Forsch Ingenieurwes (2006) 70: 171178

DOI 10.1007/s10010-006-0028-2

ORIGINALARBEITEN ORIGINALS

Analysis and optimization of a fixed-tank vehicle

D. V. Koulocheris V. K. Dertimanis K. N. Spentzas

Published online: 28 July 2006

Springer-Verlag 2006

Abstract This paper attempts to optimize the critical cha- (Entwicklung) Strategie sind die Algorithmen, die in dem
racteristics of a fixed-tank vehicle, with respect to its vertical optimierung Prozess eingebaut werden.
dynamics. For the description of the vehicle, a linear half-
car model with 6 degrees of freedom is implemented, corre- List of Symbols
sponding to its pitch-bounce motion and the suspension cha- DOF degree-of-freedom
racteristics, as well as the equivalent stiffness and damping CG centre of gravity
coefficients of tanks supports and vehicle suspensions are m jw j tyres mass
optimized under various road excitations, with respect to the M chassis mass
vertical performance of the chassis and the tank. The BFGS, MT tanks mass
BOX and Evolution Strategy are the algorithms which are JM chassis pitch inertia
implemented for the optimization tasks. JT tanks pitch inertia
L1 distance of chassis CG from the front suspension
L2 distance of chassis CG from the rear suspension
Analyse und Optimierung eines Kraftwerkes L t1 distance of tanks CG from the front support
mit fixiertem Tank L2 distance of tanks CG from the rear support
x horizontal distance between rear support and rear
Zusammenfassung Diese Arbeit versucht die kritischen suspension
Eigenschaften eines fixed-tank Fahrwerks zu optimieren, x jw (t) bounce of j tyre
hinsichtlich seiner senkrechten Dynamik. Fur die Beschrei- x M (t) chassis bounce
bung des erforschten Fahrwerks ist das lineale Model eines M (t) chassis pitch
halb-Wagens mit sechs Graden der Freiheit eingebaut, ent- x T (t) tanks bounce
sprechen einer Bewegung mit Neigungswinkel-Aufsprung T (t) tanks pitch
und die Suspension (Aufhebung) Eigenschaften. Auch die k jw (t) stiffness of j tyre
aquivalente Steifheit und die Dampfung der Abstutzung c jw (t) damping of j tyre
des Tankes werden in verschiedenen Fahrfremderregun- k js (t) stiffness of j suspension
gen in Beziehung zu den linealen Auftritt der Chassis und c js (t) damping of j suspension
des Tankes optimiert. Die BFGS, BOX und die Evolution kt j (t) equivalent stiffness of j support
ct j (t) equivalent damping of j support
D. V. Koulocheris (u) V. K. Dertimanis K. N. Spentzas x optimization parameter vector of size n
Vehicles Laboratory, School of Mechanical Engineering, h transformed optimization parameter vector
National Technical University of Athens, i
llv low limit of xi quantity
Iroon Politechniou 9, i
15780 Athens, Greece luv high limit of xi quantity
e-mail: dbkoulva@central.ntua.gr f(x) objective function
K. N. Spentzas Q T (t) vibration data
e-mail: spentzas@mail.ntua.gr MP penalty factor

13
172 Forsch Ingenieurwes (2006) 70: 171178

ci (x) i constraint function
Hj BFGS Hessian approximation at iteration j
xH worst vector in BOX
xL best vector in BOX
xA weight center vector in BOX
xR reflection vector in BOX
xE expansion vector in BOX
xC contraction vector in BOX
R, E, Creflection, expansion and contraction factors in
BOX
number of parents in Evolution Strategy (ES)
number of offspring in ES
standard deviation vector in ES
Sr Draft-ISO spectral density
, 0 wavenumbers
r jw road height timeseries at tyre j
random phase angles
max{} maximum argument


