Vehicle System Dynamics

International Journal of Vehicle Mechanics and Mobility

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/nvsd20

Ride analysis tools for passenger cars: objective

and subjective evaluation techniques and
correlation processes – a review

Giuseppe Guastadisegni, Stefano De Pinto, Daniele Cancelli, Stefano

Labianca, Antonio Gonzalez, Patrick Gruber & Aldo Sorniotti

To cite this article: Giuseppe Guastadisegni, Stefano De Pinto, Daniele Cancelli, Stefano
Labianca, Antonio Gonzalez, Patrick Gruber & Aldo Sorniotti (2024) Ride analysis tools for
passenger cars: objective and subjective evaluation techniques and correlation processes – a
review, Vehicle System Dynamics, 62:7, 1876-1902, DOI: 10.1080/00423114.2023.2259024

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00423114.2023.2259024

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 13 Oct 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7762

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nvsd20
VEHICLE SYSTEM DYNAMICS
2024, VOL. 62, NO. 7, 1876–1902
https://doi.org/10.1080/00423114.2023.2259024

REVIEW ARTICLE

Ride analysis tools for passenger cars: objective and

subjective evaluation techniques and correlation processes –
a review
Giuseppe Guastadisegnia,b , Stefano De Pintoa , Daniele Cancellia , Stefano Labiancaa ,
Antonio Gonzaleza , Patrick Gruber b and Aldo Sorniotti b,c
a McLaren Automotive Limited, McLaren Technology Centre, Woking, UK; b Department of Mechanical
Engineering Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK; c Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, Polytechnic University of Turin, Turin, Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In passenger cars, the ride characteristics are fundamental to the Received 11 July 2023
driver and passenger engagement, as they define the comfort and Accepted 8 September 2023
road holding performance. Therefore, the methods and tools to KEYWORDS
assess ride quality are of significant interest to the vehicle dynam- Primary ride; secondary ride;
ics specialists, and are an important part of the internal know-how objective key performance
of each car maker and Tier 1 supplier, which is often kept confi- indicators; subjective
dential. Unfortunately, the available literature does not include a attributes; measurement
comprehensive survey on the evaluation of the objective and sub- procedures; correlation
jective aspects related to ride, and their correlation. This review
targets the gap, and deals with: (i) the available tools and tech-
niques to objectively assess primary and secondary ride, including
typical manoeuvres, road profiles, required vehicle instrumentation,
and key performance indicators (KPIs); (ii) the subjective attributes
and their categorisation; (iii) the approaches and mathematical mod-
els to correlate the objective KPIs with the subjective evaluation;
and (iv) future trends. The know-how of the authors on the ride
assessment of high-performance passenger cars will also be used
to cover the aspects that are currently overlooked by the available
literature and standards. In summary, the manuscript provides the
interested reader with useful guidance on the procedures to perform
ride quality analyses.

1. Introduction
Vehicle ride is considered a ‘measurable motion environment (including vibration, shock,
translational and rotational accelerations) as experienced by people in or on the vehicle’ [1].
These accelerations result mainly from road irregularities, which excite the motions of the
vehicle wheels, bringing vibrations that are transmitted to the driver through the steering
wheel, seat, and pedals, i.e. the relevant human machine interfaces. Other excitations are
caused by the powertrain, or by the driver inputs associated with steering, acceleration,

CONTACT Aldo Sorniotti [email protected], [email protected]

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or
with their consent.
 VEHICLE SYSTEM DYNAMICS 1877

Figure 1. Graphical definition of the ride frequency ranges.

and braking [2,3]. Vehicle ride can be divided into two major categories according to the
frequency range of the associated vibration, see Figure 1 [4–10]:

(1) Primary ride, which includes vibrations with a frequency range from ∼ 0.5 to ∼ 5 Hz,
and is related to the heave, roll and pitch motions of the sprung mass.
(2) Secondary ride, which is associated with vibrations ranging from ∼ 5 to ∼ 25 Hz, typ-
ical of the suspension and wheel modes, which are transmitted to the sprung mass.
Secondary ride vibrations are usually categorised into [3]:
• Choppiness, with a frequency range from ∼ 5 to ∼ 10 Hz, associated with the verti-
cal, longitudinal, and lateral accelerations of the vehicle body, giving the perception
that the sprung and unsprung masses move in-phase.
• Shake [11], with a frequency range from ∼ 10 to ∼ 25 Hz, related to vibrations
mainly due to the engine or electric powertrain shake, driveline, steering column,
and suspension.

The previous definitions will be used in the remainder. Nevertheless, several studies
divide primary and secondary ride differently, e.g. some of them extend primary ride up
to ∼ 10 Hz, and secondary ride up to ∼ 80–100 Hz [12]. Figure 1 also highlights that the
amplitude of the oscillations tends to reduce with increasing frequency values.
The frequency range below 0.5 Hz tends to provoke motion sickness, namely the dis-
comfort associated with dizziness, fatigue, and nausea [13], which is expected to become
especially relevant in the next generations of highly automated vehicles [14–21]. As motion
sickness is collateral with respect to ride, this aspect, together with the psycho-physical per-
ception and the effects of the design of the seats and vehicle interiors, will not be part of this
review. Similarly, the frequency ranges higher than ∼ 25 Hz deal with the noise, vibration
and harshness (NVH) field [14,15], and are considered out of scope.
A vehicle with good ride quality should: (i) attenuate the occupants’ perception of
road irregularities; (ii) enable desirable road holding; and (iii) attenuate the vehicle body
motions excited by the driving actions, i.e. by traction/braking and cornering, and enhance
1878 G. GUASTADISEGNI ET AL.

the related occupants’ perception. (i) – (iii) are crucial to the subjective driver confidence
[11], which is key especially in high-performance passenger cars. For example, through
appropriate ride design, even a sub-optimal handling performance may be perceived as
appealing by the driver, which is a primary target for car makers [4].
In the vehicle design process, the sensations perceived by the driver and passengers,
namely their subjective feedback, should be correlated with the objective metrics defined
by the development engineers, thus indicating what can be modified or tuned at the vehicle
or component level. In the automotive industry, the ride quality assessment is performed
through:

• Objective metrics, here also referred to as key performance indicators (KPIs), derived
from either simulations or experimental measurements along specified manoeuvres,
performed on real test tracks/roads or post-rigs.
• Subjective attributes, according to which the evaluation is based on the driver’s (and
potentially passengers’) feedback through subjective scores, while driving a real vehicle,
or a virtual one on a road scenario simulator.

