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

net/publication/320239639

A quarter-car suspension model for dynamic evaluations of an in-wheel electric

vehicle

Article  in  Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part D Journal of Automobile Engineering · October 2017
DOI: 10.1177/0954407017727165

CITATIONS READS

0 234

3 authors:

Ambarish Kulkarni Sagheer A. Ranjha

Swinburne University of Technology University of Nebraska at Lincoln, NE, United States
16 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ajay Kapoor
Swinburne University of Technology
26 PUBLICATIONS   262 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Effect of wear on underhead radius stresses under high axle load conditons View project

Multiaxial fatigue analysis of rail under high axle load conditions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sagheer A. Ranjha on 06 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article

Proc IMechE Part D:

J Automobile Engineering
1–10
A quarter-car suspension model for Ó IMechE 2017
Reprints and permissions:
dynamic evaluations of an in-wheel sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0954407017727165

electric vehicle journals.sagepub.com/home/pid

Ambarish Kulkarni1, Sagheer A Ranjha1,2 and Ajay Kapoor1

Abstract
Electric vehicles (EVs) are an alternative architecture in the automotive industry that provide reduced emissions. This
research has developed a switch reluctance motor (SRM) in-wheel drivetrain for an EV. SRM drivetrains are cheaper and
do not use rare earth elements unlike a permanent magnet motor (PMM). Conversely, the in-wheel SRM has a drawback
of an increased mass on the suspension when compared with an equivalent power output PMM drivetrain. This situation
results in an increased mass at the wheels; hence, a suspension analysis is required. This paper discusses the suspension
dynamics evaluated using a quarter-car simulation of an in-wheel SRM EV and compares it to the internal combustion
engine (ICE) vehicle. The simulation used step loads derived design scenarios, namely (1) sprung, (2) unsprung and (3)
driver’s seat. Further Bode plot analysis techniques were used to determine the ride comfort range for the developed
EV.

Keywords
Quarter-car model, suspension, simulation, Bode plot analysis, transient response and electric vehicle