summation over index i
i are implemented. Deterministic optimization methods, such
[]T transpose of a matrix/vector
first gradient
1 Introduction
Heavy weight vehicles, intended for the carriage of goods
(or people) by road, are complicated mechanical structures
which interact with public in a daily basis. Thus, their accu-
rate and careful design its of crucial importance, in order to
avoid unfortunate accidents, as well as to reduce any unplea-
sant environmental effect, such as road damage, which may
return in forbidden cost of money. Furthermore, in the cases
where the carrying goods are classified as dangerous, the in-
ternational agreement [1] is much more strict, with respect
to the specifications of the vehicle intended for such usage.
Fixed tank vehicles, which may carry gasses (propane,
butane, e.t.c.), or flammable liquids (petroleum, heating oil,
e.t.c.) is a common example of dangerous goods carriage
by road. This kind of vehicles, or more generally, structu-
res which are torsionally very rigid, must be fitted so that
the vehicle chassis retains sufficient and gradual torsional
flexibility, by avoiding areas of high stress, and the vehicle
maintains an acceptable dynamic performance. As a general
rule, the installation of tanks requires the use of an appro-
priate auxiliary frame. The use of elastic joints between the
body of the tank and the auxiliary frame is recommended
at the front, and rigid supports that are capable of withstan-
ding longitudinal and transverse forces is implemented at
the rear. The rigid mounts go in a position corresponding to
the rear suspension supports and the flexible mounts as near
as possible to the rear support of the front suspension. In
order to define the elastic connection, the rigidity characteri-
stics of the vehicle chassis, the points where the connections
are to be installed, as well as the type of use for which it
is intended, must be taken into account. Experience shows
that for road use, the first front elastic connection will allow
for a gap of a few millimeters between the sub-frame and
chassis frame, during the chassis torsional level.
This study attempts to determine some critical characte-
ristics of a fixed-tank two-axle vehicle, with respect to the
lateral performance of the installed tank, using numerical
methods. For the description of the system, a linear half-car
pitch-bounce model with 6 degrees of freedom (DOF) is im-
plemented, subject to many types of road irregularities. In
order to minimize the effects of a certain road profile into
the dynamic behavior of the tank, three optimization proce-
dures considered and the equivalent stiffnesses and damping
coefficients of tanks supports and vehicle suspensions are
optimized with respect to the dynamics of the tank. For
the optimization tasks, the BFGS quasi-Newton [2, 3], the
BOX [4] and the ( + )-Evolution Strategy [5, 6] methods
as quasi-Newton BFGS, use a quadratic approximation mo-
del of the objective function and combine accuracy and re-
liability in a high level, resulting in significantly less compu-
tations of the objective function during each iteration step.
On the other hand, random search methods such as the BOX
method are very simple to program and usually are relia-
ble in finding a nearly optimal solution with a sufficiently
large number of trial vectors. Also these methods can find
near global optimal solution even when the feasible region is
non-convex. Finally stochastic optimization methods, such
as Evolutionary Algorithms (EA), are in general methods
that simulate natural evolution from different points of view,
for the task of global optimization. Their stochastic nature
provides them with the ability of avoiding local optima,
since the optimization procedure is conducted in parallel in
a wide section of the search space.
The paper is organized as follows: in Sect. 2 the model
for the description of the fixed tank vehicle is presented
and the parameters for the optimization are selected. Sec-
tion 3 illustrates the corresponding optimization problem
and outlines the three selected algorithms for the optimiza-
tion tasks, while in Sect. 4 the numerical experiments are
taking place. Finally, in Sect. 5 the results are discussed and
some final remarks are made.
2 The vehicle model
A two-axle truck vehicle, with a two supports fixed-tank in-
stalled on the chassis frame, is presented in Fig. 1, while in
Fig. 2 the corresponding pitch-bounce model is displayed.
The tank, as well as the vehicle, are modeled as rigid bodies
with 2 DOF, that is bounces x T (t), x M (t), and pitches T (t),