Although many publications are available on the previous topics, including a few reviews
[2], [4], [13] and a standard [5], to the best of the author’s knowledge, the literature misses
a thorough review with:

(1) A detailed description of the objective metrics for ride quality assessment.
(2) The objective performance assessment methodology, including typical manoeuvres,
road profiles, vehicle instrumentation set-up, and objective KPIs.
(3) A semantic description of the subjective attributes for ride quality assessment, which is
not comprehensively available, since this is usually associated with the internal know-
how of Tier 1 suppliers and car makers.
(4) A proposal for unifying the nomenclature of the subjective attributes, since each com-
pany has its internal one, and different definitions from the literature often indicate
the same attribute.
(5) A systematic description of the approaches for correlating objective and subjective
metrics.

The goal of this literature survey is to bring the reader up to speed with the relevant
research and technical concepts in the field of ride quality assessment, by considering
references – in the form of papers, dissertations, and standards – in English language
only.
The manuscript is organised according to the typical assessment workflow in Figure 2,
i.e.: Section 2 covers the objective evaluation, by discussing the relevant manoeuvres and
the main performance indicators, together with the required vehicle instrumentation;
Section 3 describes the subjective evaluation process, starting from the definition of the
subjective attributes, following with the assessment methods and questionnaires, mainly
derived from the current standards, and usually provided to professional drivers for the
evaluation; Section 4 highlights the methods to efficiently correlate objective metrics and
subjective attributes for vehicle design and development; finally, Section 5 summarises the
main conclusions.
 VEHICLE SYSTEM DYNAMICS 1879

Figure 2. Typical workflow diagram for the objective and subjective evaluation of vehicle ride quality,
including possible correlation of the respective results.

2. Objective evaluation
The objective testing phase is strictly required to assess the performance without the
inevitable errors generated by the human evaluation. The objective evaluation of a vehicle
ride quality is carried out through tests in which pre-defined variables are experimentally
measured or obtained through simulations, to evaluate the ride KPIs, i.e. the objective
metrics.

2.1. Manoeuvres and road profiles

The considered road profiles are usually classified into single obstacle type road profiles and
long type road profiles, see [16]. The assessment is performed through physical vehicles or
simulation models, in the latter case with or without the presence of a driver in the loop.
In case of physical vehicle testing, the experiments can involve vehicle operation on a real
road profile, or the use of a post-rig. In the tests involving real vehicles, it is important to
know the road input characteristics, namely amplitudes and wavelengths, to extract the
level of excitation. This information is generally available along the dedicated test tracks
of automotive proving grounds, but there are cases in which the road information is not
accessible.
Bumps, cleats, and potholes are the most typical examples of profiles under the sin-
gle obstacle type category. A bump is a raised area built across a road to slow down the
traffic, and is the most frequently selected single input obstacle in the literature. Bumps
cross the entire roadway, and can have different shapes and dimensions, depending on the
standards of each country [16,17], [22–24]. The tests on bumps are usually performed for
vehicle speeds ranging from 20 to 60 km/h, to allow ride quality assessment in specific fre-
quency ranges. The dimensions of a bump, usually from ∼ 0.05 to ∼ 0.125 m in height
and from ∼ 0.85 to ∼ 10 m in length, play a critical role in determining the frequency
ranges to be excited [25–27]: bumps with greater length and height are employed to excite
lower frequencies, namely primary ride, whilst smaller bumps excite higher frequencies,
and are relevant to secondary ride. Another common test is the impact on a cleat, which
is a straight bar placed on a flat road, perpendicular to the direction of travel. This profile
is mainly used for secondary ride assessment [4], [16], [28]. Additionally, some authors
1880 G. GUASTADISEGNI ET AL.

