See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275654866

Passive Suspension Optimization Using

Teaching Learning Based Optimization and
Genetic Algorithm Considering...

Conference Paper November 2014

DOI: 10.1115/IMECE2014-36564

CITATIONS READS

2 56

2 authors:

Bhargav Jagdishbhai Gadhvi Vimal Savsani

Simon Fraser University Pandit Deen Dayal Petroleum University
13 PUBLICATIONS 22 CITATIONS 64 PUBLICATIONS 1,447 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A review on truss topology optimization View project

Wind Farm Layout optimization View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vimal Savsani on 23 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition
IMECE2014
November 14-20, 2014, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

IMECE2014-36564

PASSIVE SUSPENSION OPTIMIZATION USING TEACHING LEARNING BASED

OPTIMIZATION AND GENETIC ALGORITHM CONSIDERING VARIABLE SPEED
OVER A BUMP

Bhargav Gadhvi Vimal Savsani

Research scholar Assistant Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University
Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382007, India
gadhvi1987@gmail.com vimal.savsani@gmail.com

ABSTRACT suspension system (Wong, 1998). If these excitations are not

The main objectives of a vehicle suspension system are to
isolate the road excitations to reach the sprung mass of the
vehicle and proper road holding. This paper proposes a solution
to optimize a quarter car linear passive suspension parameters
while passing over a bump with variable speeds to improve the
ride comfort and road holding. The Teaching-learning based
optimization algorithm (TLBO) is used to solve the problem
and results are compared to those obtained by Genetic
algorithm (GA) technique. The quarter car model presented is
simulated in time domain subjected to a Cosine speed bump
considering the variable speeds of the vehicle over it. Results
show sprung mass acceleration, and tire displacement are
reduced by 26.03%, and 23.7% respectively by using TLBO
and 22.3%, and 18.52% respectively by using GA, conforming
the capabilities of the optimization techniques.
INTRODUCTION
In order to meet the time demand of continuously
developing world people have to travel a long distance on roads
to reach their destinations on time; and thus passenger cars
have become a daily life necessity to many people. While
travelling a long distance for a long period of time cars are
subjected vibrations those are 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, irregular road excitations due
to stochastic nature of the road, subjected to excitations due to
single obstacles like speed bumps and subjected to excitations
due to potholes, acts as a major source that excites the vibration
of the vehicle body through the tire/wheel assembly and the
isolated to reach to the sprung mass of the car then it results in
a serious discomfort to the occupants of the car. Suspension
system in the vehicle reduces the vibrations caused by this
major source. Optimized suspension parameters for two
opposing objectives: firstly, minimum vertical acceleration of
the sprung mass (maximum ride comfort) and secondly,
minimum vertical tire-deflection (maximum road holding), of
the car will always avoid this issue of discomfort and thus the
ride comfort of the car can be improved (Hays et al., 2012).
A number of research works have been published in the
field of optimization of a vehicle suspension model by
considering from simple quarter car vehicle suspension model
to the complex full car models with five or more degrees of
freedom. A wide range of optimization techniques have been
used to optimize the suspension parameters of the vehicle
passing over different road profiles (Sun et al., 2006; Uys et al.,
2007; Shirahatt et al., 2008; Zehsaz et al., 2011). The research
works pertaining to the present paper are summarized as
follows.
One of the older and finer published works in the field of
application of genetic algorithm to the vehicle suspension
system is by Baumal et al. (1998). Five degrees of freedom half
car model subjected to sinusoidal excitation was optimized for
minimum vertical acceleration of the sprung mass by genetic
algorithm and compared with the results obtained from gradient
projection method. Verros et al. (2005) optimized the
suspension damping and stiffness parameters of nonlinear
quarter car models subjected to random road excitations. The
objective function for optimization was chosen as an algebraic
summation of absolute vertical acceleration of sprung mass,
working space of the suspension (distance between wheel sub

