Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Sunday, November 02, 2014

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES

2008-01-1836

Design Process of a Double

Wish-Bone Suspension
Zhen Zhang and Junhui Yu
Tongji University, China

2008 SAE International Powertrains,

Fuels and Lubricants Congress
Shanghai, China
June 23-25, 2008
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-0790 Web: www.sae.org

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Sunday, November 02, 2014

By mandate of the Engineering Meetings Board, this paper has been approved for SAE publication upon
completion of a peer review process by a minimum of three (3) industry experts under the supervision of
the session organizer.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.
For permission and licensing requests contact:
SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel:
724-772-4028
Fax:
724-776-3036

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service
Tel:
877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel:
724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax:
724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2008 SAE International
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.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
Printed in USA

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Sunday, November 02, 2014

2008-01-1836

Design Process of a Double Wish-Bone Suspension

Zhen Zhang and Junhui Yu
Tongji University, China
Copyright 2008 SAE International

ABSTRACT
The detail design process of a double wish-bone
suspension is described. This suspension is designed
for passengers comfort and ride within the acceptable
strength.
Criterions are discussed for such purpose.
Numerical methods are used in selecting the basic
geometry parameters for steering and suspension parts.
The process of design and check the section of two
arms is described, which is design the suspension
according to maxim perpendicular force and lateral force
and check it according to the maxim perpendicular force
and vertical force. And other consideration and
components of the suspension is mentioned. At last, two
kinds of drawings, part drawing and assembly drawing,
for the suspension system is described.

INTRODUCTION
The role of a vehicle suspension is to provide good ride
and handling performance; to ensure that steering
control is maintained during maneuvering; to ensure that
the vehicle responds favorable to control forces; and to
provide isolation from high frequency vibration arising
from tyre excitation [1,2].
Comfort has becoming an increasingly important feature
for nowadays vehicles. So the strategy for this
suspension is also comfort. Double wish-bone
suspension is now widely used in the high-class vehicles,
such as BMW X5, Benz M-Class, Audi Q7, etc. But
comfort is not exclusive to expensive vehicles. With the
steady decreasing of car price, double wish-bone
suspension will be seen on more and more family cars in
the future. Since the double wish-bone suspension is
influenced by several different parts, the success is
gained by the careful balance of these parameters.
No matter what type of the vehicle, the main parts of a
double wish-bone suspension system are alike, which
consists of an upper arm AB, a lower arm CD, a swivel
pin BC, a spring, a damper and a wheel. Since the
steering system influences the suspension system, it is
also considered. The steering system has been
abstracted to a rack EE, tie rod EF, and steering arm
FG [2,3]. All these are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Main parts of a double wish-bone suspension system

MAIN SECTION
BASIC INPUT
Because a suspension system is a sub-system of a
vehicle, there are several parameters to be decided
before designing the suspension system. They are
wheel track, wheelbase, mass, maximum speed,
maximum slope, 0-100 km/h acceleration time, min
turning radius, outer radius of steering wheel, and tyre
width. As said, this suspension is designed cater to the
general family cars.
So the basic parameters are chosen below:
B=1500mm,
L=2500mm,
m=1200kg,
Max Speed=140km/h
Max Slope=20%,
0-100 km/h acceleration time<14s,
Min Turning Radius Rmin=4500mm.
Outer Radius of Steering Wheel R=260mm,
Tyre width b=145mm.

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Sunday, November 02, 2014

L2: Length of tie rod

SPRING TYPE
: Angle between direction Y and steering rod
There are several different springs, such as coil spring,
leaf spring and torsion bar spring. Torsion bar springs
are the simplest type. In this case, chose torsion bar as
spring.

y: Distance between rack and wheel axle

The points are parameterized by the geometry
parameters for the parts. They are shown below:

GEOMETRY DESIGN FOR THE STEERING SYSTEM

X

-L1 / 2

-B/2L3*sin(alf0)

L3*cos(alf0)

-B/2

Analysis
After getting the major parameters, the next job is to
decide the dimension of the steering system (Figure 2).
For there is no specific form far better than the other; the
major criteria are it should reach the minimum turning
radius and should conform to the Ackermann steering
condition [2, 3].

