems: Proposal for a novel six-bar suspension, SAE
International, 2004.
[7] D. Hrovat, Survey of advanced suspension developments and related
optimal control applications, Automatica, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 1781
1817, 1997.
[8] C. Kim, P. I. Ro, and H. Kim, Effect of the suspension structure on
equivalent suspension parameters, Automobile Engineering, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, vol. 213, p. 457, 1999.
[9] C. Kim and P. I. Ro, Reduced-order modelling and parameter estimation
for a suspension system, Automobile Engineering, Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, vol. 214, pp. 851864, 2000.
[10] A. Stensson, C. Asplund, and L. Karlsson, The nonlinear behavior of a
macpherson strut wheel suspension, Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 23,
p. 85, 1994.
[11] Y. A. Papegay, J.-P. Merlet, and D. Daney, Exact kinematics analysis of
cars suspension mechanisms using symbolic computation and interval
analysis, Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 395
413, 2005.
[12] H. Akcay and S. Turkay, RMS performance limitations and constraints
for quarter-car active suspensions, in 16th Mediterranean Conference
on Control and Automation, 2008, pp. 425 430.
[13] M. S. Fallah, R. Bhat, and W. F. Xie, New model and simulation of
macpherson suspension system for ride control applications, Vehicle
System Dynamics, vol. 47, p. 195, 2009.
[14] E. R. Andersen, Multibody dynamics modeling and system identication for a quarter-car test rig with mcpherson strut suspension, Masters
thesis, faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 2007.
[15] J. Reimpell, H. Stoll, and J. W. Betzler, The Automotive Chassis:
Engineering Principles, 2nd ed., R. Educational and P. P. Ltd, Eds.
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001.
[16] C. H. Suh, Synthesis and analysis of suspension mechanisms with
use of displacement matrices, SAE Transactions, vol. 98, pp. 171182,
1989.