Date received: 27 June 2016; accepted: 5 July 2017

Introduction The suspension is an important part of the vehicle

Electric vehicles (EVs) are seen as alternative technol-
ogy in the automotive industry with the specific advan-
tage of reduced pollution. In an EV, the in-wheel motor
is ideal due to its benefits, with low transmission losses
and a simple design (redundancy of gear box compo-
nents). Amongst several motors, permanent magnet
motors (PMMs) are predominantly used in EVs as they
are more efficient and compact, and they provide a
high power density. The key disadvantage of the PMM
is the need of permanent magnets (PMs) which use rare
earth elements for the motor, and this requirement
increases the motor’s cost. About 90% of the rare earth
elements from China are mined in Baotou, Inner
Mongolia and in the Sichuan Province. China is cur-
rently restricting exports and implementing a strategy
to conserve its natural rare earth resources. As a conse-
quence, rear earth element prices are increasing. To
overcome the cost and availability issues associated
with the PMM, the in-wheel switch reluctance motor
(SRM) is used.1, 2 However, the in-wheel SRM adds an
extra mass on the suspension system; hence, it is essen-
tial to investigate the dynamics of the suspension
system.
design, as the function is to ensure comfort during driv-
ing under a wide range of road and weather conditions.
In this research, suspension analyses were carried out
in order to assess the vehicle performance with an
increased mass on each wheel. Both analytical and
empirical methods were used to validate the current
suspension design of the EV with an in-wheel SRM as
shown in Figure 1. Starting with quarter-car models, a
series of evaluations were performed, whereby the ride
comfort was measured to validate the performance of
the suspension. This is the first time a quarter-car sus-
pension model has been used for EVs with an in-wheel
SRM. Therefore, the designed in-wheel SRM is the first
of its kind and novel at this point in time.
1
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology, Swinburne University of
Technology, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia
2
College of Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Corresponding author:
Ambarish Kulkarni, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology,
Swinburne University of Technology, H38, John St Hawthorn, VIC 3122,
Australia.
Email: ambarishkulkarni@swin.edu.au
 2 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 00(0)
Figure 1. Suspension design of the electric vehicle (EV) with an
in-wheel switch reluctance motor (SRM).
A variety of EV powertrain layouts are considered
at the front and rear axles and combinations of both.3
However, an in-wheel motor configuration can provide
more flexibility to the EV’s design, making the vehicle
more compact and lightweight.4 Regarding car suspen-
sion studies, passenger comfort is of the importance
due to increased mass as depicted in previous work,
whether it be on an in-wheel-drive4 or on any other car
configuration.5, 6 In modern vehicle designs, system
validation and evaluation of its elements has become
vital due to the shorter life cycle approach, as the aim
is to reduce the number of physical prototyping meth-
ods required.7 Several studies were conducted on sus-
pension performance in vehicles, whereby the analysis
was performed on a quarter-car model, which was
compared to semi-active and passive system perfor-
mance.8–10 Quarter-car models were also used in studies
of vibration response during ride conditions on roads.11
Other authors applied Simulink-based models in order
to obtain graphical output reflecting the design perfor-
mance of the semi-active and passive suspension sys-
tem.12 Half-car models were used to develop EV
suspension control systems by other authors.13
The literature review summarised above was further
expanded to include passive, semi-active and active sus-
pension adaptive control systems in order to assess
their stability and dynamics.14–17 The passive system
relies on inertia as well as the spring dampening factor,
and no control systems are required in the vehicle.18
Active vibration systems can either store, dissipate or
AQ1
generate energy to mass.19 Linear quadratic control
(LQR) shows that an active suspension can give a lower
amplitude and a faster settling time than a passive sys-
tem.20 Semi-active systems use both passive and active
suspension systems.18 Based on the linear parameter
varying theory, semi-active designs show good perfor-
mance through both frequency-based industrial criteria
and time simulation experiments.19 Shin et al.21 pre-
sented a motorised vehicle, active suspension damper
control with dynamic friction and actuator delay com-
pensation for better ride quality. Furthermore, Zhao
et al.22 presented research on a multidisciplinary design
method for an integrated automotive steering and sus-
pension system.
The conclusion drawn from the results reported
above is that most of the vehicles utilised in the experi-
mental studies reported in the literature used passive
and active systems, and the analysis was based on
quarter-car model design to evaluate performance of
the suspension elements with increased mass.
Moreover, MATLABÒ was used to effectively analyse
suspension durability of an in-wheel SRM of an EV in
comparison with an internal combustion engine (ICE)
vehicle. This gave the starting point for the present
study, as the subsequent findings can be placed in the
context of those previously reported by other authors
working on similar issues.
Based on the studies identified during the above lit-
erature review, the same approach was adopted in the
present study. Due to physical changes affected by the
unsprung mass with the new in-wheel SRM, the vehicle
response was also expected to change, as the vehicle
suspension system remained unchanged. Thus, the aim
of this analysis is to evaluate the changes due to the
new in-wheel SRM. As part of this process, a small car
was tested under different road conditions, with
increased mass (due to the motor) added to the wheel,
reproducing the effects of the in-wheel SRM unsprung
mass. A flow chart as shown in Figure 2 will explain
the methodology for the study. The experimental
results (load history curve) with the current new design
have been obtained for fatigue analysis of the suspen-
sion in order to study the life cycle analysis of the new
design and has been reported in Kulkarni et al.1 The
study on tyre/rim road interface has been reported in
Kulkarni and Kapoor.23 In order to evaluate the sus-
pension performance due to increased mass, the transi-
ent response for frequency and Bode plot analyses were
conducted using the MATLABÒ program to solve the
quarter-car equations for two different cases to study
the changes brought in due to the new design and were
compared with the ICE vehicle. The sprung / unsprung /
driver’s seat mass studies for EVs with an in-wheel SRM
and associated comparisons with ICE conducted in this
research is novel for SRM EVs.
Materials and methods
Analytical experimentation and EV suspension
diagram
In this research, a quarter-car model was used for the
optimisation, identification and control of an EV, when
subjected to road impacts. A model with three degrees
of freedom was used for the analysis. Here, the
quarter-car model for the ICE vehicle (Holden Barina
Spark) was compared to the quarter-car model of the
proposed in-wheel SRM of the EV. The model had a
sprung mass, referring to the mass of the car above the
suspension system (the vehicle chassis), with the
Kulkarni et al.
Figure 2. Flow chart for methodology (comparing an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle with an electric vehicle (EV) for
increased mass in the research).
FEA: finite element analysis.
addition due to the driver’s seat placed on top. These
two components were insulated by the spring cushion
that was, in the subsequent analysis, represented as a
spring with a spring index Kds and damper with the coef-
ficient Cds . Underneath the sprung mass was the
unsprung mass, which represented the mass of the single
wheel, suspension, tyre, shock absorbers and suspension
knuckles. In the case of the EV, the unsprung mass also
included the mass of the in-wheel SRM, which was
placed inside the wheel. In the subsequent analysis, the
EV suspension was considered to have a spring stiffness
of Ks and the damping coefficient of the damper Cs .
The tyre was also considered to act like a spring with a
spring coefficient Kt . The model for the passive suspen-
sion system of a quarter-car was thus ready for analysis.
Figure 3 below provides the free body diagram of the
quarter-car model.
In Figure 3, Xr , Xu , Xs and Xds correspond to the ver-
tical displacement of the road, unsprung mass, sprung
mass and the seat, respectively. In Table 1, the equation
coefficients used in the subsequent text are provided.
The variables given above were assigned values for
the corresponding car configuration. The driver’s seat
mass (Mds ) was considered to be a uniform 90 kg for
both car types, as it was identical in both experimental
arrangements. The vehicle sprung mass (Ms ) changed
for the two configurations, as the vehicle kerb weight
was modified. In the case of the ICE setup, the sprung
mass was considered to be 110 kg, which was the
default load on each wheel for the Holden Barina
3
Spark. This weight on each wheel was 240 kg calculated
based on kerb weight of the Barina Spark (960 kg). Of
the ~240 kg total weight, 90 kg was considered to be the
weight of the driver and the seat. In addition, the mea-
surements performed during the experiments indicated
that each set of existing wheels, brakes and suspension
weighed approximately 40 kg, which was the unsprung
mass of the ICE (Mu ). This led to the estimate of 110
kg for the ICE vehicle sprung mass.
The sprung mass for the EV (Mse ) changed due to
the ICE being removed and weight of the motor placed
inside the wheel. The conversion involved changing the
full wheel and brake system with the new proposed in-
wheel SRM and wheel. In the process, 17 inches wheels
with the SRM fitted inside were used as a replacement
for the two rear wheels. Based on the overall weight;
the sprung mass of the EV was calculated with the
aforementioned methods as (Mse ) 130 kg. The unsprung
mass of an EV (Mue ) was 80 kg in total calculated from
(i) 40 kg as the weight of the in-wheel SRM, (ii) 25 kg
as the weight of the 17 inches wheel (7 kg for rim and
18 kg for tyre nuts and bolts) and (iii) 15 kg as the
weight of a new brake system (5 kg for disc brake and
10 kg for the calliper, hydraulics, nuts and bolts). The
driver’s seat mass of the EV remained at 90 kg.
Suspension modelling
The parameters required for performing the analysis
were the spring constants and the damping coefficients
4 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 00(0)