Coordinates for steering design points

Simulation
Add a motion on the rack which is described as 20 * time,
in which time=3.5s, which means let the wheels turn
from straight line to minimum steering radius.
Optimization

Figure 2: Rack and pinion steering system

and choose some parameters based on it and check by

Adams to decide whether these set of parameters is
acceptable.
Adams model

The goal of steering system optimization is the minimum

value for this function which means the difference
between real steering situation and Ackermann situation
is small enough to be ideal.
This goal can be described by an objective function:
ATAN(.steering_system.FUNCTION_tan_alfa/(.steering_
system.FUNCTION_tan_alfa*(B/L)+1))/pi*180.steering_system.MEA_beta
This function also shows the parameters should be
measured. They are:
Alfa:, which is the steering angle of inner wheel
Beta: , which is the steering angle of outer wheel

Figure 3: Adams model for the steering system

Figure 3 shows the math model in Adams, in which the

connection are defined by ball constraint between rack
and two tie rods, and also between the tie rods and
steering arms. The connection between the rack and
ground is defined by slide constraint.
Parameterization
Parameterize the steering parts in Adams.
L1: Length of rack

Make the turning situation best according to the

Ackermann condition, parameters are chosen for the
steering system as below:
s
-70~70

L1

L2

L3

580~600

200~500

120~220

0~100

0~60

Unit (mm)
Results
From the steering optimization software plot (Figure 5),
one can see that is 0.2703, which means the actual is
close enough to the Ackermann.

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Sunday, November 02, 2014

Figure 5 shows the math model in Adams, in which the

connection is defined by pin constraint between
upper/down arms and body or ground. The connection
between the swivel pin and four arms is defined by ball
constraint. And establish the testing ground which are
two planes connect with the tyres by plane constraint.
Parameterization
Design Variables are shown below:
L1:length of the upper arm
Figure 4: Plot for Ackermann vs. iteration

So the parameters for the steering system are shown

below:
L1
594

L2
338

L3
130

y
67

13

0.2703

L2:length of the Kingpin

L3:length of the lower arm
L4:length of the steering knuckle
Alf_3:angle between the upper arm and horizontal

Unit (mm)
X

B.LOC_X+L1*
COS(alf_3)

B.LOC_Y-L1*
SIN(alf_3)

B.LOC_Z

It is smaller than the input 4500mm, which renders it

acceptable.

L2*COS(beta)*S
IN(alf)

L2*COS(beta)*
COS(alf)

L2* SIN(beta)

GEOMETRY DESIGN FOR THE SUSPENSION PARTS

Analysis

L3

For the consideration of comfort and ride, the

elastokinematic front wheel alignment is recommended
below [3]:

0.5*B.LOC_X

0.5*B.LOC_Y

0.5*B.LOC_Z

E.LOC_X-L4

E.LOC_Y

E.LOC_Z

Toe-in 0.2
Kingpin Angle: 4
Camber: 0.5
Caster: 5
Steering Offset: slightly negative

Coordination for suspension design points

In addition, the minim turning radius is:

minR=L/sinM=2500/sin39.8376=3902.6mm

Simulation

This wheel alignment is good for both comfort and ride,

but they will change while the wheel is moving up and
down. So the goal of this suspension design is minimum
value change during the wheel travel.

Add a translational displacement on the two testing

plane which are described as 50*sin(10.0 * time) on left
testing plane and -50*sin(10.0 * time) on right testing
plane, in which time=1s, which simulate the suspension
motion from -50mm to 50mm when countering bump or
dig.

Adams model

Optimization
The goal for the steering geometry optimization is the
minimum change for the five elastokinematic front wheel
alignment. In this case, we give the equal weight for this
five parameters in establish the objective function as
below:
(0.2*ABS(.suspension.camber_angle0.5))+(0.2*ABS(.suspension.toe_in_angle))+(0.2*ABS(.s
uspension.caster_angle-

Figure 5: Adams model for the suspension system

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Sunday, November 02, 2014

5))+(0.2*ABS(.suspension.kingpin_inclition4))+(0.2*ABS(.suspension.track_width-1500))
From this function, we can see that the parameters
should be measured are:
1. Camber angle:

Results
Figure 6 to 12 show the situation before and after the
optimization (solid line represents the data before
optimization and the dot line represents the data after
optimization). It is obvious that the alignment changes
far less after the optimization.