13
Forsch Ingenieurwes (2006) 70: 171178 173

Table 1 Parameters of the pitch-bounce model

System Parameters Value Units
Chassis mass (M) 1360 kg
Chassis pitch inertia (J M ) 883 kg m2
Length L 1 0.50 m
Length L 2 2.65 m
Tanks mass (MT ) 2500 kg
Tanks pitch inertia (JT ) 1956 kg m2
Length L t1 1.52 m
Length L t2 1.53 m
Fig. 1 Typical two-axle fixed-tank vehicle
Length x 0.80 m
Front tyres mass (m fw ) 40 kg
Rear tyres mass (m rw ) 80 kg
Front tyres stiffness (k fw ) 3.5 105 N/m
Rear tyres stiffness (krw ) 7.0 105 N/m
Front tyres damping (c fw ) 3.5 104 N sec/m
Rear tyres damping (crw ) 7.0 104 N sec/m

the equivalent stiffnesses (kt f , ktr ) and damping coefficients

(ct f , ctr ), which describe the dynamic interconnection bet-
ween the chassis and the tank, must be optimized in or-
der to accomplish this goal. Naturally, in the case where
there is the availability to interfere in vehicles structural
components, such as the suspension system, its of crucial
importance to simultaneously optimize their relative stiff-
ness (k fs , krs ) and damping coefficients (c fs , crs ), so that
Fig. 2 Equivalent half-car model a more complete view of the whole vehicle set up may be
assessed.

M (t), respectively. The front and rear supports have been

considered as massless elements with corresponding stiff-
ness and damping characteristics. Each tyre is modeled as an
unsprung mass with a single DOF (bounces x fw (t), xrw (t))
and corresponding stiffness and damping, and its connected
to the vehicle through the relative suspension.
Despite their simplicity, as suspension nonlinearities or
complexities of the sprung masses motion are not modeled,
this kind of models illustrate many critical characteristics
regarding the lateral dynamics of heavy vehicles [7, 8] and
may used for design purposes. With respect to Fig. 1 and
Table 1, it can be viewed that the part of the model which
describes the vehicle is not symmetric, neither in its center
of mass, nor in its front and rear wheelsets, while the instal-
led body, such as the tank, is generally assumed symmetric
in fixed heavy vehicles.
The main concern in the design and analysis of such
vehicles is the safety of the carriage goods, according to
international agreement [1]. Especially in fixed-tank vehic-
les, the carrying liquid must be retained, as far as possible,
unaffected from the road irregularities and the correspon-
ding dynamic performance of the chassis. In the model de-
scribed above, this means that the tank must be installed
in such a way, so that its vibrating quantities (displace-
ments, velocities and accelerations) are minimized. Thus,
3 Optimization algorithms
3.1 The problem
The objective function for the specific optimization problem
can be formulated as

f(x) = max {|Q T (t)|, t [0 T ]} + M p ci (x) (1)
i
where x is the parameter vector, containing the stiffness and
damping of the suspension system, as well as the equiva-
lent stiffness and damping of the supports (that is a total
of eight parameters), Q T (t) any vertical/angular vibration
displacement, velocity or acceleration data, which is availa-
ble over a [0 T ] time interval, M p a penalty factor and
ci (x) all the required constraints that are related to the fea-
sible values of stiffness and damping, the available working
space of the suspension and the road holding ability of the
vehicle.
Obviously, the above formulation covers the most general
case of the corresponding optimization problem. Referring
to the model described in Sect. 2, the vibration data may
be taken either from the vehicle chassis, or from the tank.
A more detailed assessment of the specific optimization pro-