masses and damper systems were the spring–mass and

damper system of the MacPherson strut suspension in
the car and of the seat and the driver. The parameters
of the MacPherson strut suspension were derived using
the physical measurements taken from the vehicle and
equations (1), (2) and (3)

p  d3  t
F= ð1Þ
16  r
64  n  r3  F
f= ð2Þ
d4  G
K = F=f ð3Þ
where d is the spring coil diameter (14 mm), r is the
spring radius (60 mm), n is the number of coils (five)
and G is the shear modulus of the spring—79:33109 Pa.
The above equations (1) to (3) were used to calculate
the spring constant of the MacPherson strut suspension,
which was 44,070 N/m. Next, the damping ratio of the
suspension damper was calculated using equation (4)
given below, based on the value of the spring constant
and the mass of the ICE vehicle
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðKs  Ms Þ
Cs = pffiffiffi ð4Þ
2

Figure 3. Free body diagram of quarter-car model for the where Ks is a spring constant for the MacPherson strut
electric vehicle (EV). and Ms is a sprung mass of the ICE vehicle. The damp-
ing coefficient was calculated as 2969 N/m and the
spring coefficient and damping coefficient for the seat
Table 1. Descriptions of variables used in the equations. were calculated as 176,280 N/m and 8372 Ns/m. The
road excitation for a passive suspension was considered
Variables Description using a road bump in the form of transient force. These
conditions were simulated by non-periodic, determinis-
Mds Driver and seat mass
Ms Vehicle sprung mass tic excitation, or random excitation, with unpredictable
Mu Vehicle unsprung mass time described using probability.24 A road bump in the
Cs Damping ratio of the vehicle suspension form of a high-risk pothole was considered as a source
Cds Damping ratio of the seat of excitation for the quarter-car model,15 using the
Kt Tyre stiffness depth of 100 mm, leading to Xr equal to 1. The key
Ks Vehicle suspension spring stiffness
Kds Seat suspension spring stiffness parameters used to perform the quarter-car analysis are
Xr Road input given in Table 2.
The quarter-car model equations are based on the
model depicted in Figure 3. The block diagram in
Figure 4 shows the various forces acting on the differ-
of the spring–mass systems in the model. As previously ent masses on the vehicle suspension.
noted, the model with three degrees of freedom was Equations of motion are established for the three
employed in the analysis, whereby the two spring different masses, namely the sprung mass (Ms ), the