atan(dz(MARKER_13,MARKER_22)/dy(MARKER_13,M
ARKER_22))*180/pi
2. Toe in:
.suspension.toe_in+.suspension.toe_in_2
(In the above function,
toe=MARKER_273,f,MARKER_274
toe2=MARKER_277, MARKER_254, MARKER_276)

Figure 6: Camber angle optimization

3. Caster angle:
suspension.camber_ang-90
(In the above function, camber= PART_5.cm,left.
wheel_part.wheel_cm,MARKER_271)
4. Kingpin inclination:
atan(dx(MARKER_13,MARKER_22)/dy(MARKER_13,M
ARKER_22))*180/pi

Figure 7: Toe in optimization

5. Track width:
right.wheel_part.wheel_cm,left.wheel_part.wheel_cm,X
In these function, marker 13 is the B point in Figure 5,
marker 22 is the C point in Figure 5.
The ranges for variables are shown below:
L1

L2

L3

180~220

200~300

300~350

Figure 8: Caster optimization

8~15

Unit (mm)
One thing should be mentioned is the optimization
method taken here. For there are four variables, it is just
natural for the structure to lock up due to the
inappropriate range for only one variable. And if we let
all of them change during the optimization, when error
occurs, the only thing we could do is confusing. A better
way is to change only one during one optimization so
that we can tell witch variable causes the error. Then
change the range and calculate again until no error
occurs during the optimization for each variable. Then
we can make the four variables change together to
optimize the suspension geometry.

Figure 9: Kingpin inclination optimization

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Sunday, November 02, 2014

Figure 10: Track width optimization

Figure 13: Basic parameters for wish-bones and pivot

yK = 194, z K = 227 a = - 5o , y = - 5o
b 0 = 7 o m= 0o
L1 = AB = 200mm, L2 = BC = 250mm,

L3 = DC = 330mm, L4 = DJ = 250mm,

a = BE = 100mm b = EH = 100mm , r = 260mm

y A = CD cos j - BC sin b - AB cos a = 90

Figure 11: Object optimization

z A = CD sin j + BC cos b - AB sin a = 236

First use the formulas above to decide the points

necessary in the following software. And then put the
data in the software.

Figure 12: maxim object value vs. 22 times iteration

After the optimization, the geometry for the suspension

is decided. In this case, we choose the below
parameters.
L1
200

L2

L3

250

330

3
10

Unit (mm)
SECTION DESIGN THE SUSPENSION ACCORDING
TO MAXIMUM PERPENDICULAR FORCE AND
LATERAL FORCE
Parameters change according to the wheel travel
Use the suspension optimizing software to analyze the
force acted on the two wish-bones.

Figure 14: simulation to analyze the force acted on the two wish-bones.

As the tyre moves from -50mm to 50mm, the upper arm

rotates from -18 to 30.The result is shown below, from
which we can see the situation of angle -18 is the most
dangerous during the wheel travel.

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Sunday, November 02, 2014

yp
-30 -19.3455 101.1075 97.69925
-27 -17.7321

zp

FB

FC

410.469 -263.359 238.2737 475.6234 783.2881 252.4737 904.0526

100.631 98.28134 412.1389 -255.369 240.4257 569.8589 1028.765 332.2668 1153.444

-24 -16.0749 100.2272 98.86936 413.8202 -246.922 242.1677 655.2576

-21 -14.3803 99.89124 99.45956

1282.13 414.2258 1400.327

415.47 -238.069 243.6017 734.8551 1543.036 498.0412 1645.484

-18 -12.6536 99.61895 100.0484 417.0514 -228.854 244.7997 810.8873 1811.243 583.4364 1889.435
-15 -10.9001 99.40689 100.6324 418.5325 -219.318 245.8133
-12 -9.12422 99.25216 101.2082 419.8866

-209.5

885.082 2086.648

670.162 2132.548

246.681 958.8351 2369.284 757.9916 2375.102

-9 -7.33024 99.15242 101.7725 421.0914 -199.438 247.4317 1033.321 2659.306 846.7176 2617.311
-6 -5.52199 99.10573 102.3219 422.1287 -189.165 248.0881 1109.565 2956.976
-3 -3.70308 99.11058
0 -1.87684