1 Copyright 2014 by ASME

system and car body), and vehicle handling with appropriate
weighting coefficients to indicate the contribution of each of
the three selected performance measures. Segla and Reich
(2007) optimized linear passive quarter car models with non-
traditional configurations. A circular bump was used as a base
excitation to the vehicle models. The minimization of vertical
acceleration of the sprung mass was chosen as an objective
function. fmincon optimization function from the optimization
toolbox of MATLAB was used to optimize the suspension
parameters. Farid et al. (2011) optimized the 7 degrees of
freedom - linear passive quarter car with human model
subjected to both sine and step road profiles using Genetic
algorithm. The objective function for optimization was chosen
as an algebraic summation of vertical acceleration of human
head, working space of the suspension, and vertical
acceleration of sprung mass with appropriate weighting
coefficients to indicate the contribution of each of the three
selected performance measures. Kuznetsov et al. (2011)
optimized suspension parameters of a three degree of freedom
quarter-car suspension model coupled with driver biomechanics
subjected to random road excitations. The variation exposure
metric described in the ISO 2631 was adopted as an objective
function. Moradi et al. (2011) optimized linear and nonlinear
full vehicle model for improving the ride comfort and road
holding by the Bees algorithm. Goga and Klucik (2012)
optimized a five degree of freedom half car model subjected to
bump excitations by genetic algorithm for minimum vertical
and angular acceleration of the sprung mass and minimum of
vertical displacements of both the wheels of the half car model.
TLBO is a recently developed optimization technique by
Rao et al. (2011) which is applied to many engineering
applications due to its effectiveness to handle wide variety of
optimization problems (Rao et al., 2012; Rao and Savsani,
2012). Jani et al. (2013) optimized the 3D image registrations
in the field of computer vision and results revealed that the use
of TLBO was very successful for image processing application
involving 3D registration. Another application of TLBO in the
field of the heat exchanger design was published by Patel and
Savsani (2014). The authors introduced the Multi-objective
improved TLBO (MO-TLBO) to minimize the total annual cost
of production of heat exchanger, total weight of the heat
exchanger and total pressure drop and maximization of heat
exchanger effectiveness for specific heat duty (Patel and
Savsani, 2014). TLBO has gained popularity with its effective
applications to many other real life optimization problems such
as, multi-objective placement of the automatic regulators in the
distribution system (Hosseinpour et al., 2011), data clustering
(Satapathy and Naik, 2011), environmental economic problems
(Krishnanand et al., 2011), optimization of planar steel frames
(Toan, 2012), dynamic economic dispatch problem (Niknam
et al., 2012).
Investigating the previous studies, it is observed that the
application of a newly developed efficient optimization
technique: Teaching-learning-based optimization (TLBO) to
the vehicle suspension optimization has not been reported yet;
furthermore, previous studies (Kanjanavapastit and
Thitinaruemit, 2013) have shown that people decelerate the car
to minimum velocity just before striking a speed bump and then
accelerate again before reaching the top of the speed bump.
This behaviour of bump-car interaction with variable speed has
not been considered so far for the optimization of the vehicle
suspension systems; but the present study has considered the
above mentioned behaviour in developing a speed bump
profile. Moreover, it has been observed that the suspension
parameters are optimized for better ride comfort; rattle space of
the suspension displacement and improved road holding (Hays
et al., 2012). Commonly used vehicle models include quarter-,
half- and full-vehicle models. It is known that a quarter-vehicle
model can be used to predict ride quality (Sun et al., 2006) and
road holding very well. Moreover, the quarter car model takes
less computation time for dynamic simulation thus easy to
analyze. Genetic algorithm was developed by Holland (1975)
has been applied to a numerous engineering, science,
economics etc applications and is a widely accepted
optimization technique; and thus GA has been used to compare
the results obtained from TLBO.
This paper resolves the issue of discomfort to occupants in
the car by optimizing the passive suspension spring stiffness
and damping coefficient. To improve the ride comfort, vertical
acceleration of sprung mass is minimized where as to improve
the road holding of the car variation of the dynamic force
between tire and the road is minimized. A MATLAB/Simulink
model for two degree of freedom quarter car model with two
sets of linear springs and dampers has been developed for the
study. Furthermore, present study uses effective meta-heuristics
optimization methods viz, TeachingLearning-Based
Optimization (TLBO) and Genetic Algorithm (GA), to optimize
suspension spring stiffness and damping coefficient for the
minimum of root mean squared vertical acceleration of the
sprung mass and minimum root mean squared variation of the
dynamic force between tire and the road of a quarter car model.
The MATLAB code is prepared for optimization and a
Simulink model of quarter car in an Intel core i3 machine with
4 GB DDR 3 RAM. The results obtained from TLBO are
simulated and compared with the results obtained from
MATLAB GA Toolbox.
MATHEMATICAL MODEL
An idealized quarter car vehicle with passive suspension
system is modeled as a discrete system as shown in Fig. 1,
which is adopted for the time domain dynamic simulation and
optimization.
Fig. 1 shows a two degree of freedom quarter car model
with two lumped masses sprung (
 ) and un-sprung (
 ).
Sprung mass is the vehicles total mass including passenger
mass suspended above the suspension and un-sprung mass is
the mass of the components of the vehicle those are not
supported by the suspension. Passive suspension system has
been modelled as linear spring with stiffness  and viscous
damper with damping coefficient  . Moreover, elastic and
damping properties of the tire are modelled as linear spring
2 Copyright 2014 by ASME
with stiffness  and damper with damping coefficient  respectively; and 
 is the time derivative of road excitation.
respectively.  and  are the vertical motions of the sprung Suspension spring force and suspension viscous damping force
and un-sprung masses respectively.  is the road excitation. are     and  
 