Table 2. Internal combustion engine (ICE) and electric vehicle (EV) specifications considered for the quarter-car modelling.

Parameters Values (ICE) Values (EV)

Driver’s seat mass (Mds) 90 kg 90 kg

Sprung mass (Ms and Mse) 110 kg 130 kg
Unsprung mass (Mu and Mue) 40 kg 80 kg
Damping coefficient suspension (Cs) 2969 Ns/m 2969 Ns/m
Damping coefficient seat (Cds) 8372 Ns/m 8372 Ns/m
Spring constant tyre (Kt) 125,000 N/m 125,000 N/m
Spring constant suspension (Ks) 44,070 N/m 44,071 N/m
Spring constant seat (Kds) 176,280 N/m 176,280 N/m
Kulkarni et al. 5

unsprung mass (Mu ) and the driver’s seat mass (Mds ), The state-space equation was established using the
whereby the latter includes the various forces acting on state-space variables given by equations (11) to (16)
the driver’s seat mass. This is given by and was written as a column matrix x(t), n 3 1, which
  represented the current state of the system, and matrix
Mds X€ds + Kds ðXds  Xs Þ + Cds X_ ds X_ s = 0 ð5Þ u(t), which represented the system input vector. When
the current state and the system input were available in
Equation (5) represents the various forces acting on the
the state-space equation, the system output (y) was
mass in an equilibrium position. This enables the calcu-
obtained from the state-space equation. Here, the state-
lation of driver’s seat mass acceleration, as given by
space variables were differentiated with respect to time
 
X€ds =  Kds ðXds  Xs Þ=Mds  Cds X_ ds  X_ s =Mds and formed into matrices. Equation (17) shows the
state-space equation for the quarter-car suspension sys-
ð6Þ tem. This state-space equation, which formed a mathe-
The motion of the sprung mass of the system in the matical model from a set of inputs and state-space
position of equilibrium is given by variable, was written on the basis of the state-space
  variables, as mentioned above.
Ms X€ds  Kds ðXds  Xs Þ  Cds X_ ds  X_ s 2 3
  x_ 1
+ Ks ðXs  Xu Þ + Cs X_ s  X_ u = 0 ð7Þ 6 x_ 2 7
6 7
6 x_ 3 7
As above, the acceleration of the sprung mass was 6 7=
6 x_ 4 7
6 7
obtained from equation (7), and is given below as 4 x_ 5 5
  x_ 6
Kds ðXds  Xs Þ Cds X_ ds  X_ s
X€s = + 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
3
Ms Ms 6 Kds =Mds Cds =Mds Kds =Mds Cds =Mds 7
  6 0 0 7
_
Ks ðXs  Xu Þ Cs Xs  Xu _ 6
6 0 0
Kds
0 1 0 0 7
7
  ð8Þ 6 Kds =Ms Cds =Ms Ms  Ms
Ks
0 Ks =Ms Cs =Ms 7
6 7
Ms Ms 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 5
Ks
0 0 Ks =Ms Cs =Mu Mu  Mu
Kt
Cs =Mu
Similarly, the equation of motion in the equilibrium 2 3 2 3
position was written for the unsprung mass x1 0
6 x2 7 6 0 7
  6 7 6 7
Mu X€u  Ks ðXs  Xu Þ  Cs X_ s  X_ u + Kt ðXu  Xr Þ = 0 6 x3 7 6 7
6 7+ 6 0 7u ð17Þ
6 x4 7 6 0 7
ð9Þ 6 7 6 7
4 x5 5 4 0 5
Once again, the acceleration of the unsprung mass was x6 Kt =Mu
obtained from equation (9), and is given below as
The above state-space equation was used to derive the
 