99.1658 103.3622 423.6481

3 -0.04644 99.27052

936.149 2859.341

102.853 422.9845 -178.716 248.6679 1188.493 3262.642 1026.108 3101.311

-168.12 249.1855 1270.966

3576.72

1116.43 3343.288

103.846 424.1124 -157.408 249.6529 1357.803 3899.672 1206.956 3585.284

6 1.78512 99.42416 104.3005 424.3734 -146.607 250.0802

9 3.615003 99.62639 104.7217 424.4301 -135.746 250.4761 1547.737 4574.158 1388.043 4069.035
12 5.440482 99.87712 105.1053 424.2843 -124.847 250.8484

1652.39 4926.656 1478.326 4310.433

15 7.258936 100.1764 105.4466 423.9403 -113.936

1764.53 5289.907 1568.263 4551.112

18 9.067842 100.5246 105.7407

251.204

Figure 16: Force analysis for the upper wish-bone

1449.8 4231.987 1297.541 3827.244

423.405 -103.034 251.5494 1884.923 5664.259 1657.727 4790.624

Force analysis of suspension system

FB1=FB22FB1*cos20= FB

FB1=1884.923/2cos201002.95 N
Take the material of Q235: s = 235MPa, for safety,
take ns=1.4

[s ] =

s s 235
=167.9MPa
=
n s 1.4

FB1
FB1
1002.95
=
=
[s ] = 167.9 MPa
p
p
A
[D 2 - d 2 ]
[(1.2d) 2 - d 2 ]
4
4
d 4.4mm

s =

take dupper16mm, Dupper18mm

Lower wish-bone design
Figure 15: Force analysis for the suspension as a whole

Figure 15 shows the force condition on the suspension

system. It is useful in deciding the section of the
components and will be deliberated on.
Upper wish-bone design
After the force analysis for the suspension as a whole,
analysis for the only upper wish-bone and its design is
taken.
The goal is the minimum mass within the sufficient
structure strength because it is good for both fuel
economy and comfort [4]. In this case, the section is a
circle, so one way is to make its inner and outer radius
bigger.

Figure 17: Force analysis for the lower wish-bone

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Sunday, November 02, 2014

FCX = FC sin 28o = 2659.21N

FCY = FC cos 28o = 5001.24 N

16Tmax
=
p [t ]

16 1657727
= 20.50mm
p 980

2 FCx1 cos 20= FCx FCx1 = 2661.1

For safety, take d=22mm

D1C=330/cos20=351.18

CHECK THE SUSPENSION ACCORDING TO MAXIM

PERPENDICULAR FORCE AND VERTICAL FORCE

FCy1=FCy/2=5001.24/2=2500.62N
TD1C=FCy1XD1C=2500.62X0.35118=878.17N M
4

Take the material as Q235:

dupper=15mm

p D - d
p 1.2 d - d
=
= 0.176d 3
16 D
16
1.2d

Wz =

Check for the upper arm

s = 235MPa

Fz

FB1
FB1
1002.95
=
=
= 12.9 MPa
p
p
A
2
2
[D - d ]
[( D ) 2 - d 2 ]
4
4

FB1=1795N

Considering safety, ns=1.4

s s 235
=
=167.9MPa
n s 1.4

[s ] =

[t ] = 0.6[s ] = 94.02MPa

Wz =
s

max

p D 4 - d 4 p 1.24 d 4 - d 4
=
= 0.176d 3
16 D
16
1.2d

N M max FCX 1 TD1C

2661.1
878.17
+
=
+
=
+
[s ] = 167.9 106
A
WZ
A
WZ
0.346d 2 0.176d 3

Figure 18: Check for upper wish-bone

2 FA1 sin 20o = FB1 FA1 = 2624 N

Use Matlab

FX max

>> syms x
>> solve('167.9*10^6*x^3-7691*x-5165.7=0')

FA1
2624
=
= 49.15MPa
p
A
[182 - 162 ]
4

=12.9+49.15=62.05MPa<[ ]=167.9MPa, acceptable

ans =0.03182

Check for the lower arm

dlower> 31.8mmtake dlower= 33mm,

dlower =33mm

Dlower=1.2d=1.233=40mm

max

= 2

r3

FCy1
2500.62
Q
= 2
= 2
= 19.37 MPa [t ]= 94.02 MPa
p
p
A
2
2
(D - d )
(0.04 2 - 0.036 2 )
4
4