13
174
blem, regarding the selection of the data and the selection
of penalty criteria, is given in Sect. 4, where the numerical
implementation is taking place.
3.2 The BFGS method
Among numerous deterministic methods, quasi-Newton
have proved to provide high accuracy and reliability [9].
Their main feature lies in the fact that they combine the
fast local convergence rate of the Newtons method, to-
gether with a globally convergent strategy at each iteration
and, additionally, they implement a secant approximation of
the Hessian, after a successful step. Consequently, the cor-
responding quadratic model that is implemented, requires
significantly less computations during each iteration step,
while the decrease of the convergence rate is negligible.
The BFGS method (the name comes from its discoverers
Broyden, Fletcher, Goldfarb and Shanno, [3]), is the most
popular quasi-Newton method, as the specific Hessian ap-
proximation has outperformed all the others reported so far,
like the DFP or the symmetric secant Hessian update. Fur-
thermore it has been sight that the BFGS performs better
in conjunction with some globally convergent strategies,
like the backtracking line-search, or the trust-region ap-
proaches. The BFGS Hessian update at iteration j + 1 is
given by
y j y Tj H j s j s Tj H j
H j+1 = H j + (2)
y Tj s j s Tj H j s j
where
s j = xj+1 xj , y j = f(xj+1 ) f(xj ) (3)
Many suggestions have been proposed for the selection of
H0. Yet, computational experience (see [2]) indicates that
the selection H0 = | f(x0 )|I results in excessively fewer ite-
rations and avoids scaling effects.
In order to cope with the optimization problem assessed
above, the backtracking line-search strategy is implemented.
The specific procedure evaluates the acceptable step length
at iteration j, which results in a decrease of the objective
function. According to the Wolfe condition (of sufficient
decrease)
 T
f(xj + q j ) f(xj ) + c f(xj ) q j (4)
where is the step length in the direction
qj = H j1 f(xj ) (5)
and c a constant in the [0 1] interval, the backtracking line-
search evaluates the acceptable as follows:
set = 1 (the full-Newton step), , c (0, 1),
set
13
Forsch Ingenieurwes (2006) 70: 171178
 T
while f(xj + q j ) > f(xj ) + c f(xj ) q j
=
end
set j
3.3 The BOX method
The Box (in literature may also referred as Simplex or Com-
plex, for constrained optimization problems) optimization
method belongs to the family of semi-stochastic algorithms.
It was originally proposed by Spendley, Hext and Hims-
worth and further developed by Nedler and Mead. Accor-
ding to BOX method, an initially generated parameter vec-
tor x0 is determined and a number of k random parameter
vectors is consequently generated according to normal dis-
tribution, with x0 their mean value. The basic idea is to
compare the values of the objective function at the k + 1 vec-
tors and move the parameter population toward the optimum
point. This movement is achieved using three operations,
known as reflection, expansion and contraction. The k + 1
vectors are sorted in descending order of their correspon-
ding objective function value. The first (and worst) vector
is notated as xH , while the last (and best) as xL and a new
vector is generated, known as weight center according to:
1 
k+1
xA = xj (6)
k j=2
The weight center vector is used for the search of the re-
flection vector x R , in the opposite direction to that of the
xH ,
x R = x A + R (x A xH ) (7)
where R is the reflection factor, taking values in the [1 1.7]
interval. Depending on the value of objective function at
x R , three cases are considered ( f denotes the objective
function):
Case 1 : f(xL ) < f(x R ) < f(xH )
In this case the algorithm returns to the initial stage, after
replacing the worst vector xH by the reflection one, x R .
Case 2 : f(x R ) < f(xL )
In this case the expansion procedure is executed and
a corresponding vector is generated,
xE = x A + E (x R x A ) (8)
where E is the expansion factor, taking values in the
[1.8 2.2] interval. If f(xE ) < f(x R ), the worst vector xH is
replaced by xE , otherwise, if f(xE ) > f(xR ), xH is replaced
by x R and the algorithm returns to the initial stage.
Case 3 : f(x R ) > f(xH )
Forsch Ingenieurwes (2006) 70: 171178 175

The contraction procedure is executed in this case and the object variable vector x, to the normally random vec-
a new vector is formulated as, tor x :
 N (0,1)
xC = x A + C (xH x A ) (9) i = i e N(0,1)+ i (11)
 
x = N(x, ) (12)
where C the contraction factor, which belongs to [0.3 0.8]
interval. If f(xC ) < f(xH ), the worst vector xH is replaced where i = 1, 2, . . . , n, with n the length of the object varia-
by xC , otherwise, if f(xC ) > f(xH ), all the vector population ble vector and
   1
is substituted according to: 1
= 2 n ,  = 2n (13)
xi + xL
xi = , i = 1, . . . , k + 1 (10)
2 Selection: The selection operator is completely determi-
nistic in the ( + )-ES. Schwefel introduced an elegant
Its obvious that the BOX method does not require any
notation for selection mechanisms, characterizing the basic
computation of derivatives, thus is computationally very ef-
method and the number of parent () and offspring () in-
ficient. Additionally, its easily programmable and doesnt
dividuals, respectively. In the specific algorithm, the best
requires large computer storage. The initial vector x0 may,
individuals are selected out of the union of parents and off-
however, affects the convergence procedure, although is has
spring, to form the next parent generation.
been reported [4] that this is not a major restriction.