ðXs  Xu Þ X_ s  X_ u output equation for displacement and velocity, given
X€u = Ks  + Cs  below in the matrix form
Mu Mu
2 3 2 32 3
ðX u  X r Þ Xds 1 0 0 0 0 0 x1
Kt  ð10Þ 6 Xs 7 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 76 x2 7
Mu 6 7 6 76 7
6 Xu 7 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 76 x3 7
The three equations of second order (equations (6), (8) y=6 7 6 76 7
6 X_ ds 7 = 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 76 x4 7 + u
6 7 6 76 7
and (10)) were used as input into the system. Next, a 4 X_ s 5 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 54 x5 5
state-space equation was established using the equa- X_ u 0 0 0 0 0 1 x6
tions of motion, for which six different state-space vari-
ables were defined, representing the displacement and ð18Þ
velocity of the sprung, unsprung and driver’s seat mass Clearly, y on the left side of the equality in equation
of the quarter-car suspension system, respectively. (18) represented the system output. The state-space
Hence, six state-space variables were derived from equation given above was later solved using
equations (6), (8) and (10). These were represented by MATLABÒ to obtain the system output in the form of
equations (11) to (16) below displacement and velocity for the suspension analysis,
which are discussed in the next section.
x1 = X_ ds ð11Þ
x2 = Xs  Xds ð12Þ
Results and discussions
x3 = X_ s ð13Þ
x4 = Xu  Xs ð14Þ
Suspension dynamics
The quarter-car model equations derived in the preced-
x5 = X_ u ð15Þ
ing section were used as inputs to develop the suspen-
x6 = Xr  Xu ð16Þ sion analysis program. As noted above, equation (18)
6 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 00(0)
Figure 4. Block diagram of the quarter-car model.
EV: electric vehicle; ICE: internal combustion engine.
Figure 5. Velocity and displacement of the sprung mass for the
internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle.
was used to derive the output equation for displace-
ment and velocity, whereby MATLABÒ was employed
for analytical experimentation on the suspension sys-
tem. The results obtained from MATLABÒ were ana-
lysed to compare the variation in the performance of
the suspension systems of the ICE and EV vehicles.
The analysis performed on both ICE and EV examined
the changes in the vehicle performance during driving.
The results obtained from the MATLABÒ analytical
analysis indicated that the suspension systems of the
two vehicles performed similarly. As the response of
the sprung mass was critical for the performance
Figure 6. Velocity and displacement of the sprung mass for the
electric vehicle (EV).
evaluation of the EV, it was assessed, and the results
were plotted. The graphs compared the velocity and
displacement changes of the sprung mass when sub-
jected to a step input. Using MATLABÒ simulations,
two programs were run, as given in following sections.
Sprung mass. It can be observed from Figures 5 and 6
that the velocity of the sprung mass changed by more
than 16% for the EV (from 1.5 s in an ICE to 1.8 s in
an EV), even though the velocity fluctuation was not
significant, but rather persistent. More displacement,
21%, was observed in the EV compared to ICE (from
1.1 s in an ICE to 1.4 s in an EV). The velocity and dis-
placement stabilised over a shorter period of time for
the ICE vehicle, as compared to the EV, implying that
any input to the vehicle suspension over a longer period
of time would affect the driving comfort. In other
words, the higher frequency of oscillations in the EV
had a direct impact on the ride comfort and handling
of the vehicle. The main reason for this behaviour was
the increase in the sprung mass, which meant that the
vehicle experienced smaller change in velocity for the
same step input due to the increased overall weight
affecting the spring and dampers. This resulted in lon-
ger oscillation cycles. Consequently, although the sus-
pension damper was able to handle the increased load
of the EV, the damper efficiency was still compromised.
In the experiments described above, the damping coef-
ficient of the suspension damper was 2969 Ns/m for the
EV. The vehicle handling was also slightly affected due
to this observed behaviour, especially during cornering
and other sharp manoeuvres.
Unsprung mass. Figures 7 and 8 depict the difference in
performance of the unsprung mass in the ICE and EV
models, respectively. The velocity fluctuation of the
unsprung mass for the EV was greater than 20% (from
1.2 s in an ICE to 1.5 s in an EV). Therefore, displace-
ment variations were 25% for the unsprung mass of
Kulkarni et al.
Figure 7. Velocity and displacement of the unsprung mass for
the internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle.
Figure 8. Velocity and displacement of the unsprung mass for
the electric vehicle (EV).
the two compared vehicles (from 0.6 s in an ICE to 0.8
s in an EV). These results suggest that this behaviour
affects the ride comfort for an EV, since instability was
observed due to the increase in the unsprung mass. The
ride quality was enhanced due to decreased velocity
changes for the same amplitude of displacement. The
time required for the EV to stabilise to its normal posi-
tion was longer than that of the ICE vehicle. In the EV,
the damper in the vehicle was able to handle the extra
load due to the unsprung mass, which led to slight velo-
city fluctuations over a longer time period. Finally, the
impacts of these loads were tested for the driver’s seat
mass. The driver’s seat of the vehicle was the most criti-
cal part of the quarter-car model analysis, since it had
a direct effect on the driver and passengers travelling in
the vehicle.
Driver’s seat mass. In Figures 9 and 10, it can be observed
that the response of the seat and driver to the step input
7
Figure 9. Velocity and displacement of the driver’s seat of the
internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle.
