SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES 1999-01-1840

Measurement of Dynamic Properties of

Automotive Shock Absorbers for NVH
Mohan D. Rao and Scott Gruenberg
Michigan Technological University

Homa Torab
Ford Motor Company

Reprinted From: Proceedings of the 1999 Noise and Vibration Conference

(P-342)

Noise and Vibration Conference & Exposition

Traverse City, Michigan
May 17-20, 1999

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sec-
tions 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 1999-01-1840

Measurement of Dynamic Properties of

Automotive Shock Absorbers for NVH

Mohan D. Rao and Scott Gruenberg

Michigan Technological University

Homa Torab
Ford Motor Company

Copyright © 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT equations. An exhaustive review of physical models to

date is presented by Duym, et. al [1].
This paper describes a project on the dynamic character-
A comprehensive physical model was developed by Lang
ization of automotive shock absorbers. The objective
[2], later condensed and validated by Morman [3]. Lang’s
was to develop a new testing and analysis methodology
model has more than 80 parameters, is computationally
for obtaining equivalent linear stiffness and damping of
complex and is not suitable for comprehensive vehicle
the shock absorbers for use in CAE-NVH low- to- mid fre-
simulation studies. Morman’s model has been shown to
quency chassis models. Previous studies using an elas-
be useful for studying the effects of design changes for a
tomer test machine proved unsuitable for testing shocks
particular shock. Reybrouck [4] has developed a physical
in the mid-to-high frequency range where the typical road
model, which has 14 parameters, valid for frequencies up
input displacements fall within the noise floor of the elas-
to 20 Hz, but has limited appeal for the analysis of shock
tomer machine. Hence, in this project, an electrodynamic
absorbers for NVH applications.
shaker was used for exciting the shock absorbers under
displacements less than 0.05 mm up to 500 Hz. Further- Simplified models using springs and dashpots in various
more, instead of the swept sine technique, actual road combinations have been built. Attempts have been made
data were used to excite the shocks. Equivalent linear to include non-linearities due to hysteresis and backlash,
spring-damper models were developed based on least- which lead to a set of non-linear differential equations
squares curve-fitting of the test data. The type of road requiring numerical solution [5]. Hence these models
profile did not influence the stiffness and damping values have limited use in total vehicle CAE studies.
significantly for the range of amplitudes and frequencies
The parametric modeling approach involving develop-
considered. Finally, sensitivity of the vehicle level
ment of an input/output relation of the shock absorber
responses to the shock absorber rate change was stud-
based on experimental data is ideal for CAE simula-
ied, to finalize whether or not an upgrade to the existing
tions. In this approach, a shock absorber is character-
shock absorber test procedure is necessary.
ized by a “black-box” system for a specific range of test
conditions. The shock absorber is subjected to a known
INTRODUCTION input and the output force is measured. A model is then
developed from these measurements, which describes
The shock absorber is one of the most important ele- the input-output relationship. The parameters of the
ments in a vehicle suspension system. It is also one of model may or may not have any physical meaning, but
the most non-linear and complex elements to model. are strongly correlated with measurements. If the param-
There are two approaches to model shocks: analytical (or eters do not have any meaning, then the model is some-
physical) modeling based on physical and geometrical times called “nonparametric”. One limitation of
data, and parametric modeling based on experimental parametric modeling approach is that the model is valid
data. The physical models attempt to calculate the only within the boundary of test conditions. This means, a
shock absorber force as a function of displacement, model that has been developed using smooth road test
velocity and acceleration from a system of differential data may not be accurate for use under rough road condi-
equations. The internal pressures must be measured or tions. A parametric model from experimental data using
predicted numerically and the system geometry in terms system identification techniques has been developed by
of areas, port diameter, architecture of the valve assem- Alanoly [6].
blies, etc. must be known to use these models. An itera-
tive procedure is generally used to solve the differential