  respectively; and tire spring
force and damping force are     and  
 
 
respectively. The resulting equation of motion is a set of two
NOMENCLATURE linear, second order, ordinary differential equations. For solving
H Height of the bump
Vertical linear these equations MATLAB ode solvers have been used.
(m) velocity (m/s)
L Width of the bump  Vertical linear
(m) acceleration (m/s2) ROAD PROFILE
X Design variable fride Ride comfort Road excitation  as a function of time has been modelled
vector objective function as a cosine bump profile given by the following equation:
c Damping coefficient fholding Road holding
(N s/m) objective function H x
cos 2 1if 0 < x < L (3)
f Objective function ri Random number in z r ( x ) = 2 L
the range [0, 1]
k Stiffness (N/m) Mi Mean of the ith 0 else
iteration
m Mass (kg) TF Teaching factor In Eq. 3 H and L are the height and width of the cosine bump, v
v Velocity of the wride Weight constant for is the velocity of the car passing the bump;  =  , and t is
vehicle (m/s) ride comfort time taken by the car to pass the speed bump. It has been
objective function observed that people slow down the vehicle before the wheels
z Vertical linear wholding Weight constant for reach the bump; and then accelerate once the wheels reach the
displacement (m) road holding top of the bump (Kanjanavapastit and Thitinaruemit, 2013).
objective function This nature of driving while passing over a bump has been
considered while modelling the road excitation.

OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM FORMULATION

Figure 1. Quarter car with passive suspension system
The application of Newtons second law of motion to both
the masses of the quarter car model yields the equation of
motion of the system as follows:
The basic objectives of an automotive suspension of a
vehicle are: To isolate a car body from road excitations in order
to provide good ride quality; to keep good road holding; and
suspension rattle space (Hays et al., 2012). The present study
aims to optimize the suspension parameters for the first two
objectives. Ride quality in general can be quantified by the
vertical acceleration of the sprung mass of the vehicle ( ). The
road holding performance of a vehicle is characterized in terms
of its cornering, braking and traction abilities; and these can be
improved if the variations in normal tire loads are minimized.
As tire behaves as a spring in response to vertical forces,
normal tire load variations can be related to vertical tire
deflection (  ) (Rajamani, 2012). The statement of an
optimization problem can be stated as follows:
Find the design variables  and  which minimizes the
objective function f ( ,  ) with no constraints. The chosen
objective function is as follows:

  =      
 
  (1)  =   +  !"#  !"# (4)

  =     +  

 
      ' 
 = $
%  = & ) (  * , (5)
 
 
  (2)  ( +

In Eq. 1 and 2,  and  are vertical accelerations of the 

' 
= $
%   = & ) (  * ,
!"# (6)
sprung and un-sprung mass respectively; 
 and 
 are  ( +

vertical velocities of the sprung and un-sprung mass

3 Copyright 2014 by ASME

 Here,  and  !"# are weight constants and are
dimensionless terms for suspension performance indices  assumes a normal distribution for the obtained marks. Both the
and  !"# respectively and are used to emphasize the relative
importance of the objective functions (Farid et al., 2011).  2012, Rao and Savsani, 2012).
is root mean squared of sprung mass vertical acceleration and
 !"# is root mean squared of difference of road excitation
and un-sprung mass vertical displacement as defined in Eq. 5
and 6. The time span for integration is [- . ].
OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES
The optimization problem as described above is a
nonlinear programming problem (NLPP) for which standard
non linear programming techniques such as random search,
pattern direction etc to solve this unconstrained nonlinear
optimization problem may be inefficient, computationally
expensive, and may find a relative optimum solution only (Rao,
2010). Population based techniques are more suitable for
solving such problems. Two such nature inspired population
based techniques: GA and TLBO are utilized to solve the
suspension parameter optimization problem.
Probably the most famous nature inspired population based
optimization technique is Genetic algorithm found by Holland
(1975). Genetic algorithms guide the search through the
solution space by using natural selection and genetic operators,
such as crossover, mutation and the selection (Holland, 1975).
GA codes the decision variables of the problem into solution
strings of a finite length. While traditional optimization
techniques such as nonlinear programming, geometric
programming, reduced gradient methods etc work directly with
the decision variables, genetic algorithms usually work with the
coding. Genetic algorithms start to search from a population of
coded solutions instead of from a single point in the solution
space. The initial population of decision variables is created at
random. GA uses genetic operators to create Global optimum
solutions based on the solutions in the current population. The
most popular genetic operators are: selection, crossover and
mutation. The newly generated decision variables replace the
old population, and the evolution process proceeds until certain
termination criteria are satisfied.
A new and efficient optimization technique called
Teaching Learning Based Optimization also known as TLBO
was proposed by Rao et al. (2011). This method like the other
nature inspired algorithms is a population based method; and
works on the effect of influence of a teacher on learners. But
unlike the most population based optimization methods TLBO
is free from the algorithm parameters and thus the effectiveness
of the algorithm is no longer a function of optimum control
parameters of the algorithm. The optimization process consists
of two phases: the first is the teacher phase consists learning
from a teacher and second is the learner phase consists learning
from interaction between learners. The population in this
method is a group of learners (Rao et al., 2011). Output of
learners in a class is considered in terms of grades or results.
Teacher is assumed to be a highly learned person; quality of the
teacher affects the outcome of learners. Moreover; the method
teacher and Learner phases are described as follows (Rao et al.,
In the first phase Teacher phase, teacher tries to bring
the learners level of knowledge near to his own level by
shifting the mean of the marks obtained by the learners from
lesser marks to greater marks. The difference between the
existing and new mean is calculated by:
/01$121_4152 = $ 4"6 78 4  (7)
Here, Mi is the mean at iteration i, Mnew is the new mean,
TF is the teaching factor deciding the value of the mean to be
changed, ri is the random number in the range [0, 1]. This
difference will modify the existing solution from the expression
given below:
9"6, = 9 + /01$121_4152
!, (8)
In the second phase: Learner phase, learners learn
through interaction between themselves. A learner learns better
if the other interacting learner has a better knowledge than him
or her. This phase is expressed as:
( )
If f X < f X
i j (9)
+r X X
old , i i i j
X =X
new, i
else
X =X + r X X
new, i old , i i j i
Where, Xj is the randomly selected another learner, such
that Xi Xj.
The procedure for optimization and simulation is shown in
Fig. 2. Quarter car suspension model given by Eq. 1 and 2 is
developed in Simulink. Firstly, the suspension parameters (Ks,
cs) are initialized; secondly the algorithm parameters are set,
Simulink quarter car model then fetches the suspension
parameters from the optimization algorithm (GA or TLBO) and
returns the objective function value to the optimization
algorithm. Optimization algorithm finds the optimum solution
until the stopping criteria is satisfied.
OPTIMIZATION AND SIMULATION METHODOLOGY
Table 1 shows the original vehicle model parameters taken
from Chumjun C., (2007), for simulating the vehicle model. For
modelling the bump profile with variable speed of the vehicle
from Eq. 3, the values taken are: H = 0.075m, L = 0.5m, v
velocity range of the vehicle passing over a bump is taken
between 5 Km/h to 17.5 Km/h (Kanjanavapastit and
Thitinaruemit, 2013). Fig.3 (a) shows the bump profile in time
units and Fig. 3 (b) shows the bump profile in space units,
generated by Eq. 3.
4 Copyright 2014 by ASME
 Start