Figure 10. Velocity and displacement of the driver’s seat of the
electric vehicle (EV).
was similar to the other two simulation results, suggest-
ing direct impact on both the driver and the passengers
in the vehicle. The velocity fluctuation of an EV was
more than 16% of an ICE (from 1.5 s in an ICE to 1.8 s
in an EV). The displacement fluctuation was 20%
greater in an EV when compared to the ICE (from 1.0 s
in an ICE, to 1.25 s in an EV). This change in velocity
and displacement affected the driver’s comfort range,
with additional oscillations as observed in an EV.
This situation had a direct effect on the damper han-
dling due to the increase in both the unsprung and sprung
mass. The increased oscillations led to an uncomfortable
ride, thus reducing the quality of the experience for the
passengers. In other words, although the increased spring
stiffness of the seat and driver mass minimised the prob-
lem, it still led to reduced ride quality. It can be concluded
that the increase in damping coefficient benefitted han-
dling and drive conditions of the vehicle. In an EV with
the in-wheel SRM, the ride quality was also slightly
affected. However, the simulation results indicated
8 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 00(0)
Figure 11. Frequency response of the internal combustion
engine (ICE) vehicle and electric vehicle (EV) using a Bode plot.
absence of large displacements or shocks during driving,
when using in-wheel SRMs. Hence, this arrangement was
concluded safe based on further Bode plot analysis
explained in next section.
Bode plot analysis
The slight depreciation in the ride quality was con-
firmed by the analysis using MATLABÒ; however, as
the changes were of the order of 20–25%, the recom-
mended vehicle safety was in question. This analysis
only identified the variations in the ride quality; how-
ever, safety of the vehicle suspension in an EV remained
in question. The increase in the unsprung mass due to
the motor affected the EV ride quality; safe perfor-
mance was determined using Bode plots. To further
investigate these effects on the EV with an increased
mass, additional analysis on the unsprung mass was
carried out using the Bode plots, based on the natural
system frequency, as this is a good indicator of the
actual ride conditions. The natural system frequency is
defined as the frequency at which a driving force causes
maximum oscillation amplitude or even leads to
unbounded oscillations. Bode plot analyses of the EV
and ICE models were carried out to observe the
changes in frequency in different parts of the suspension
system. The plots showed the variation in both magni-
tude and phase with frequency of a liner, time-invariant
system. The suspension system analysis was based on a
time-invariant system, as all the physical parameters of
the system remained constant over time. The Bode plot
input was a transfer function, which was the ratio of
the function input and output, converted into the Bode
plot by performing MATLABÒ analysis. The plot in
Figure 11 was obtained from the MATLABÒ analysis.
The vehicle was subjected to the least amount
of fluctuation during a normal ride, as shown in
Figure 11. However, the applied step input brought
about the changes in magnitude and phase at varying
system frequency levels. The most acute change was
observed in the both the systems. As is evident in
Figure 11, Bode plot analysis showed promising results
with no negative effect observed for the EV with an in-
wheel SRM. Generally, a system is considered unstable
if it has a phase of 2180º at its cross-over frequency,
which was, in this case, less than 1.0 Hz or above 2 Hz.
In addition, the system was potentially stable as the
magnitude was smaller than 2180º phase at 1–1.5 Hz
and showed less than 10 dB. However, the graph
depicted in Figure 11 indicates that the EV was stable
for frequencies ranging from 1 to 1.5 Hz. Overall, the
frequency analysis indicated positive results for the EV,
in comparison to the ICE. The phase in 2180º at the
cross-over frequency range has no cross-over for both
vehicles between 1 and 1.5 Hz, as noted above and
shown in Figure 11. The small change for the EV only
occurred in the 1–1.5 Hz range with its cross-over
due to its substantial increase in unsprung mass.
Nonetheless, the spring and the damper of the vehicle
had sufficient capacity to absorb the shocks due to the
increased mass, resulting in a comfortable ride. The
ride quality was within a comfortable range, and it was
not in the harsh ride range of 2–5 Hz. Above 5 Hz, the
deterioration in ride quality is much greater, and 5–7
Hz causes abdominal injuries. Anything above this
range causes critical spinal injuries (7–18 Hz), as well as
damage to passengers’ heads and necks (anything . 18
Hz). A very slow frequency response is also known to
cause motion sickness, yet this was not observed in the
EV. However, these analyses confirmed that the ride in
the EV was slightly harsher than in the ICE; but, it was
still within the recommended comfortable range.
Conclusions
The increased unsprung mass due to in-wheel SRM for
the EV affected its ride conditions and dynamics. In this
paper, quarter-car models and Bode plot studies were
conducted, whereby the ride performance and dynamics
of the EV suspension using an in-wheel SRM were eval-
uated. The key conclusions that can be derived from
the reported results are summarised below:
1. Based on the block diagram, a free body diagram
was constructed for modelling the suspension sys-
tem subsequently used for the mathematical analy-
sis. Three scenarios were compared, namely (1)
sprung, (2) unsprung, and (3) driver’s seat step
loads derived from the free body diagram and were
verified using mathematical models.
2. Both analytical and empirical analyses were con-
ducted using MATLABÒ for the suspension of the
EV with an in-wheel SRM and compared to the
ICE vehicle. Using these mathematical models,
