Download Proceedings of the FISITA 2012 World Automotive Congress: by Tagir Gadelshin (auth.) PDF

Show description

1 Suspension System Targets Setting The front suspension structure in Model 1–4 is McPherson (Fig. 7), the rear suspension form in Model 2 and 4 is torsion beam structure (Fig. 8), and rear suspension form in Model 1 and 3 is multi-link structure (Fig. 9). In the Optimization Design of Suspension Structure 55 Fig. 5 m comparison of performance of various models, Model 3 is favourable in overall performance; since the same suspension system of Model 3 is applied in Model A, performance targets setting of suspension K&C is similar to that of Model 3, as shown in Table 5.

4 one illustrates the corresponding domains for human perception of vibration. In this way, one finds the relationship between the travel speed and the level of vibration perception, for various values of the tire inflation pressure. Thus, C. V. Suciu and S. 5 0 250 kPa 225 kPa Extremely uncomfortable 200 kPa 0 Very uncomfortable 175 kPa 150 kPa Uncomfortable Fairly uncomfortable A little uncomfortable 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Travel speed of the vehicle, V[km/h] 40 Not uncomfortable Fig. 4 Variation of the RMS equivalent acceleration versus the travel speed of a vehicle equipped at frontal and rear suspensions with classical suspensions, for various values of the tire inflation pressure Colloidal suspension Colloidal suspension 0 Exponential spectrum of vibration [dB] Fig.

Optimization Design of Suspension Structure 49 Fig. 2 Maximum value of acceleration at driver’s foot position on floor Fig. 3 Maximum value of acceleration at rear passengers’ foot position on floor local analysis, the steering system performance of Model 3 is weaker in steering system response, torque feedback and low speed aligning than that of Model 1, 2 and 4, so they should be improved; According to the objective test result of operation stability and ride comfort, Model 3 is slightly inferior to Model 1, 2 and 4 in response, so it should be improved.