Initialize the suspension

parameters: Ks, cs

Initialize the optimization

algorithm parameters (population
size, generations etc)

Figure 3. (a) Bump profile in time units for variable

Optimization algorithm velocities, (b) Bump profile in space units.
ks, cs Objective function Table 2. GA parameters
GA parameters Value/Corresponding GA toolbox
Simulink quarter car Road option
model profile & Population size 30
quarter car Number of generations 50
constants Scaling function Stochastic uniform
(ms, mus, kt, Selection function Roulette
ct) Mutation function Constraint dependent default
Crossover function Arithmetic
Is stopping Function tolerance 1e-6
No
criteria
satisfied? Table 3. TLBO algorithm parameters
GA parameters Value
Yes Population size 30
Number of generations 50
Stop Mutation probability 0.01
t
Figure 2. Optimization and simulation procedure Firstly, these algorithm parameters are set, and then
optimization codes are executed 10 times (total 10 runs) for
both GA and TLBO. The comparison of the best results
Table 1. Vehicle model original parameters obtained out of all 10 runs is shown in table 4.
Parameters Values Units
ms 327 kg Table 4. Best run results of GA and TLBO
mus 116 kg GA TLBO
ks 73575 N/m ks 60451 60000
Kt 256740 N/m Cs 667.66 804.94
Cs 890.9 Ns/m f 53.62 52.34
Ct 730 Ns/m
As can be seen from table 4, both GA and TLBO are giving
different optimized results, but in this study TLBO has given
better results than GA.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS To check the effectiveness of both the algorithms, the
Optimization algorithm parameters for GA and TLBO are comparison of the best, worst, mean and standard deviation of
tabulated in tables 2 and 3 respectively. The lower and upper the optimized values obtained in each run is done for GA and
bounds for the suspension stiffness and damping coefficient TLBO. These results are shown in table 5. It should be noted
chosen are: 60000 N/m ks 110000 N/m, and 500 Ns/m cs that the best result column shows the values obtained from the
1500 Ns/m. Weight constants in Eq. 4 are taken from (Moradi run with the best results of objective function and worst result
et al., 2011): Wride = 1, and Wholding = 1000. column shows the values obtained from the run with the worst
results of objective function. The third and the last columns are
the mean of objective function values and the standard

5 Copyright 2014 by ASME

deviation of the objective function values obtained from all 10 of ride dynamics of the vehicles for the selected problem in the
runs respectively. paper is successful because of its algorithm parameter free
nature.
Table 5. Objective function value comparison obtained from
GA and TLBO
Optimization Best Worst Mean Standard
method result result deviation
GA 53.62 56.98 55.33 1.05
TLBO 52.34 53.86 52.90 0.49
algorithm