implement impulsive tests with negative inputs, frequently referring to them as pothole or
manhole tests [16], [27]. For example, Canale et al. [29] define their case study pothole as
a drain well, characterised by a depth of 0.05 m and a width of 0.6 m. The step road profile
test is another possible single obstacle input that is sometimes adopted [30–32].
The long-type road tests may involve real/realistic profiles available on public roads,
which can be grouped into: (i) flat roads; (ii) Belgian blocks and similar; and (iii) uneven
roads. Flat roads include highways [16], [33], motorways [22] and freeways [28], surfaced
with asphalt concrete [22], [34] or cement [7]. Such a type of roads is mainly used to eval-
uate secondary ride. The inputs of these roads with different roughness characteristics are
considered to be stochastic. Hence, the length of the acquisition must be sufficiently long
to get representative results. The tests on flat roads are performed with an instrumented
car at different speeds, typically ranging from ∼ 40 to ∼ 140 km/h [33]. Another method
to assess secondary ride, and sometimes harshness as well, is to drive the vehicle on corru-
gated roads, such as Belgian blocks, paved roads, and cobblestone roads [16], [22], [33–36].
The terms Belgian blocks and paved roads are usually referred to roads paved with square-
shaped blocks of different sizes, whilst cobblestone roads are paved with round-shaped
blocks [22]. The blocks extrude from the base of the pavement with different heights,
implying that the resulting excitation can have variable amplitude. Uneven roads or rough
roads have profiles with elevation changes that excite the primary and secondary rides, and,
in some cases, even the NVH region. For example, Canale et al. [29] define this type of road
profile as English track, while other authors [33], [36,37] use different denominations for
the same concept, e.g. they refer to them as bumpy roads. The profiles are typically charac-
terised by spaced irregularities, such as bumps and potholes. These obstacles can be located
to cause an in- or out-of-phase response of the left and right unsprung masses [37]. The
vehicle speed is typically held constant to ensure the excitation of specific frequencies [4].
Sinasac [4] and Ghanwat et al. [7] use bumpy roads to evaluate primary ride, and therefore
they select just the part of these roads provoking low frequency excitations.
In the simulation analyses, the road profiles [25–27], [29], [38,39] are often virtually
developed by using the so-called ISO roads profiles derived from the standard ISO 8608
[40], which provides the information for the reproduction of theoretical road classes based
on roughness.
The road excitation can be also experimentally reproduced at the vehicle level on a 4- or
7-post rig, where displacement of the road profile is defined by a function, with constraints
and limitations set by the capability of the specific facility. In the scientific literature, the
most common post rig based assessments are sine sweep tests, in which the frequency of
road excitation is gradually increased [41–44]; in rare cases, a sinusoidal function with
constant amplitude and frequency is used [30].
The ride tests above are usually conducted at constant speed in a straight line. Neverthe-
less, the ride comfort assessment can include manoeuvres involving cornering and/or hard
acceleration and braking, which are typically used to evaluate handling and stability, but
can also be adopted for road holding and ride comfort evaluation. This is especially relevant
to high-performance passenger cars, as they are usually characterised by a rather sporty
use. Thus, the ISO double lane change from the standard ISO 3888 [45,46] is a manoeuvre
frequently used to assess the vehicle roll behaviour and its impact on ride quality [4], while
another common manoeuvre is the sine sweep steer test [4], [47], in which a steering input
of constant magnitude is applied at increasing frequency.
 VEHICLE SYSTEM DYNAMICS 1881

2.2. Objective metrics

The procedures to objectively assess the ride quality are defined in the standards BS
6841:1987 [48] and ISO 2631-1:1997 [49]. The available objective metrics for primary
and secondary ride are listed in Table 1, including the denomination and formulation of
the KPIs, together with the references in which they have been used. The main symbols
of the variables in Table 1 are reported in Figure 3, including indication of the relevant
accelerations, speeds, and displacements of the sprung mass and unsprung masses.
The ride comfort KPIs are mainly based on the vertical accelerations recorded along
time, t, in different sections of the vehicle. The absolute peak, z̈smax , and the peak-to-peak
value, P2P, of the vertical acceleration of the sprung mass are the most frequently selected
indicators for assessing performance during isolated events, such as those of single obstacle
type roads. As an example, Figure 4(a) highlights these KPIs along the vertical acceleration
profile of the sprung mass, for a single input test. In particular, P2P indicates the maxi-
mum variation of the impulsive accelerometric signal, a, and can be additionally evaluated
on the angular body accelerations, namely the pitch, θ̈ , and roll, φ̈, accelerations, and on
the unsprung mass vertical accelerations, z̈u . The time history of the sprung mass vertical
displacement, zs , is also considered [50] in single obstacle type road tests, e.g. to compute
the maximum value and the third positive peak of the vertical displacement of the sprung
mass, respectively zsmax and zsnod . In particular, zsnod provides an indication of the decay
of the oscillations [25]. The transient response after a road step input can also be evalu-
ated through the following KPIs, usually referring to the sprung mass displacement, even
if in rare cases they are applied to other variables, such as speeds and accelerations: (i) the
overshoot, OS, i.e. the difference between the maximum and steady-state values of the con-
sidered variable; (ii) the response time, tResponse , i.e. the time from the start of the event, t0 ,
to the time for the system to reach 90% of its steady-state condition, t90%ss ; (iii) the set-
tling time, tSettling , i.e. the time from the input application to when the considered variable
remains within a specified error band, typically ±5% of the steady-state value, eSS ; and
(iv) the rise time, tRise , i.e. the time to transition from the 10%, corresponding to the time
instant t10%ss , to the 90%, corresponding to t90%ss , of the steady-state value of the variable.
In single obstacle type roads, the metrics above are often combined with the root mean
square values, RMS, of the accelerations measured over a time period T, see Figure 4(b).
The RMS, which is also the main indicator for long type road profiles, captures both the
positive and negative values of the considered acceleration. The RMS based indicators are
calculated either in the time domain, directly from the acceleration signal, or in the fre-
quency domain, f , starting from the power spectral density, P(f ), of the acceleration, along
a specified frequency range, from f1 to f2 , see Figure 4(c), based on the road excitation [4].
In rare cases, the acceleration values are normalised with the gravitational acceleration g,
thus giving origin to the normalised root mean square value, NRMS.
Many papers use the weighted root mean square value of the acceleration, WRMS, which
is described in the standards BS-6841 [48] and ISO-2631 [49]. The WRMS is the RMS
value of the frequency-weighted acceleration aw , which is obtained by applying frequency-
dependent filtering functions to the unweighted acceleration. If the vibrational inputs are
applied in more than one direction, the vibration total value of the WRMS acceleration,
namely av , is more appropriate, since its formulation is based on the linear combinations of
the vibrations in orthogonal coordinates, with three multiplying factors, i.e. kx , ky , and kz .
1882 G. GUASTADISEGNI ET AL.