1
A nonparametric model based on a restoring force sur-
face mapping has been developed [7-10]. The model
considers the force to be a function of displacement and
velocity. Although, this model is limited to single fre-
quency excitation, it serves as a useful tool for identifying
the non- linearities in the system.
A comprehensive physical model of the shock absorber is
necessary to study the effects of design changes and to
tune the shock absorber to obtain the desired perfor-
mance. The vendors have used physical models in the
design stage. If the objective, however, is to characterize
the performance of the shock absorbers for CAE simula-
tions and benchmarking, the parametric modeling
approach similar to the one presented in this paper is
appropriate. It should be noted that the parametric mod-
els are valid only within the range of test conditions.
The objectives of this project was to develop a testing
and analysis methodology for obtaining equivalent linear
stiffness and damping of automotive shock absorbers for
use in CAE-NVH low-to-mid frequency chassis models.
The first task involved developing a suitable testing pro-
cedure including fixtures for exciting the shock absorber
with a random input corresponding to different driving Figure 1. Experimental Set-up.
conditions. The second task included development of a
data analysis procedure to extract equivalent linear For testing under actual stoke lengths (pre-loads), a pair
dynamic properties from the measured data. Finally, a of thin cords and a thin aluminum plate was used as
sensitivity analysis was conducted using a vehicle level shown in the picture. The aluminum plate (size= 2 X 2 X
CAE model to study the effects of stiffness and damping 1/8 inch) with a hole was bonded to the rod end near the
changes on the predicted interior sound pressure level. step, and a pair of thin cotton cords (about 3 mm in diam-
eter) was attached to the plate using S-hooks. The other
TEST PROCEDURE ends of the cords were fixed to the bottom plate. First, the
cords were tied by pushing the rod to its approximate
An electrodynamic shaker was used for exciting the stroke length, and then the exact stroke length was
shock absorbers under displacements less than 0.05 mm adjusted and maintained by using turnbuckles in the mid-
up to 500 Hz. Furthermore, instead of the swept sine dle of the cords.
technique as used in MTS, actual road data were used to Based on trials with other materials we decided to use
excite the shocks. This enables the development of both the cotton cord for pre-loading the shock. Two shock
non-linear as well as equivalent linear parametric models absorbers were tested under the following five input data:
from the measured data. a) Smooth Road @50 MPH, b) Rough Road @ 30 MPH,
Figure 1 shows a picture of the experimental set-up. As c) Spindle Shaker Lab Test with Hydraulic Shaker On d)
seen, the shock absorber is fixed at the tube end using a Spindle Shaker Lab Test with Hydraulic Shaker Off, and
U-shaped clamp to a massive plate on a test bed. The e) Random white noise excitation (with r.m.s value of
rod end of the shock is connected to a shaker (50-lbf 0.005 mm). For cases a, b, and c, the relative accelera-
shaker from MB dynamics) through an impedance head tions to simulate the road input in the lab were calculated
(PCB Model No. 288C01). The impedance head has an from the synchronized time history record of accelera-
accelerometer and a force transducer, both integrated tions at the top and bottom of the shock absorber mea-
into the same unit for measuring the input displacement sured during road tests.
and output force. The LMS Time Waveform Replicator
(TWR Revision 3.4 under TMON) software and DIFA
Scadas II (with QDAC) front-end hardware were used to
generate, apply and control the input to the shaker in
order to reproduce road excitations in the lab.