3.4 The ( + )-Evolution Strategy

4 Numerical illustrations
Evolution Strategies are a joint development of Bienert, Re-
In order to study and optimize the dynamic performance
chenberg and Schwefel, who did preliminary work in this
of the fixed-tank vehicle, two road profiles were selected,
area in 1960s at the Technical University of Berlin (TUB).
which are discussed below. The vehicle was assumed to tra-
Schwefel was the first who simulated different versions of
vel with a constant velocity of 40 km/h and the objective
the Evolution Strategy (ES) on the first available computer
function selected for the simulation tasks was tanks vertical
at TUB. Currently, the ( + )-ES characterizes the state of
acceleration. The required constraints are presented in Ta-
the art in ES research. The main feature of ES is the self-
ble 2. As far as concerned the limits of the quantities in the
adaptation of the strategy parameters, which means that the
parameter vector, these were a-priori satisfied, using a sim-
most important parameters of the algorithm are incorporated
ple change of variable. More specifically, if lower and upper
into the search process and optimized simultaneously with
bounds are specified for a variable as
the object variables, according to the actual local topology
of the objective function. i
llv xi luv
i
, i = 1, . . . , 8 (14)
The ( + )-ES uses floating-point representation for
the population and its based on three operators that taken they can be satisfied by transforming xi as
on the recombination, mutation and selection tasks. More xi = llv
i
+ (luv
i
llv
i
) sin2 hi (15)
specifically:
Recombination: A variety of recombination mecha- where hi is the new variable, which can take any value,
nisms are currently used in Evolution Strategies, and the assuring that the original vector satisfies the inequality cons-
operators are sexual as well as panmictic. In the sexual traints. This is a very simple and efficient way of avoi-
form, recombination operators act on two individuals ran- ding additional penalty functions into the objective function,
domly chosen from the parent population, where choosing which disaffect the search space of the optimization pro-
the same individual twice for creation of one offspring in- blem. It must be noted though that, prior to the change of
dividual is not suppressed. Conversely for the panmictic
variants of recombination one parent is randomly chosen
Table 2 Constraints of the optimization problem
and held fixed, while for each component of its vectors the
second parent is randomly chosen from the complete po- Parameters Constraints Units
pulation. The different traditional recombination operators Suspension stiffness 104 105 N/m
Suspension damping 103 104 N sec/m
of Evolution Strategies are called discrete and intermediate
Support equivalent stiffness 102 5 103 N/m
recombination, both existing in sexual and panmictic form. Support equivalent damping 10 5 102 N sec/m
Mutation: A standard deviation vector is mutated Suspensions working space 0.2 m
using a multiplicative, logarithmic normally distributed pro- Road handling ability
cess and the resulting vector  is used for the mutation of Stability of the system

13
176 Forsch Ingenieurwes (2006) 70: 171178

variable, a rescaling of the quantities in the parameter vector

has been applied, with respect to Table 2, in order to avoid
well-known numerical drawbacks [2], due to the different
ranges of the respective variables.
As far as the last three constraints are concerned, they
have been entered as penalty functions to Eq. 1. More speci-
fically, the working space of the suspension may be formed
as,

c1 (x) = max {|x M + M L j x iw |} (16)

i = f r, j = 12

so that c1 (x) cant exceed the 0.2 m limits, from the equi-
librium point of the suspension. The road handling ability
refers to the tyres vertical forces that act on the road surface
and the corresponding constraint can be expressed as
Fig. 3 Sine road profile
c2 (x) = max {kiw (riw x iw ) + ciw (riw x iw )} (17)
i = f r

so that, with respect to the selected coordinate system of the

model in Fig. 2, c2 (x) must be always negative (or positive).
Finally, the required stability of the system implies that the
roots of its characteristic polynomial must lie in the left half
of the complex plane. Thus if

c3 (x) = max {r} (18)

where r is the vector containing the real part of the relative

roots, c3 (x) must be negative.