Table 1. Summary of the main metrics (KPIs) for the objective evaluation of vehicle ride quality.
KPI Definition Reference
Maximum value of the vertical displacement of zsmax = max |zs (t)| [2], [25]
the sprung mass
Maximum value of the vertical body acceleration z̈smax = max |z̈s (t)| [2], [17], [25], [29], [51]
of the sprung mass
Third positive peak of the vertical displacement zsnod (t) [2], [25]
of the sprung mass
Peak-to-peak value of the relevant acceleration, P2P = max(a(t)) − min(a(t)) [2], [4], [16], [28], [51], [53]
a, of the sprung mass (linear or angular)
Overshoot OS = emax − ess [4]
Response time tResponse = t90%ss − t0 [4]
Settling time tSettling = t±5%ss − t0 [4], [16]
Rise time tRise = t90%ss − t10%ss [4]
 
Root mean square (RMS) value of the RMS = 1/T a2 (t)dt [2], [4–7], [16], [18], [25,26],
accelerations T [28–30], [33,34], [38,39],
 [41], [47,48], [51], [54–57]
f2
RMS = P(f )df
f1 
RMS value of the normalised vertical acceleration NRMS = 1/T (z̈S (t)/g)2 dt [29], [31]
of the sprung mass T
 
WRMS = 1/T a2W (t)dt
T
Weighted RMS acceleration  [22], [27], [31], [37], [51],
f2 [58–62]
WRMS = W 2 (f )P(f )df
f1
1
Point vibration total value av = (kx2 a2W,x + ky2 a2W,y + kz2 a2W,z ) 2 [2], [22], [48,49], [51], [62]
  t1 +T
Running RMS value of the weighted acceleration RWRMS = 1/T [aW (t)]2 dt [2], [16], [48,49], [51,52]
t1
Maximum transient vibration value MTVV =max(aW (t)) [2], [48,49], [51,52]
Root mean quad accelerations RMQ = 4 1/T a4 (t)dt [2], [13], [34], [38], [63]
 T T
1/4
Vibration dose value VDV = [a4 (t)dt] [2], [13], [33], [37,38], [52],
0 [58], [63,64]
  1/4
aw,e = a4w,i Ti / Ti or
Equivalent weighted acceleration   1/2 [22], [43]
aw,e = a2w,i Ti / Ti
Estimated vibration dose value eVDV = 1.4aw,e T 1/4 [43,44], [63]
Effective amplitude transmissibility of the seat Seat(%)= (VDVSeat /VDVFloor )100 [34], [58], [62], [64]
 f2
Root integral of the suspension deflection σSD = P(f )df [17]

f1

RMS value of the suspension deflection RMSSD = 1/T (zsij − zuij )2 dt [17], [26]
T
Suspension working space SWS = max(zsij − zuij ) − min(zsij − zuij ) [4], [42], [56]
 
RMS value of tyre deflection RMSzu = 1/T zt2 (t)dt [57]
 T

RMS value of the normalised dynamic wheel load RMSFz = 1/T (Fz (t) − Fz,0 )2 /Fz,0 2
dt [25], [30], [43], [47]
T

The RMS values and all the other derived formulations are appropriate for stationary
signals, i.e. waveforms that, from a statistical viewpoint, have constant mean and variance,
but they can be misleading when non-stationary vibrations are considered [13]. Therefore,
 VEHICLE SYSTEM DYNAMICS 1883

Figure 3. Lateral and rear views of a vehicle, showing the main variables considered in the computation
of the objective metrics: (i) heave (zs , żs , z̈s ), roll (φ, φ̇, φ̈) and pitch (θ, θ̇, θ̈) displacements, speeds, and
accelerations of the sprung mass; (ii) longitudinal and lateral accelerations of the vehicle (ax , ay ); and
(iii) vertical displacements, speeds and accelerations (zuij , żuij , z̈uij ) of the unsprung masses of the four
corners, where the subscript i = F, R indicates the front or rear axles, and the subscript j = L, R the left
or right vehicle sides.

the crest factor, CF, is used by the standards to distinguish between stationary and non-
stationary signals, according to [48]:
aW,max
CF = (1)
WRMS
with aW,max being defined as the maximum instantaneous peak value of the weighted
acceleration. When CF is less than 6, the signal used for its calculation is considered sta-
tionary, whilst for CF values higher than 6 the signal is deemed non-stationary. For CF
> 6, a suitable KPI is the running weighted root mean square acceleration, RWRMS,
which corresponds to the square of the weighted acceleration peak recorded during an
observation time T (Figure 4(b)). The maximum transient vibration value, MTVV, is
also rarely used for non-stationary events. Metrics that are similar to the RWRMS are
the root mean quad, RMQ, the vibration dose value, VDV, and the estimated vibration
dose value, eVDV [49], all of them using the fourth power of the weighted acceleration. A
fourth power vibration dose index is more sensitive to the peaks than an RMS averaging
method.
The seat factor, Seat, expressed in percentage, allows differentiating the vibration levels,
defined by the VDV, at the driver or passenger floor, from those at the seat-pad. A 100%
Seat value implies that the seat does not lead to any benefit in terms of vibration mitigation
with respect to the floor; values lower than 100% refer to a comfort improvement, whilst
values above 100% imply reduced vibrational comfort.
When evaluating ride quality, especially for high-performance passenger cars, it is nec-
essary to consider also KPIs of the road holding capability. In this case, the indicators rely
on the availability of the suspension displacement measurement, and the estimation of the
vertical loads on each corner. For example, relevant metrics include the root integral, σSD ,
over a specified frequency band, of the power spectral density of suspension deflection, and
the RMS value of the suspension deflection over a time window, RMSSD . Another relevant
metric is the suspension working space, SWS, which measures the maximum suspension
travel during the manoeuvre. Low values of these metrics tend to imply better performance.
A fundamental factor for road holding is the fluctuation of the vertical tyre load, which is
1884 G. GUASTADISEGNI ET AL.