2
DATA ANALYSIS the correct use and interpretation of these models, as
they are not applicable for all cases.
A linear spring-damper model of the form f(t)= K x(t) + c
v(t), where x= input displacement, v= input velocity, RESULTS & DISCUSSION
and f (t)= output force was developed based on test data
in the time domain. The term K is the spring stiffness (N/ Table 1 is a summary of all results. It shows a total of
m) and c=viscous damping coefficient (N.s/m). All eight test cases. Figures 2 through 6 refer to test No. 1,
curve-fitting and plotting were done using MATLAB soft- for the front shock absorber under rough road excitation.
ware. Figure 2 shows the raw data: input displacement and out-
put force in the time domain before post-processing. The
In the frequency domain, for a simple harmonic excita-
r.m.s. Values of the measured displacement and force in
tion, the above model is interpreted as:
this case are 0.025 mm and 1.30 Newtons. Figure 3
F(ω)= K X(ω) + j c ω X(ω), where ω is the frequency in shows subplots of the power spectral densities (PSD) of
rad/sec. The input-output relationship in the frequency the input and output time histories. Note the rapid
domain is: F(ω) / X(ω) = KR + j K I where KR is the real decrease in the original PSDs with increase in frequency.
part and KI is the imaginary part of the dynamic stiffness. The sampling frequency for all road data was 2000 Hz,
hence data up to half its value are theoretically useful.
We can also write F(ω) / X(ω) = KM ejφ, where KM is the
The filtered response, however, shows data only in the
magnitude of the Dynamic Stiffness and φ is its phase at
range 25-300 Hz. This is the frequency range in which we
the frequency of excitation. Values of KM and φ at various
were able to generate valid control algorithms in all our
frequencies of interest can be obtained from the above
tests without either over-loading or under-loading the
linear model. It should be noted that K & c are treated as
shaker. The shaker displacements were either too large
constants (independent of displacement amplitude & fre-
(below 25 Hz) or too small (above 300 Hz) outside of this
quency) in the time domain, while the complex dynamic
frequency range.
stiffness is a function of frequency if the excitation is
assumed as simple harmonic. Care must be exercised in

Table 1. Summary of Results

Equivalent Stiffness (K) and Damping (c) for each test case:
Frequency Range: 25-300 Hz

Test Shock RMS RMS Stiffness Damping

No. Absorber Excitation Disp., mm Force, N K, N/mm c, Ns/mm
1 Front Rough Road 0.025 1.30 32.73 0.170

2 Front Smooth Road 0.013 0.91 35.19 0.231

3 Rear Rough Road 0.031 1.64 24.16 0.200

4 Rear Smooth Road 0.019 1.15 25.42 0.231

5 Rear Spindle Shaker Test with 0.018 1.35 25.27 0.282

Hydraulic Shaker on
6 Rear Spindle Shaker Test with 0.006 0.68 24.26 0.410
Hydraulic Shaker off
7 Front Lab Test- Random White 0.005 0.80 85.67 0.335
Noise, No pre-load (Full
Extension)
8. Front Lab Test- Random White 0.005 0.57 31.76 0.383
Noise, with pre-load

3
Figure 2. Input & Output Time Histories

Figure 4. Force Vs. Displacement & Force Velocity Plots

Figure 3. PSDs of Input & Output

Figure 4 shows the force vs. displacement and force vs.

velocity curves obtained by plotting the filtered time histo-
ries. The contribution of many frequencies to the stiff-
ness and damping of the shock absorber as well the
presence of strong non-linearities are quite evident from
these shapes. In fact, one can easily extract the bi-linear
damping exhibited by most shocks under low frequencies
from these hysteresis loops. For linear systems with no
“memory” the shape of force vs. displacement and force
vs. velocity would be a simple ellipse for a single sine
wave excitation.
Next, a comparison of the measured vs. model force is Figure 5. Equivalent Linear Model
shown in Figure 5 in two different formats. The model
force is generated from the curve-fitting constants. The The last two tests (Test Nos. 7 & 8 in Table 1) need some
accuracy of the model varies with each test. It is seen explanation. These test were conducted on the front
that an ideal linear model is one in which all the dots lie shock absorber using a random white noise excitation
on the straight line in Figure 5. Finally, Figure 6 plots the (r.m.s value= 0.005 mm in the frequency range 25-300
magnitude and phase of the dynamic stiffness as a func- Hz). Test No. 7 was with no pre-load that is with full
tion of frequency useful for linear frequency domain CAE extension of the rod. The results of Table 1 and the
analysis. accompanying plots lead us to the following general
conclusions:

4
 • The shock absorber can be modeled as a linear 50 Hz, there is very little or no difference between the two
spring-damper system for the range of amplitudes models.
and frequencies considered. The model fits espe-
cially well for the smooth road excitation.
• The stiffness and damping values appear to not
change much with the type of road excitation. This
may be because of the very low levels of displace-
ments considered in this work.
• The front shock absorber is considerably stiffer than
the rear shock absorber for all excitations. This could
be due to the differences in the internal “tuning” of
the shock.