4.1 Road excitation profiles

The irregularities that may arise from specific road profi-

les can be deterministic or stochastic. The former can be Fig. 4 Average quality road surface
considered as special cases, where distinct surface abnorma-
lities may be modeled as specific time (or space) functions,
while the latter represent more realistic representations of
may be obtained using the inverse discrete Fourier transform
the existing urban roads. For the numerical experiments, two
of the spectral coefficients Sr ()
road profiles where designed and presented to Figs. 3 to 4.
The first profile may appear due to high temperatures and


N 
j + 2
N t
it can be met in roads of Southern Europe, while the se- r fw (t) = Sr () e , t = 1, . . . , N (20)
cond represents an average quality road surface and it has =1
been generated using the Draft-ISO formulation for the road
where N is the desired length of the series and a set of
spectral density
random phase angles, uniformly distributed between 0 and
 n 2 .

Sr () = Sr (0 ) (19)
0
4.2 Test case 1: sine road profile
where , 0 are wavenumbers in Hz (the latter is a datum
quantity, selected as V/2 Hz, with V representing the ve- In the case of sine excitation, the initial parameter vector
hicles velocity), Sr (), Sr (0 ), spectral densities in m2 /Hz was selected in the mid-range of the variables limits, that is
and n = 3 if 0 , otherwise n = 2.25. Depending on the x0 = [5 5 5 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5]T , for the BFGS and the BOX
choice of Sr (0 ), the corresponding series of spot heights methods, and a version with 15 parents and 100 offspring

13
Forsch Ingenieurwes (2006) 70: 171178 177

Fig. 5 Initial & optimized acceleration of the tank (sine road profile)
Fig. 7 Initial & final vertical acceleration of the chassis (sine road
profile)

Fig. 6 Initial & final pitch acceleration of the tank (sine road profile)

Fig. 8 Initial & final pitch acceleration of the chassis (sine road profile)

was implemented for the ES. Figures 5 to 8 display the

Table 3 Optimization results: the sine profile case
results for the resulted pitch and bounce accelerations of
chassis and tank. All three methods managed to sufficiently Parameters BFGS BOX ES
decrease the objective function (see Fig. 5 and Table 3), with k fs [N/m] 27664 10779 88810
krs [N/m] 54525 28594 92975
the (15 + 100)-ES (normal continuous line) resulting in the c fs [N sec/m] 6276 2935 8842
lowest overshoot value. An interesting feature is the de- crs [N sec/m] 5828 1113 9026
crease of the transient response time, followed by a rather kt f [N/m] 196 292 289
smooth steady state. The pitch acceleration of the tank ktr [N/m] 3852 623 600
ct f [N sec/m] 258 89 65
(Fig. 6) presented the same characteristics, though it was not
ctr [N sec/m] 184 233 125
contained in the objective function, with the (15 + 100)-ES x T [m/sec2 ] 0.0101 0.0032 0.0019
resulting again in the lowest overshoot value. Yet, it is in-
teresting to observe that, as far as concerned the relative
vibration data of the chassis, only the BOX method resulted tion results for the suspension system, as the ES seems to
in a decrease of the maximum overshoot values (Figs. 78, lead the relative values in their upper limits, while the BOX
dashed-dotted line). With respect to the Table 3, where the proposes an elastic, damped front suspension, followed by
numerical values of the parameter vector are displayed for a stiff, lightly damped rear. However, as mentioned above,
the three algorithms implemented, the installation of the the parameter vector of the BOX resulted in a reduction of
tank is proposed using an elastic, lightly damped front sup- all the vibration quantities under study. This fact makes the
port and a stiff, damped rear. Between the BOX and the parameter vector that was extracted from BOX method pre-
(15 + 100)-ES, big difference is observed in the optimiza- ferable for this case of road excitation.

