Research Article Science, Engineering and Health Studies 2020, 14(2), 101-108

Influence of suspension parameters on a tilt angle of passenger bus

for the stability test

Thanaporn Talingthaisong and Supakit Rooppakhun*

School of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Engineering,

Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand
*
Corresponding author: supakit@[Link]

Received: January 12, 2020; Revised: June 30, 2020; Accepted: July 2, 2020

ABSTRACT
Passenger bus stability testing is frequently conducted in accordance with a regulation standard of the
Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations. Specifically, this standard defines a test that requires the
vehicle to be titled to either side at an angle of 28 degrees from the horizontal without overturning. Generally, the
stability of a vehicle at this tilt angle is primarily affected by the height of the center of gravity as well as the
suspension system. This paper explains a study of several parameters influencing the tilt angle stability test of the
passenger bus to avoid bus accident caused by a rollover. The parameters consisted of the spring stiffness, damping
coefficient, anti-roll bar stiffness including the static stability factor (SSF). The full factorial design of the
experiment was used to analyze the results of the main effects on the tilt angle as evaluated by multibody dynamics
simulation software. According to the results, the SSF of the passenger bus displayed higher sensitivity to the tilt
angle than the suspension parameter at approximately 82%. The passenger bus with a low SSF tended toward
rollover or low tilt stability more than one with a high SSF. For the suspension system, the anti-roll bar stiffness
manifested a greater effect on the stability than the spring stiffness and damping coefficient, respectively. The results
can be used to make design decisions and improve suspension parameters for improved vehicle stability.

Keywords: stability test; passenger bus; suspension system; tilt angle

1. INTRODUCTION
In Thailand, the Department of Land Transport requirements regarding registration and certification
(DLT) is the agency responsible for developing motor for public buses controlled by government agencies. The
vehicle test standards for bus safety. In determination of DLT of Thailand has announced regulations for all
the stability of a vehicle, they involke the tilt table test, buses which have height dimensions greater than 3.6
in accordance with the standard regulations no107 of meters must pass a vehicle stability test with a tilt angle
Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations. of over 30 degrees (Department of Land Transport,
The vehicles used for the carriage of passengers 2012) to be certified as a public bus. The vehicle
(classificatations of M2 and M3) must pass the safety test stability testing which causes overturning must be
with a tilt angle of 28 degrees from the horizontal conducted on an inclined floor with an increment
(United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, application of the angle of 0.05 degrees per second.
2014). The stability testing is one of the regulational The maximum tilt angle of vehicle stability was

ISSN Online 2630-0087

 Talingthaisong, T. and Rooppakhun, S.

determined from the point when the wheel on the

opposite side starting lift from the tilt table, as shown in
Figure 1. In the case of the passenger bus which has not
passed the standard test with the tilt angle more than
30 degrees, then the bus manufacturers or owners
cannot obtain registeraration and extension of the
annual vehicle tax.

Figure 2 The statistics report on the stability tilt test in

each passenger bus classification

For the bus suspension systems, the design

components involved in the stability of the vehicles were
considered the leaf springs, dampers, and anti-roll bar
components. Normally, the shock absorber component
has the main function to support the load included
reducing the vibration of the vehicle for stability and
safety. The components of the shock absorber consisted
Figure 1 The typical passenger bus in tilt table test
of leaf springs working with a damper to help act in
(Bingley, 2015)
absorbing noise and vibration. The anti-roll bars of
vehicles are used to provide an increase of roll stiffness
According to the statistical report of the DLT
during cornering. Additionally, the static stability factor
(Safety Department of Land Transport, 2019), there are
(SSF) which is related to the center of gravity position
approximately 300 units of passenger buses classified
was also affecting vehicle stability (Hinch et al., 1992).
into 4 standards which have height dimensions greater
For each vehicle type, it is recommended to design an
than 3.6 meters, and approximately 40.8% do not pass
appropriate SSF value. For example, the double-decker
the tilt test as shown in Figure 2. Generally for legal
buses have suggested the magnitude of SSF in a range
registration and operation, all passenger buses involve
of 0.60 - 0.75 for appropriate stability.
obtaining passing results of all tests regarding
In the actual test, the bus manufacturer would not
regulation and certified by the DLT. Owing to the fact
be able to predict that passenger buses will pass the
that bus superstructure development necessarily
standard tilt tests due to the height of the center gravity
takes a long time as well as significant cost, the bus
position not being determined in the design process.
manufacturers often choose to design the height of the
The SSF parameters, consequently, could not be easily
bus to be less than 3.6 meters to avoid the stability tilt
analyzed in practice. There was only the suspension
test requirement. However, the height of the structure is
parameter that could be evaluated in the preliminary
not the only factor involved in causing a bus rollover.
design process. However, if one were able to know the
The suspension and subsystems were identified as
factors that affect the design for adjustments to the
relating to the stability of the vehicle such as anti-roll
suspension system they could be tailored to be suitable
bars, leaf springs, coil springs, and damping (Dixon,
in vehicle stability. These would be able to improve the
1999).
suspension parameters of the passenger bus such for it