Table 5 shows that the deviation of all the objective

function values from the minimum value of the objective
function is less for TLBO as compared to GA. This may have
been due to the algorithm parameters selected for GA, but the
reason that TLBO is free from the algorithm parameters, has an
edge over GA for the present study. Figure 4. Results of sprung mass vertical acceleration
Fig. 4 and 5 show the results of sprung mass vertical
acceleration and un-sprung mass displacement respectively for
original parameters (as shown in table 1), GA optimized
parameters and TLBO optimized parameters. Results show
sprung mass acceleration, and tire displacement (un-sprung
mass displacement) are reduced by 26.03%, and 23.7%
respectively by using TLBO and 22.3%, and 18.52%
respectively by using GA, thus conforming the capabilities of
both the optimization techniques.
Fig. 6 shows the convergence of both GA and TLBO. It
should be noted that the objective function values are averaged
at each generation for all 10 runs for both TLBO and GA. For
instance, the f value at first generation in the plot is the average
of f values obtained from first generation of all 10 runs. As can Figure 5. Results of un-sprung mass vertical displacement
be seen from the figure, after 5 function evaluations TLBO has
found much lesser value of objective function as compared to
the values found by GA, after 10 function evaluations also it
converges the solution to still a lesser value than that of GA, in
this regards it can be concluded that the convergence of TLBO
is better than GA.

CONCLUSIONS
A recently developed population based optimization
technique - TLBO along with the popular optimization method
Genetic algorithm (GA) have been utilized to optimize the
quarter car suspension parameters. Moreover; while passing the
Figure 6. Convergence plot of GA and TLBO
bump the driver initially decelerates the vehicle till the tires
interact with the bump and then accelerates once the vehicle
reaches the top of the bump; this behaviour has been
REFERENCES
implemented while constructing the road profile through
Baumal A. E., McPhee J. J., Calamai P. H., 1998,
computer simulation.
Application of genetic algorithms to the design optimization
The quarter car suspension parameters: spring stiffness and
of an active vehicle suspension system, Journal of Computer
damping coefficient, are optimized for maximum ride comfort
methods in applied mechanics and engineering, vol.163, pp.
and road holding by taking appropriate weight constants.
87-94.
Results show sprung mass acceleration, and tire displacement
Chumjun C., 2007 "Prediction of vertical vehicle dynamics
are reduced by 26.03%, and 23.7% respectively by using TLBO
using single track suspension model with identified parameters"
and 22.3%, and 18.52% respectively by using GA.
Master of Science thesis, Automotive engineering sirindhorn
Optimization results confirm that the use of TLBO in the field