Fz

N M max FCX 1 TD1C

2661.1
878.17
+
=
+
=
+
= 7.2MPa
A
WZ
A
WZ
0.346d 2 0.176d 3

FCx = 4377 N

s 2 + 4t 2 = 93.39MPa < [s ] , acceptable

dlower= 33mm, Dlower=40mm

40

So:

Section for the torsion bar

Tmax=1657.727Nm

[t ] = 980MPa

Figure 19: Check for lower wish-bone

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Sunday, November 02, 2014

2 FCx1 cos 20= FCx FCx1 = 2329

s

FX max

FCx1
2661.1
=
= 5.8MPa
p
A
[402 - 332 ]
4

=7.2+6.6=13.8MPa<[ ], which is acceptable.

Now, the design and check for the double wish-bone
suspension has finished.

OTHER PARTS

Figure 21: Drawing for the assembled suspension system

Apart from the two arms, there are some other parts for
the double wishbone suspension. They are the swivel
pin, the Tension-loaded ball joint and Compressionloaded ball joint, etc. For this paper is about the major
parts and the most important consideration so this work
is melt down to one words: one should design or choose
the components according to the national standards.
DRAWING
After deciding all the parts of this double wish-bone
suspension, one should draw a CAD drawing for the
purpose of manufacturing and assembling. Here two
kinds of drawings are given.
Figure 20 shows the part drawing for this suspension
system. When draw a part drawing, One must keep in
mind that any person can produce this part by this
drawing.

More information about drawing requirement could be

found in books on drawings [10,11]

CONCLUSION
The basic design process of a double wish-bone
suspension for high comfort and ride stability was
described, which are: input, geometry design, section
design and check, other component choose and drawing.
Using the math-based software, the geometry for the
steering and suspension main parts were optimized.
This paper gave the process which people can easily
follow to design the double wish-bone suspension. And
the parameterization method described is suitable for
any double wish-bone suspension system. One can use
it to optimize for his specific needs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Prof. Xinbo Chen and
Guobao Ning for their instruction in the completion of
this paper.

1. 60
2.
3.

The authors would like to also thank the substantial and

ongoing support of the Department of Automotive
Engineering, Tongji University.

REFERENCES

Figure 20: Drawing for the upper wish-bone

Figure 21 shows the assembling drawing. When draw an

assembling drawing, we must insure that people can
assemble the parts in a right way according to this
drawing.

1. Edited by Julian Happian-Smith, an Introduction to

Modern Vehicle Design, SAE International
(February 2002)
2. Tom Birch, Automotive Suspension and Steering
Systems, CENGAGE Delmar Learning; 3 edition
(November 12, 1998)
3. Reimpell, J. and Stoll, H.(1998), The Automotive
Chassis: Engineering Principle, Arnold
4. Wangyu Wang: Automotive Design Mechanical
Industry; the 4th edition,

Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Sunday, November 02, 2014

5. Richard Stone and Jeffrey K. Ball, Automotive

Engineering Fundamentals, SAE International
(June 1, 2004)
6. J. Brown, Motor Vehicle Structures, ButterworthHeinemann Ltd (October 31, 2001)
7. Heisler, H. (1989), Advanced Vehicle Technology,
Edward Arnold, 1989
8. Gillespie, T.D. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle
Dynamics, SAE
9. Dixon, J.C. (1996), Tyres Suspension and
handling (2nd edition), Edward Arnold, SAE
10. Thomas E. French, Jay D. Helsel, Thomas French,
Jay Helsel, Mechanical Drawing: Board and CAD
Techniques, Student Edition, Glencoe/McGrawHill; 13 edition (February 13, 2002)
11. Cecil H. Jensen, Jay D. Helsel, Dennis Short,
Engineering Drawing And Design, McGraw-Hill
Science/Engineering/Math; 7 edition (August 15,
2007)

CONTACT
Zhen Zhang, Automotive Engineering, Tongji University
Cell Phone: 13585897526
Email: jacksonzhang@live.com
Junhui Yu, Automotive Engineering, Tongji University
Cell Phone: 13801841455
Email: jicaforimc@sina.com