102
 Influence of suspension parameters on a tilt angle of passenger bus for the stability test

to be suitable and reduce trial and error before the actual Car software on tilt table test analysis, the result of the
tilt test. tilt table angle was 26.2 degrees, while the roll angle of
Therefore, the objective of this study was to the actual vehicle test was 31.6 degrees that measured
evaluate the influences of suspension parameters on from the first wheel that was lifted off the surface of the
the tilt angle test of the passenger bus. The suspension actual test. However, the simulation result of the roll
parameters evaluated consisted of the spring stiffness, angle using MSC ADAM/Car revealed 28.25 degrees.
damping coefficient, and anti-roll bar stiffness of the Therefore, it can be noticed that the results of the roll
double-decker bus, which were analyzed as well as angle from the virtual vehicles body analysis displayed
the value of SSF. Using multibody dynamics analysis, close correlation to the actual test.
a total of sixteen design of experiments with full
factorial was performed to determine the tile angle
with MSC ADAM/Car software. Consequently, the
main effect of the suspension parameter was obtained
from the Pareto Chart. The results of this study
could lead to an improved suitable design of the
suspension parameter to include reducing time for
trial and errors before the standard tilt test of the
passenger bus.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS Figure 3 Tilt table test on MSC ADAM/Car software
2.1 Materials
An analysis of multibody dynamics is generally The rollover of the vehicle causes a lot of danger
used to model the dynamic behavior of interconnected and damage to both life and resources. If the bus
rigid or flexible bodies, each of which may undergo manufacturer is able to predict the trends of behavior
large translational and rotational displacements towards rollover, it will reduce accidents caused by
(Michael and Damian, 2004). The results of dynamic the rollover. The parameter used to analyze the rollover
behavior obtained from the equilibrium of applied resistance is SSF (Heydinger et al., 1999) that
forces included the change of momentum. In this study, calculated as followed equation (1):
the three-dimensional model of passenger buses
included the simulation of a tilt table test that was b
SSF = )1(
performed using multibody dynamics software (MSC 2h
ADAM/Car) as shown in Figure 3. The parameters
of the SSF and suspension system consisted of spring where b represents the width of the vehicle which is
stiffness, damping coefficient, and anti-roll bar stiffness determined from the distance between the center of the
with the various sub-systems of bus models were vehicle, and h represents the center of gravity height of
evaluated in a total of 16 design scenarios to analyze in the vehicle to the tilt table. Theoretically, the bus
the tilt table test module. structure with a lower SSF was at more risk for the
From the previous study (Sert and Boyraz, 2017), rollover than the one with a higher SSF. The typical
the results of comparison accuracy on behavior the of SSF value in each vehicle type is shown in Table 1
rollover of the actual test and using the MSC ADAM/ (Andrzej, 2015).

103
 Talingthaisong, T. and Rooppakhun, S.

There are many important factors for the including the suspension system affecting the center of
design and improvement of the SSF of vehicles to gravity's height. Table 2 shows the detail of the
avoid rollover as much as possible. For example, the subsystem parameters consisting of mass and the center
emplacement of equipment that affected the total of gravity position used to analyze in MSC ADAM/ Car
weight of the vehicle and/or the center of gravity software.

Table 1 The typical static stability factor values of vehicle type

Vehicle type Static stability factor (SSF)

Car 1.3-1.45
Van 1.10-1.25
Sport utility vehicle 1.05-1.20
Truck, pickup truck 1.10-1.25
Double-decker bus 0.60-0.75

Table 2 The detail of subsystems used in the study

Subsystem Mass [kg] CG

X [mm] Y [mm] Z [mm]
Front ARB 4.09 2815.57 1060.05 543.92
Steering 44.41 1836.77 449.06 1372.03
Front suspension 43.60 2488.74 1060.05 356.81
Powertrain 304 6368.50 1060.05 359.37
Chassis frame 10,000 5000 1060.05 1457.29
Rear suspension 431 7749.95 1059.21 508.75