Figure 7. Sensitivity of Vehicle Model to Different Shock

Absorber Rates

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Figure 6. Dynamic Stiffness & Damping vs. Frequency The first author is grateful to many colleagues at Ford for
their support and friendship during his recent sabbati-
CAE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS cal. In particular, he would like to acknowledge Dr. Jim
Alanoly, Dr. Dave Griffiths, Dr. Jim Swayze and Mr. Todd
CAE analysis was conducted using a total vehicle NVH Vancamp for their valuable technical discussions and
CAE model. We compared vehicle responses of the two help in this work. Also, we would like to thank Mr. Paul
models, the baseline model whose shock absorber rates Weel of LMS N.America for his help with DIFA & LMS-
were based on an earlier test procedure, and a modified TWR software.
model, whose shock absorber rates were based on the
new test procedure. REFERENCES
The shock absorber rates for the baseline model were
1. S. Duym, R. Stiens, and K. Reybrouck, “Evaluation of
K=464 N/mm and C=1.75 Ns/mm. The shock absorber
Shock Absorber Models,” Vehicle System Dynamics,
rates for the modified model were K=32.73 N/mm, C=. 17 Vol. 27, pp. 109-127, 1997.
Ns/mm for the front shocks, and K=24.16 N/mm, C=. 200
Ns/mm for the rear shocks. 2. H.H. Lang, “A Study of the Characteristics of Auto-
motive Dampers at High Stroking Frequencies,”
The comparison of the vehicle model prediction of the Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, 1977.
interior sound for the baseline and the modified shock 3. K. Morman, et. al, “A Model for the Analysis and
rates are shown in Figure 7. Frequency range of analysis Simulation of Hydraulic Shock Absorber Perfor-
is 1-250 Hz. The model is most sensitive to the change in mance, Part I- Theoretical Development (SR-83-
the shock absorber rates below 50 Hz. By viewing the 043), Part II- Parameter Identification and Model Vali-
forced response animation of the vehicle, wheel hop/ dation Studies (SR-86-61), Ford Motor Company
tramp modes dominate vehicle responses below 50 Hz. Research Staff Reports.
As a result, shock axial motion is active making vehicle 4. K. Reybrouck, “A Non Linear Parametric Model of an
sensitive to the changes in the shock rates. At some Automotive Shock Absorber,” SAE Paper No.
higher frequency bands, e.g., 145-155 Hz, shock axial 940869, Vehicle Suspension and System Advance-
motion is still active, but the lateral motion of the strut/ ments, SP-1031, pp. 79-86, 1994.
shock has the larger contribution to the interior 5. R. Karadayi, and G.Y. Masada, “A Nonlinear Shock
responses, making vehicle responses less sensitive to Absorber Model,” Proc. of the Symposium on Simula-
the shock rate changes. For the most frequencies above tion and Control on Ground Vehicles and Transporta-
tion Systems, pp. 149- 165, 1986.

5
6. J. Alanoly, P. Kuber, C. Rubio-Ratton, “Large Deflec- 9. S. Duym, J. Schoukens, and P. Guillaume, “ A Local
tion Non-Linear Component Models for Durability Restoring Force Surface Method,” Proc. 13th IMAC,
Simulation,” Proc. 7th Worldwide Vehicle Dynamics Nashville, Tennessee, pp. 1392-1399, 1995.
Conference, Ford Motor Co., Dearborn, MI, Oct. 10. C. Surace, K. Worden, and G. R. Tomlinson, “On the
1993. Non-linear Characteristics of Automotive Shock
7. S. Cafferty, K. Worden and G. Tomlinson, “Charac- Absorbers,” Proceedings of Institute of Mechanical
terization of Automotive Shock Absorbers Using Ran- Engineers, Part D- Journal of Automobile Engineer-
dom Excitation,” Proceedings of Institute of ing, Vol. 206, pp. 3-16, 1992.
Mechanical Engineers, Part D- Journal of Automobile
Engineering, Vol. 209, pp. 239-248, 1995.
8. G. Belingardi and P. Campanile, “Improvement of the
Shock Absorber Dynamic Simulation by the Restor-
ing Force Mapping Method,” Proc. of the 15th Inter-
national Seminar on Modal Analysis and Structural
Dynamics, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 441-454, 1990.