analytical study was reconstructed for the suspen-
sions in EV and ICE models using MATLABÒ.
3. A key observation from the above analyses was
the slight variation in the ride comfort of the EV
Kulkarni et al.
model, when compared to that exhibited by the
ICE. This variation was due to the variation in the
velocity plots, whereby those for the EV exceeded
those of the ICE by (i) 16% in displacements and
21% in velocity amplitude at the sprung mass, (ii)
20% in displacements and 25% in velocity ampli-
tude at the unsprung mass and (iii) 16% in displa-
cements and 20% in velocity amplitude at the
driver’s seat mass. This large variation at the
unsprung mass was due to the increased mass of
the vehicle caused by the in-wheel SRM at the
wheels.
4. Following the mathematical analysis, further study
was performed in order to determine the ride safety
of the EV suspension in comparison to that of the
ICE. Bode plot analysis techniques were used to
determine the ride comfort range for the developed
EV. Generally, a system is considered unstable if it
has a phase of 2180º at its cross-over frequency,
which should be below 1–1.5 Hz. A system is also
potentially unstable if the magnitude exceeds 10
dB when the phase is at its cross-over frequency of
1–1.5 Hz. In the experiments performed here, it
was seen that both EV and ICE performed in a fre-
quency range of 1–1.5 Hz. Thus, suspension design
was safe for the developed EV design.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank i-move CRC Auto CRC C2-25 for
funding and supporting the development of the EV dri-
vetrain. They also thank other consortium members for
assisting with the required information.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any fund-
ing agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit
sectors.
References
1. Kulkarni A, Ranjha SA and Kapoor A. Fatigue analysis
of a suspension for an in-wheel electric vehicle. Eng Fail
Anal 2016; 68: 150–158.
2. Lovatt HC, Elton D, Cahill L et al. Design procedure for
low cost, low mass, direct drive, in-wheel motor drivetrains
for electric and hybrid vehicles. In: IECON 2011 – 37th
annual conference on IEEE industrial electronics society,
Melbourne, VIC, 7–10 November 2011. New York: IEEE.
3. Novellis LD, Sorniotti A and Gruber P. Design and
comparison of the handling performance of different
electric vehicle layouts. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automo-
bile Engineering 2014; 228: 218–232.
4. George AD and Besselink I. Rear suspension design for
an in-wheel-drive electric car. Proc IMechE Part D: J
Automobile Engineering 2016; 230: 147–159.
9
5. Verros G, Natsiavas S and Papadimitriou C. Design
optimization of quarter-car models with passive and
semi-active suspensions under random road excitation. J
Vib Control 2005; 11: 581–606.
6. Stein GJ and Múčka P. Theoretical investigation of a lin-
ear planar model of a passenger car with seated people.
Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 2003;
217: 257–268.
7. Firat M and Kocabicak U. Analytical durability model-
ing and evaluation-complementary techniques for physi-
cal testing of automotive components. Eng Fail Anal
2004; 11: 655–674.
8. Sohn H-C, Hong K-S and Hedrick JK. Semi-active con-
trol of the MacPherson suspension system: hardware-in-
the-loop simulations. In: Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE
international conference on control applications, Ancho-
rage, AK, 27 September 2000. New York: IEEE.
9. Georgiou G, Verros G and Natsiavas S. Multi-objective
optimization of quarter-car models with a passive or
semi-active suspension system. Vehicle Syst Dyn 2007;
45: 77–92.
10. Metered H, Bonello P and Oyadiji SO. An investigation
into the use of neural networks for the semi-active control
of a magnetorheologically damped vehicle suspension.
Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 2010;
224: 829–848.
11. Gao W, Zhang N and Dai J. A stochastic quarter-car
model for dynamic analysis of vehicles with uncertain
parameters. Vehicle Syst Dyn 2008; 46: 1159–1169.
12. Chan BJ and Sandu C. A ray-tracing approach to simula-
tion and evaluation of a real-time quarter car model with
semi-active suspension system using MATLAB. In: 2003
ASME design engineering technical conferences and comput-
ers and information in engineering conference, Chicago, IL,
2–6 September 2003, pp.2129–2134. New York: ASME.
13. Cao JT, Liu HH, Li P et al. A study of electric vehicle
suspension control system based on an improved half-
vehicle model. Int J Autom Comput 2007; 4: 236–242.
14. Cao J, Liu H, Li P et al. State of the art in vehicle active
suspension adaptive control systems based on intelligent
methodologies. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 2008; 9:
392–405.
15. Cao D, Song X and Ahmadian M. Editors’ perspectives:
road vehicle suspension design, dynamics, and control.
Vehicle Syst Dyn 2011; 49: 3–28.
16. Huang S-J and Chao H-C. Fuzzy logic controller for a
vehicle active suspension system. Proc IMechE Part D: J
Automobile Engineering 2000; 214: 1–12.
17. Cao J-T, Li P and Liu H-H. An extended fuzzy controller
for a vehicle active suspension system. Proc IMechE Part
D: J Automobile Engineering 2010; 224: 717–733.
18. Karnopp D, Crosby MJ and Harwood RA. Vibration
control using semi-active force generators. J Eng Ind
1974; 96: 619–626.
19. Poussot-Vassal C, Sename O, Dugard L et al. A new
semi-active suspension control strategy through LPV
technique. Control Eng Pract 2008; 16: 1519–1534.
20. Agharkakli A, Sabet GS and Barouz A. Simulation and
analysis of passive and active suspension system using
quarter car model for different road profile. Int J Eng
Trends Tech 2012; 31: 636–644.
21. Shin D, Lee G, Yi K et al. Motorized vehicle active sus-
pension damper control with dynamic friction and actua-
tor delay compensation for a better ride quality. Proc
 10 Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 00(0)

IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 2016; 230: EV electric vehicles

1074–1089. G shear modulus of the spring 79.3 3 109 Pa
22. Zhao W, Wang C, Zhao T et al. Research on the multi- ICE internal combustion engine
disciplinary design method for an integrated automotive Kds spring coefficient of the driver’s seat
steering and suspension system. Proc IMechE Part D: J Ks spring coefficient of the sprung mass
Automobile Engineering 2015; 229: 1249–1262. Kt spring coefficient of the tyre
23. Kulkarni A and Kapoor A. Rim and tyre investigation Mds driver’s seat mass
for in-wheel motor of electric vehicle using simulations. Ms ICE sprung mass
In: 20th international congress on modelling and simula-
Mse EV sprung mass
tion, Adelaide, Australia, 1–6 December 2013.
24. Savaresi SM and Spelta C. A single-sensor control strat-
Mu ICE unsprung mass
egy for semi-active suspensions. IEEE Trans Control Syst Mue EV unsprung mass
Technol 2009; 17: 143–152. n number of coils (five)
PMM permanent magnet motor
r spring radius (60 mm)
Appendix SRM switch reluctance motor
Notation Xds vertical displacement of the driver’s seat
Xr vertical displacement of the road
Cds damping coefficient of the driver’s seat Xs vertical displacement of the sprung mass
Cs damping coefficient of the sprung mass Xu vertical displacement of the unsprung
d spring coil diameter (14 mm) mass

View publication stats