Figure 4. Examples of explanatory graphs for a selection of the discussed KPIs, by using signals experi-
mentally recorded by McLaren Automotive on a test vehicle: a) time profile of the heave acceleration for
a road step input at low speed; b) time profile of the heave acceleration on an uneven road surface; and
c) power spectral density of the vertical acceleration of an unsprung mass in the frequency domain, on
an uneven surface.

related to the capability of the tyre to generate longitudinal and lateral forces in transient
conditions. The load fluctuations are often measured through: (i) the root mean square
value, RMSFz , of the normalised dynamic wheel load, (Fz − Fz,0 )/Fz,0 , where Fz is the
current vertical tyre force, and Fz,0 is the respective static load; or (ii) the RMS value of
the vertical tyre deflection, RMSzt . Lower values of these metrics correspond to improved
dissipation of road disturbances and road holding ability, namely better grip.
 VEHICLE SYSTEM DYNAMICS 1885

Table 2. Overview of manoeuvres and road profiles, with the related

performance indicators.
Metric type KPI Manoeuvre / road profile References
Ride comfort zsmax Bump [25]
z̈smax Bump [17], [25], [29]
Hole [29]
zsnod (t) Bump [25]
P2P Cleat [4], [28]
Bump [16], [53]
OS Cleat [4]
tResponse Cleat [4]
tSettling Cleat [4], [16]
tRise Cleat [4]
RMS Bump [41]
Cleat [28]
Step [26]
Hole [29]
Flat road [7], [16], [28], [33,34], [42]
Cobblestone road [16], [34]
Belgian blocks [33,34], [54]
Uneven road [4–7], [16], [33,34], [54]
ISO roads [25,26], [38–41]
Sinusoidal road input [30], [41–43], [56]
Lane change [4], [47]
Swept sine steer [47]
NRMS Hole [29]
Uneven roads [29]
ISO roads [29], [31]
WRMS Bump [22]
Flat road [22]
Cobblestone road [22]
Belgian blocks [22]
Uneven roads [37]
ISO roads [27], [29], [31]
Swept sine steer [58]
RWRMS Uneven roads [16], [52]
RMQ Flat road [34]
Cobblestone road [34]
Belgian blocks [34]
Uneven road [34]
ISO roads [38]
VDV Flat road [33], [64]
Belgian blocks [33]
Uneven road [33], [37]
ISO roads [38]
Swept sine steer [58]
aw,e Sinusoidal road input [43,44]
eVDV Sinusoidal road input [43,44]
Seat Flat road [64]
Swept sine steer [58]
Road holding σSD Bump [17]
Flat road [17]
RMSSD Bump [17]
Flat road [17]
ISO roads [26]
SWS Cleat [4]
Uneven road [4]
Sinusoidal road input [42], [56]
RMSFz Bump [25]
Step [30]
ISO roads [25]
Sinusoidal road input [30], [42,43]
Lane change [47]
Swept sine steer [47]
1886 G. GUASTADISEGNI ET AL.

Figure 5. Schematic representation of the typical vehicle instrumentation set-up to measure the signals
required for the calculation of the objective KPIs. ‘acc’: accelerometer; ‘pot’: potentiometer; ‘DoF’: degree-
of-freedom.

The discussed KPIs have different purposes, and are not universally applicable to every
type of manoeuvre and road profile. For example, a primary differentiation exists between
the KPIs for evaluating ride comfort and those for road holding. In terms of ride comfort
assessment, the selection of KPIs is mainly influenced by the road profile characteristics.
Table 2 presents how the available studies have associated the metrics with the manoeuvres
and road profiles.

2.3. Measurement equipment

The vehicle performance measurement equipment is of fundamental importance, as
meaningful measurements are the basis for correct data post-processing, and the
computation of the objective metrics. A good knowledge of the instrumentation
specifications also contributes to improving the quality of the experimental valida-
tion of the ride simulation models. In fact, with the most recent generation of
commercially available simulation models, such as Vi-CarRealTime and CarMaker,
it is possible to accurately emulate sensors with the respective errors and delays,
and place them in the simulated vehicle, in the same location as on the real
vehicle.
In the most general and extensive form, Figure 5 includes the set of sensors that are
required for a complete ride analysis:

• Triaxial accelerometers, which are typically installed on each unsprung mass, see
Figure 6 and [5], [7], [17], [23], [33], [53], [64], and the top mount of each suspension,
see the examples in [5], [7], [17], [23], [33], [53].
• Linear potentiometers between each unsprung mass and the vehicle body, to measure
damper/spring displacement, see Figure 6 [7], [17], [53], [64].
• A 6DoF inertial measurement unit (IMU), which measures the three accelerations and
three angular speeds of the sprung mass. The IMU consists of a triaxial accelerometer
and a triaxial gyroscope, and is generally installed close to the vehicle centre of mass
[5], [16,17], [22], [33], [64,65]. Rarely, a GPS (global positioning system) sensor is used
to measure the longitudinal vehicle speed [5], [16], [22], [64].
 VEHICLE SYSTEM DYNAMICS 1887

Figure 6. Example of installation of a linear potentiometer and a triaxial accelerometer on the suspen-
sion system of a case study vehicle (from [17]).

Figure 7. Examples of installation of accelerometers on: a) the seat pad and backrest [64]; and b) the
footrest and steering wheel [34].

In the driver and/or passenger interface areas, sensors can be installed (Figure 7) to
measure the accelerations in different positions, including:

• The seat, where triaxial accelerometers can be placed at the seat rail [5], [7], [16], [28],
[52], seat pad [5], [7], [13], [16], [23], [33,34], [37], [52], [64], seat floor [5], [7], [33,34],
backrest [5], [16], [28], [33], [34], [52], [64], and rarely the headrest [13].
• Footrest, where a triaxial accelerometer can be located near the brake pedal to evaluate
the driver’s feet accelerations [5], [7], [16], [33], [64].
• Steering wheel [5], [16], [33], where the sensor is usually installed on the upper semi-
circumference.