6 Copyright 2014 by ASME

international THAI-GERMAN graduate school of engineering
(TGGS), pp. 32-36.
Farid T. M., Salah A., Abbas W., 2011, Design of Optimal
Linear Suspension for Quarter Car with Human Model using
Genetic Algorithms, Journal of Applied Science Research,
vol.7, pp. 1709-1720.
Goga V., Klucik M., 2012 "Optimization of vehicle
suspension parameters with use of evolutionary computation"
Procedia Engineering, Vol. 48, pp. 174-179.
Hays J., Sandu A., Sandu C., Hong D., 2012 "Parametric
design optimization of uncertain ordinary differential equation
systems" Journal of Mechanical DEsign, Vol. 134.
Holland, 1975, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial
Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology,
Control, and Artificial Intelligence, University of Michigan
Press.
Hosseinpour H., Niknam T., Taheri S.I., A modified
TLBO algorithm for placement of AVRs considering DGs.
26th International Power System Conference, 31st October
2nd November, Tehran, Iran, 2011, pp. 1-8.
Jani A., Savsani V., Pandya A., 2013 "3D affine registration
using Teaching-Learning Based Optimization" Springer
Journal of 3D Research, Vol. 4, pp. 1-6.
Kanjanavapastit A., Thitinaruemit A., 2013 "Estimation of
a speed hump profile using quarter car model" Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 88, pp. 265-273.
Krishnanand K. R., Panigrahi B. K., Rout P. K., Mohapatra
A., 2011, Application of multi-objective teachinglearning-
based algorithm to an economic load dispatch problem with
incommensurable objectives, Swarm, evolutionary, and
memetic computing, lecture notes in computer science.
Springer, Berlin, pp. 697705.
Kuznetsov A., Mammadov M., Sultan I., Hajilarov E.,
2011 "Optimization of a quarter-car suspension model coupled
with the driver biomechanical effects" Journal of Sound and
Vibration, Vol. 330, pp. 2937-2946.
Moradi A., Nafchi A. M., Ghanbarzadeh A., Soodmand E.,
2011 "Optimization of linear and nonlinear full vehicle model
for improving ride comfort vs road holding with the Bees
algorithm" IEEE Colloquim on Humanities, Science and
Engineering Research (CHUSER 2011), Dec 5-6, pp. 17-22.
Niknam T., Golestaneh F., Sadeghi M. S., 2012, -
multiobjective teachinglearning-based optimization for
dynamic economic emission dispatch, IEEE Systems Journal,
6(2), pp. 341352.
Patel V., Savsani V., 2014 "Optimization of a plate-fin heat
exchanger design through an improved multi-objective
teaching-learning based optimization (MO-TLBO) algorithm"
Journal of Chemical Engineering Research and Design, DOI
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2014.02.005.
Rao R. V., Savsani V. J., 2012, Mechanical design
optimization using advanced optimization techniques,
Springer Verlag London, pp. 6-8.
Rao R. V., Savsani V. J., Vakharia D. P., 2011 "Teaching-
learning-based optimization: A novel method for constrained
View publication stats
mechanical design optimization problems" Journal of
Computer Aided Design, Vol. 43, pp. 303-315.
Rao R. V., Savsani V. J., Vakharia D. P., 2012 "Teaching-
learning-based optimization: An optimization method for
continious non-linear large scale problems" Journal of
Information Sciences, Vol. 183, pp. 1-5.
Rao S. S., 2009, Engineering optimization: Theory and
Practice, third edition, New Age International Publishers,
New Delhi.
Satapathy S. C., Naik A., 2011 Data clustering based on
teaching learning-based optimization, Swarm, evolutionary,
and memetic computing. lecture notes in computer science.
Springer, Berlin, pp. 148156.
Segla S., Reich S., 2007, Optimization and comparison of
passive, active, and semi-active vehicle suspension systems,
12th IFToMM World Congress, 18-21 June, Besanon, France.
Shirahatt A., Prasad P. S. S., Panzade P., Kulkarni M. M.,
2008, Optimal design of passenger car suspension for ride and
road holding, Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical
Sciences and Engineering, Vol . 30, pp. 66-76.
Sun L., Cai X., Yang J., 2007, Genetic algorithm-based
optimum vehicle suspension design using minimum dynamic
pavement load as a design criterion, Journal of Sound and
Vibration, vol.301, pp. 18-27.
Toan V., 2012, Design of planar steel frames using
teaching learning based optimization. Journal of Engineering
Structure, Vol. 34, pp. 225232
Uys P. E., Els P. S., Thoresson M., 2007, Suspension
settings for optimal ride comfort of off-road vehicles travelling
on roads with different roughness and speeds, Journal of
Terramechanics, Vol .44, pp. 163-175.
Verros G., Natsiavas S., Papadimitriou C., 2005, Design
Optimization of Quarter-car Models with Passive and Semi-
active Suspensions under Random Road Excitation, Journal of
Vibration and Control, vol.11, pp. 581-606.
Wong J. Y., 2001, Theory of Ground Vehicles, Third
edition, John Wiley & Sons INC, New York.
Zehsaz M., Sadeghi M. H., Ettefagh M. M., Shams F., 2011
"Tractor cabins passive suspension parameters optimization via
experimental and numerical methods" Journal of
Terramechanics, Vol. 48, pp. 439-450.
7 Copyright 2014 by ASME