13
178 Forsch Ingenieurwes (2006) 70: 171178

Table 4 Maximum values: the random profile case pitch-bounce model was implemented and all its relative
Quantity x0 BFGS BOX ES structural components, that is the suspension system, as well
x M [m/sec2 ] 0.6322 0.6443 0.5030 0.9036 as the supports of the tank, were simultaneously optimi-
M [rad/sec2 ] 0.4365 0.4440 0.4496 0.6449 zed under all the physical and geometrical constraints. The
x T [m/sec2 ] 0.0264 0.0030 0.0021 0.0019 corresponding optimization problem was solved using three
T [rad/sec2 ] 0.0976 0.0106 0.0129 0.0092 different optimization algorithms, under two case studies,
regarding the road excitation.
Table 5 Optimization results: the random profile case The results indicated that the BOX method was the most
Parameters BFGS BOX ES
functional one, for this specific problem, as it managed to
k fs [N/m] 50093 18559 74940 reduce the vibrations of both the tank and the chassis, ex-
krs [N/m] 50141 79865 62049 cluding the case of pitch acceleration in the Draft-ISO road
c fs [N sec/m] 5067 7788 3576 profile. The (15 + 100)-ES was also competitive, yielding
crs [N sec/m] 5009 7111 9495 the lowest values for the selected objective function, but
kt f [N/m] 164 101 111
ktr [N/m] 485 255 219 it was incapable to reduce the accelerations of the chas-
ct f [N sec/m] 47 108 59 sis. The BFGS presented similar performance to that of ES.
ctr [N sec/m] 50 254 62 As far as concerned the parameter vector, the most import-
ant result that was obtained is the installation of the tank
using an elastic, lightly damped front support and a stiff,
4.3 Test case 2: average quality road profile damped rear. The characteristics of the suspension system
seemed to be depended by the road profile, as the results
In this case of road excitation, the same settings for the from the two case studies where different, especially for the
initiation of the three optimization algorithms were imple- damping. Thus, the use of a semi-active, or active suspen-
mented. Table 4 displays the maximum values of the four sion system could cover more broad class of road excitation
vibration data, that is the pitch and bounce accelerations of profiles.
chassis and tank, for the resulted optimization vectors, to- Nowadays, the increased demands for the road transport
gether with x0 , and in Table 5, the corresponding values of of dangerous goods force on understanding all the possi-
the parameter vector are presented. The (15 + 100)-ES again ble factors, which affect the dynamic performance of heavy
resulted in the lowest values for the objective function and vehicles, but also the mechanisms that may reduce their re-
the pitch acceleration of the tank, yet it significantly incre- liability. Minimization of failures and road damage, with
ased the vertical acceleration of the chassis. The BFGS was respect to safety and cost, are matters of crucial importance
rather stuck in local optima, while the overall performance in the design of heavy vehicles and should be further asses-
of the BOX method may again judged as the best among sed in the future, for the sake of social good.
the three algorithms implemented, especially due to the si-
gnificant reduction of chassis bounce acceleration. Yet, an
References
interesting feature is the lack of all algorithms to result in
reduction of chassis pitch acceleration. This fact was ex- 1. E.C.E./Trans (2002) ADR 2003: European Agreement, Concerning
pected, since for this type of road excitation the pitch motion the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road. Geneva,
of the vehicle is highly affected, yet the relative acceleration United Nations
wasnt included in the objective function. 2. Dennis JE, Schnabel RB (1996) Numerical Methods for Uncons-
trained Optimization and Nonlinear Equations. SIAM, Philadel-
As far as the numerical values of the parameter vector are
phia
considered, the BOX method proposed a similar installation 3. Fletcher R (1987) Practical Methods of Optimization. John Wiley
of the tank, that is elastic, lightly damped front support and & Sons, Chichester
rigid, damped rear, followed by a suspension system with ela- 4. Rao SS (1996) Engineering Optimization. 3rd Ed. John Wiley &
stic front part and very rigid rear, both with significant dam- Sons Inc, New York
ping. On the contrary, ES resulted in a completely different 5. Schwefel HP (1995) Evolution & Optimum Seeking. John Wiley
& Sons Inc, New York
installation (see Table 5) and only the equivalent stiffness of 6. Baeck T (1996) Evolutionary Algorithms in Theory and Practice.
the supports retain similar values to that of the BOX. Oxford University Press, New York
7. Cebon D (2000) Handbook of Vehicle-Road Interaction. Swets &
Zeitlinger, Lisse
5 Conclusion
8. Bastow D, Howard G (1993) Car Suspension and Handling. 3rd
Ed. SAE Inc, Warrendale
The analysis and optimization of a two-axle, fixed-tank ve- 9. Nocedal J, Wright S (1999) Numerical Optimization. Springer-
hicle was assessed in this paper. A lumped mass, 6-DOF Verlag, New York