Typical specifications of accelerometers for vehicle ride measurements are included in

Table 3. The standard ISO 15037-3:2022 [5] states that the band of human sensitivity ranges
from 0 to 100 Hz, but the frequency range relevant to the ride comfort of passenger cars is
1888 G. GUASTADISEGNI ET AL.

Table 3. Examples of performance characteristics of typical accelerometers for ride comfort measure-
ment [16], [18], [22], [52], [66].
Manufacturer, sensor model Input range (g) Frequency response (Hz) Sensitivity (mV/g)
Silicon Design, SDI-1 2210 ±10 0–1100 (Typ., ±3 dB) 0–660 (Min., ±3 dB) 400
0–700 (Typ., 5%)
PCB Piezotronics, 3713E 1125G ±25 0–1500 (Nom., ±3 dB) 0–750 (Min., ±3 dB) 80
Dytran Instruments, 7556A1 ±3 0–800 (Nom., ±3 dB) 400
SensorWay Measurement Technology, ±10 0–200 (Nom., ±1 dB) 0–120 (Nom., ±2 dB) 500
Entran EGCS3-A
Brüel & Kjær, Triaxial DeltaTron 4525 ±50 0–1000 (Typ., ±10%) 100
Kistler, 8763B050BB ±50 0.5–7000 (Nom., ±5%) 0.3-1000 (Nom., 100
±10%)

between 0 and 50 Hz. As a consequence, the standard also states the transducer bandwidth
should be higher than 500 Hz, and the amplitude errors less than ±0.5%.

3. Subjective evaluation
There are multiple alternative approaches to the subjective evaluation of ride quality. In
the literature, some authors simply ask the drivers whether they feel the vehicle to be
comfortable throughout the testing phase [16], [34], [37], [67]. However, especially for
high-performance and/or high-segment passenger cars, the car makers tend to evaluate
ride quality in detail, through sophisticated subjective attributes targeting well-defined
aspects. The attributes consist of the qualitative descriptions of specific vehicle behaviours
that are subjectively assessed in the testing phase, through numerical assessment (scoring)
by the driver and/or passengers. Hence, the attributes are the subjective equivalent of the
objective KPIs. The following sub-sections list typical attributes for primary and secondary
ride. The names and descriptions are derived from the literature as well as the industrial
and research experience of the authors.

3.1. Subjective attributes for primary ride

The main aspects included in typical subjective primary ride assessments, together with
the respective attributes, are:

• Aspect 1: isolation from the road inputs [6], which assesses the perceived comfort level
associated with the sprung mass motions excited by various typologies of uneven roads.
This aspect involves consideration of multiple attributes, accounting for each motion of
the sprung mass:
o Pitch control, which evaluates the body pitch motion caused by the out-of-phase ver-
tical motions of the front and rear axles. In general, within a subjective assessment
framework, body control is the perceived capability of compensating the external
road excitation. The pitch control attribute is typically considered on uneven road
surfaces with small frequency undulations [7], [10], [64]. For a correct evaluation,
the driver may be specifically instructed to assess the so-called harmony, i.e. the
response delay between the front and rear axles.
o Vertical ride control [4] or bounce [7] control, which refers to the perceived
magnitude of the heave motions [10], [52], [64].
 VEHICLE SYSTEM DYNAMICS 1889

o Road copying, which evaluates the user perception of the vehicle ability to minimise
the roll motions [10], [64], since road irregularities are not necessarily symmetrical,
and the tyres on the two vehicle sides can be subjected to different road excitations,
provoking a roll motion of the vehicle body.
• Aspect 2: response to large excitations, which targets the subjective assessment of
the vehicle body oscillations along manoeuvres on single obstacle road profiles. In the
industrial practice, two attributes are mainly used, depending on the nature of the road
excitation event:
o Topping, which evaluates the vehicle body control quality over a crest, i.e. a localised
road input inducing an upward motion of the sprung mass.
o Bottoming, which evaluates the vehicle body control performance during ground-
ing events, i.e. in which the road inputs induce a downward motion of the sprung
mass.
• Aspect 3: pitch under braking/acceleration [6], which is similar to Aspect 1, but is
evaluated in acceleration and/or braking conditions on flat roads [7]. The assessment is
typically based on the combination of two attributes:
o Pitch abruptness, evaluating the magnitude of the pitch motion [4].
o Pitch delay, associated with the time the pitch angle takes to reach its steady-state
value [4].

3.2. Subjective attributes for secondary ride

The main subjective attributes for secondary ride assessment are:

• Bobbing vibration [7] or choppiness [2], [50] level, which includes the harmonic body
vibrations induced by the eigenmodes of the unsprung masses and powertrain/s, in the
∼ 5–10 Hz range, and is typically evaluated on cement roads at different vehicle speeds,
in the 60–80 km/h range [7]. The attribute targets the vertical and longitudinal low-
amplitude vibrations experienced by the vehicle body, which give the impression that
the sprung and unsprung masses move in-phase. The occupants tend to perceive these
vibrations especially in their abdominal masses.
• Shake or choppy vibration level [2], [6,7], [50], which covers the harmonic body vibra-
tions induced by the eigenmodes of the unsprung masses, powertrain/s and steering col-
umn, in the ∼ 10–25 Hz range. Shake vibrations refer to high-frequency low-amplitude
vibrations, typically excited by road surfaces characterised by plenty of small cracks.
These vibrations mainly stress the calves and thighs of the passengers, and sub-attributes
can be used to differentiate the assessment of the vibration, based on the human machine
interface transmitting the vibration and the perceived source of vibration, e.g.:
o Body floor shake induced by the suspension systems.
o Seat shake vibration provoked by the driveline.
o Steering wheel shake induced by shimmy propagated through the steering column.