2.2 Methods Table 3 Parameters used in this study

All parameters obtained from the bus
manufacturer (Scania Siam Co., Ltd.) are shown in Parameters Values
Table 3. The suspension parameters of the passenger Spring stiffness* [N/mm] 240 to 260
* -1
bus, presented in a range of maximum and minimum Damping coefficient [N/ms ] 6,935.8 to 13,872.0
Anti-roll bar stiffness* 78,200 to
value, consisted of the spring stiffness, damping
[N·mm/deg] 7,980,000
coefficient, and the anti-roll bar stiffness, respectively SSF 0.60 to 0.75
*
as well as the SSF value. A full factorial design of Source: Data from Siam Scania Co., Ltd.
the experiment consisted of all possible combinations
of two-levels with the maximum and minimum 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
valus for all factors those were performed. A total of Table 4 shows the results of the maximum tilt
sixteen design scenarios were created and used for angle in each case with the maximum and minimum
the analysis of the maximum tilt angle of stability values of the 4 parameters, denoted by +1 and -1,
test. respectively. Using 2 k full factorial design, a total
number of 16 design scenarios were obtained. It can be

104
 Influence of suspension parameters on a tilt angle of passenger bus for the stability test

observed in the case of using the high SSF values in all of the body structure which has the highest value in the
8 cases (as a case of 9 to case 16). The maximum tilt case of 12 was 39.55 degrees.
angle was the tendency to be quite high. The tilt angle

Table 4 The results of maximum tilt angle in each design scenario

Case Spring Damp anti-roll bar SSF Maximum tilt angle (degree)
1 −1 −1 −1 −1 34.28
2 +1 −1 −1 −1 34.15
3 −1 +1 −1 −1 33.22
4 +1 +1 −1 −1 33.75
5 −1 −1 +1 −1 33.19
6 +1 −1 +1 −1 31.96
7 −1 +1 +1 −1 32.20
8 +1 +1 +1 −1 32.47
9 −1 −1 −1 +1 38.52
10 +1 −1 −1 +1 38.06
11 −1 +1 −1 1 38.94
12 +1 +1 −1 +1 39.55
13 −1 −1 +1 +1 38.28
14 +1 −1 +1 +1 37.67
15 −1 +1 +1 +1 37.86
16 +1 +1 +1 +1 38.16

In experiments that use a low SSF value, there there is no significant probability value (P-value) at the
was a tendency of the maximum tilt angle to be low in first factorial design, as shown in Table 5. Therefore,
all 8 cases (as a case of 1 to case 8) when compared to it could not be determined that the main factors
the case that uses the highest SSF. Therefore, the lowest affected the tilt angle.
value of the experiment of tilt the body structure in The elimination of the high order terms such as
the case of 6 was 31.96 degrees. From these results, it ABCD, ABD, ABC, ACD, and BCD was performed to
can be drawn that the SSF is the most influential evaluate the main parameter as shown in Figure 4 (b).
parameter on the tilt angle. In this step, the results of the parameters beyond the
Figure 4 shows the results of the Pareto chart of critical line of 2.57 consisted of D, C, AB, and BD with
all parameters affecting the tilt angle consisting of the a significance level of 0.05. These results revealed the P-
spring stiffness, damping coefficient, anti-roll bar value of the main effect, however, there is a non-
stiffness, and SSF, represented by A, B, C, and D, significant confidence interval of 95%, as shown in
respectively. The critical line was created to determine Table 5. The elimination of interaction terms between
the parameters with the significance level of 0.05. A and B such as AB, BD, AC, BC, and AD was
Figure 4(a) displays the four bars followed by D, C, AB, performed due to A and B displayed the P-value higher
and BD which beyond the critical line of 0.417, which than the others, as shown in Table 5 at the second
revealed a significant effect on the tilt angle. However, factorial design.

105
 Talingthaisong, T. and Rooppakhun, S.

Figure 4(c) shows the results of the final factorial addition, the increase of stiffness of the anti-roll bar
design to evaluate the main parameters affected to the tended to decrease bus stability or the ability of a high
tilt angle of vehicle stability. The results in the term of tilt angle. Therefore, the anti-roll bar stiffness was
D and C exhibited beyond the critical line, while the the main parameter in the suspension system of bus
term of the CD displayed below the critical line, as design besides the value of SSF. Figure 6 shows the
shown in the Pareto chart. Therefore, the SSF value and percentage results of the main parameters that affected
the anti-roll bar stiffness were considered as significant the tilt angle of the passenger bus. It could be revealed
effect parameters to the tilt angle with P-value <0.05, as that the magnitude of the SSF of bus displayed high
shown in Table 5 at third factorial design. sensitivity to the tilt angle than suspension parameters
Figure 5 displayed the results of each parameter with a percentage of 81.58% while the damping
related to the maximum tilt angle. It can be noticed coefficient of 0.06% showed the least sensitivity
that the SSF value displayed quite a strong relational parameter. The effect of the relationship between
effect to the tilt angle of bus stability. The bus with low the tilt angle and the variable values could be
SSF value tended to exhibit the increased rollover implied to manipulate the suspension parameters of the
or low tilt stability than a bus with high SSF. In passenger bus.