Attributes are available to evaluate the scenario of single obstacle road profiles as well:

• Small impact response [2], [6], [52], which evaluates the magnitude of the vehicle body
impact acceleration over small positive/negative discrete road inputs ( < 15 mm), while
driving the vehicle at different speeds.
1890 G. GUASTADISEGNI ET AL.

Figure 8. SAE rating scales for subjective evaluation, from: a) J1060 [68]; and b) J1441 [69].

• Large impact response [2], [6], [52], which refers to the magnitude of the vehicle body
impact acceleration over large positive/negative discrete inputs ( > 15 mm), at different
vehicle speeds. Aspects that can be individually scored are:
o Front or rear axle response, related to the chassis acceleration peak after a front or
rear axle impact.
o Single wheel response, referring to the chassis acceleration peak after a single wheel
impact.
o Driver disturbance [4], chassis acceleration peak at the seat, after an impact.
• Disturbance dissipation [4], [64], which assesses how quickly the vertical vehicle
motion dissipates after hitting an obstacle, and – similarly to the large impact response
– can be independently evaluated at the level of the front axle, rear axle, or individual
wheel.

3.3. Assessment methods

Although a variety of scoring procedures are used in the literature, the most widely adopted
methodologies derive from the SAE standards J1060 [68] and J1441[69], which establish
rating scales for subjective assessment. Both scales range from 1 to 10, see Figure 8, and,
although normally the ratings are integer, also decimal figures can be included in the scores.
The performance is considered acceptable or desirable if the rating is in the range between
5 and 10, whilst a rating between 1 and 5 is considered unacceptable or undesirable; and
a rating of 5 highlights borderline performance. Every integer value on the rating scale
corresponds to an adjective, which expresses the ultimate evaluation by the occupant/s. In
the table from J1441, the term ‘disturbance’ refers to ride evaluation, while ‘control’ refers
to handling assessment.
Rarely, authors employ alternative scoring techniques. For example, in Mansfield et al.
[37], the drivers were asked to give a ride comfort score on a seven-point scale, with 1 being
‘comfortable’ and 7 being ‘uncomfortable’. In Bennett [10], the evaluation is conducted
only through adjectives.
 VEHICLE SYSTEM DYNAMICS 1891

As stated in J1441 [69], it is important to consider the type of driver who is performing
the tests. Especially for high-performance cars, the vehicle ride evaluation is usually carried
out by a jury consisting of a small group of expert evaluators who are familiar with the
needs and expectations of the target customer. Non-expert drivers are also involved, but
in this case a larger jury size is necessary for meaningful results, because of the increased
scatter in the ratings. External conditions, such as weather and varied road conditions, as
well as the composition of the jury, can have an impact on the evaluations. Therefore, it is
crucial to ensure that all the members are exposed to identical testing conditions. This can
be accomplished through a simulator rather than a real vehicle [4].
During subjective testing, it is common to consider the anthropometric data of the jury
panel members, such as height, weight and age [34], [37], [43], [52], [64], [67], [70], and,
in some case [52], the value of their body mass index, BMI:
m
BMI = (2)
h2
where m and h are the mass and height of the person. The data related to the body differ-
ences and genders has an impact on the ride comfort perception [2], [7], [34], [43], [52],
and can be used to justify possible outliers and subjective score dispersion.
Sinasac [4] provides one of the most accurate descriptions of a subjective evaluation
procedure for semi-active suspension tuning. In general, the scoring is based on a ques-
tionnaire form (Figure 9) to be filled in at the end of the test, which includes the list of
subjective attributes, the rating scale, and the information for the execution of the tests.
Based on [4] and the industrial experience of the authors, the typical subjective evalua-
tion method involves the following steps:

(1) General briefing, consisting of an introduction of the rules and procedures to be fol-
lowed in the execution of the tests, and a description of the questionnaire, with an
overview of the rating scales and subjective attributes.
(2) Subjective evaluation, during which one driver at a time enters the vehicle with a pen
and the questionnaire or a laptop/smartphone, and drives the car through the first
manoeuvre with the default configuration setting, which is the baseline used for rat-
ing consistency [69]. After his/her evaluation, the driver repeats the same manoeuvre
with different tunings of the same vehicle, or different vehicles. Once all manoeuvres
have been performed, the drivers discuss the subjective scores assigned to the different
vehicle settings with the engineers.
(3) Post-processing, in which the rating values are plotted for all tested configurations,
along with their mean and standard deviation values, and compared with each other.

4. Subjective and objective correlation

The ride dynamics and respective assessment play an important role in the vehicle design
process. Current approaches are generally focused on a first objective evaluation along
standardised manoeuvres, and afterwards on the subjective assessment of certain vehicle
ride features. The subjective-objective correlation is taking increasing importance, since it
gives the possibility of predicting the subjective evaluation, which is the ultimate output of
the process, directly from the objective performance indicators. A proper correlation based
1892 G. GUASTADISEGNI ET AL.

Figure 9. Example of subjective evaluation questionnaire template, extracted and adapted from
Sinasac [4]: a) first page, which displays the general instructions for the evaluation method, including
the order and details of the manoeuvres; b) following pages, dealing with the list of subjective attributes,
descriptions, and rating scales; and c) final page, for additional comments by the drivers.

on a significant number of vehicle set-ups and models can have significant positive impact
on the design and development process, since, especially in the initial stages, it allows dis-
carding design solutions that may not be appreciated by the customer, or shortening the
design steps, e.g. by reducing or eliminating the final subjective assessment. To allow cor-
relation, (i) the objective and subjective assessments of each ride comfort aspect must be
performed through the same experimental tests; and (ii) specific attributes, rather than a
 VEHICLE SYSTEM DYNAMICS 1893

Table 4. Summary of correlations between objective metrics and subjective attributes obtained from
the same manoeuvre [4], [7], [10], [64].
Objective metric Subjective attribute Manoeuvre