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 4 The Pareto chart of the all parameters; α = 0.05, A = spring stiffness, B = damping coefficient
C = anti-roll bar stiffness, D = SSF

106
 Influence of suspension parameters on a tilt angle of passenger bus for the stability test

Table 5 P-values analysis of each parameter

Factorial design p-value

Spring stiffness Damping coefficient Anti-roll bar stiffness SSF
* * * *
1
2 0.632 0.983 0.002 0.000
3 - - 0.001 0.000

Spring stiffness Damping Anti-roll bar SSF

coefficient stiffness

Figure 5 The relationship of parameter affected to the tilt angle

A:1.41% B:0.06%

C:16.94%

D:81.58%

A = Spring stiffness B = Damping coefficient

C = Anti-roll bar stiffness D = SSF

Figure 6 The percentage of the main parameters affected to the tilt angle

4. CONCLUSION stiffness, and SSF) on the tilt angle test in which the
The effects of the suspension parameters (i.e., stability of the passenger bus was presented. The design
spring stiffness, damping coefficient, anti-roll bar of the experiment based on the full factorial method was

107
 Talingthaisong, T. and Rooppakhun, S.

used to analyze the main effects on the tilt angle. The m_upload/editor-pic/nakhonphanom/files/
results of the Pareto chart revealed that the static 00000239(1)(1).pdf] accessed on October 18, 2019.
stability factor exhibited the highest sensitivity to the tilt Dixon, J. C. (1999) Tires, Suspension, and Handling,
angle with approximately 82%. For the suspension 2nd, Cambridge University Press: UK, pp. 181-
system of a passenger buses, the anti-roll bar or torsion 182.
stiffness was the main effect to tilt angle with Heydinger, G. J., Bixel, R. A., Garrott, W. R., Pyne, M.,
approximate 17%, followed by spring stiffness and Hove, J. G., and Guenther, D. A. (1999). Measured
damping coefficient as 1.4% and 0.06%, respectively. vehicle inertial parameters-NHTSA’s data
In this study, it can be concluded that the suspension through November 1998. SAE Technical Paper,
system of the passenger bus, especially in the anti-roll 1999-01-1336.
bar component, affected the tilt angle test. Hinch, J., Shadle, S., and Klein, T., (1992). NHTSA’s
rollover rulemaking program - Results of testing
ACKNOWLEDGMENT and analysis. SAE Technical Paper, 920581.
The authors would like to thank Scania Siam Michael, B., and Damian, H. (2004). Introduction. In
Co., Ltd. for the technical data of passenger bus. The The Multibody Systems Approach to Vehicle
authors also would like to acknowledge Dr. Sedthawatt Dynamics, 1st, New York: Butterworth Heinemann
Sucharitpwatskul (National Metal and Materials Ltd., pp.14-20.
Technology Center) for his help and the support of Safety Department of Land Transport. (2019). The
MSC ADAM/Car software. results of the stability test bus in 2019 report,
Department of Land Transport, Bangkok.
REFERENCES Sert, E., and Boyraz, P. (2017). Optimization of
Andrzej, R. (2015). Investigation of the influence of the suspension system and sensitivity analysis for
centre of gravity position on the course of vehicle improvement of stability in a midsize heavy
rollover. In Proceeding of 24th International vehicle. Engineering Science and Technology,
Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety an International Journal, 20(3), 997-1012.
of Vehicles (ESV), Gothenburg, Sweden. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
Bingley, H. (2015). London transport RM1039 on the (2014). Requirements to be met by all vehicle.
tilt test at Aldenham works 70's. [Online URL: In Uniform provisions concerning the approval
[Link] of category M2 or M3 vehicles with regard to
24/pool/random/] accessed on February 20, 2020. their general construction, Regulation NO.107,
Department of Land Transport. (2012). The regulation pp. 32-69. [[Link]
of stability test of the bus on 29 June 2012. /DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2015/R1
[Online URL:[Link] minisite/ 07r6e_01.pdf] accessed on September 7, 2019.

108