Primary ride RMS θ̈ Isolation from road inputs: pitch control Flat roads
Uneven roads
tSettling,θ̈ Pitch under braking/acceleration Acceleration and braking

P2P θ̈
RMS θ̈
RMS (z̈s ) Isolation from road inputs: vertical ride Uneven roads: bumpy roads with
 control or bounce high wavelengths
RMS θ̈ Isolation from road inputs: pitch control Uneven roads: bumpy roads with
 high wavelengths
RMS φ̈ Isolation from road inputs: road copying Uneven roads: bumpy roads with
high wavelengths
Secondary ride RMS (z̈Seat ) Bobbing vibrations or choppiness Flat roads
RMS (z̈Seat ) Shake or choppy vibrations Uneven roads: joinery of cement
patches or small cracks
P2P (z̈Seat ) Small impact Bump
RMS (z̈Seat ) Cleat
P2P (z̈Seat ) Large impact Bump
RMS (z̈Seat ) Cleat
Road holding tSettling,Fz Disturbance dissipation Cleat
RMS(Fz )

generic score on the subjective comfort level, must be assigned to the different ride quality
aspects.
Based on the synthesis of the information from the references of this section and the
industrial procedures to which the authors have been exposed, the correlation process can
be split up into four phases, according to Figure 10. The first step, see Phase 1 in the work-
flow schematic, involves data gathering in terms of subjective scores and objective metrics
for different vehicle configurations, i.e. several vehicle models (e.g. a case study vehicle pro-
totype under development, and multiple benchmarking production vehicles of other car
makers), or various suspension tuning settings for the same vehicle. Phase 2 involves the a
priori association among the objective metrics, the most relevant subjective attributes, and
manoeuvres, based on the correlation experience deriving from previous analyses. The
pairing procedure simplifies the following data analysis steps of the process, since only
specific and meaningful attributes will be correlated to each metric, for specific operat-
ing conditions. In some cases, e.g. [7], [10], [64], [70], the pairing is implemented before
the experiments, and therefore can enable a reduction of the tests for which the subjective
assessment is required. Table 4 provides a summary of the pairings from the literature.
Once the evaluation metrics have been collected and paired, the correlation process,
corresponding to Phase 3, can be carried out. Linear correlation, see the theory in [71],
is the most widely used method to observe the direction and strength of the relationship
between the objective metrics and subjective scores. The coefficient that expresses the level
of linear correlation is called Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient [71], RP , and
is defined as:
 n  n  n
n i=1 xi yi − i=1 xi i=1 yi
RP =  (3)
 n 2  n 2  n 2  n 2
n i=1 xi − i=1 xi n i=1 yi − i=1 yi
1894 G. GUASTADISEGNI ET AL.

Figure 10. Schematic of the workflow of the subjective-objective correlation process.

In (3), n is the total number of data pairs, x is the independent variable, and y is the depen-
dent variable. Typically, the objective metric is assumed to be the independent variable,
while the rating of the subjective attribute is the dependent variable, since the ultimate
goal of the correlation is to predict the subjective attributes from the objective metrics.
Instead of the Pearson linear correlation coefficient, Ali Böke et al. [16] use another type
of correlation coefficient, the so-called Spearman coefficient, RS :

n
i=1 (xi − x̄)(yi − ȳ)
RS = (4)
n n
i=1 (xi − x̄)2 i=1 (yi − ȳ)2
 VEHICLE SYSTEM DYNAMICS 1895

where x̄ and ȳ are the sample means of the independent and dependent variables, respec-
tively. While the Pearson coefficient defines a correlation between the two variables
through a linear law, the Spearman coefficient indicates whether the two variables are
correlated by a generic monotonic function. Interestingly, in the available literature, all
authors end up considering the case of linear relationship between the variables. In fact,
also Ali Böke et al. [16] find a linear regression function, after identifying the correlation
through RS .
RP and RS are also simply called R-values, and are positive or negative scalars that vary
between – 1 and 1, where an absolute value of 1 corresponds to a strong correlation between
two variables. A positive R-value means that by increasing the independent variable, the
dependent variable also increases, and, in the case of the Pearson coefficient, the increment
is linear. Vice versa, a negative R-value implies a decrease of the dependent variable for an
increase of the independent variable. An R-value magnitude exceeding ∼ 0.8 indicates a
strong correlation between the variables; the ranges from ∼ 0.7 to ∼ 0.8 and from ∼ 0.5
to ∼ 0.7 correspond to good and poor correlation, respectively; finally, values below ∼ 0.5
are symptomatic of absence of correlation [4].
If a strong or good correlation is detected, Phase 4 of the process can be implemented.
Linear regression is the most common method to describe how the rating of a subjective
attribute varies as a function of changes in the correlated objective metric. The target is to
find the y-intercept a and the slope b of the line that minimises the sum of the squares of
the vertical distances from each data point to the line itself, which is achieved through:
y = a + bx (5)
 n  n  n  n
i=1 xi −
2
i=1 yi i=1 xi i=1 xi yi
a=  n 2  n 2
(6)
n i=1 xi − i=1 xi
 n  n  n
n i=1 xi yi − i=1 xi i=1 yi
b=  n 2  n 2
(7)
n i=1 xi − i=1 xi
A further indicator of a good correlation between the variables is the coefficient of
determination, R2 :
n
(y − ȳ)
R = ni=1 i
2 2
 ) = RP (8)
(y
i=1 i − y i
where yi is the predicted value – computed through (5) – for a given xi . This coeffi-
cient is the amount of variation in the dependent variable that the regression line and the
independent variable can explain [71]. The result means that the percentage of variation
in the dependent variable is accounted for by the variation in the independent variable.
Only correlation results with a coefficient of determination R2 ≥ 0.6 are considered in the
literature.
Another possibility is to correlate more than one objective metric with a subjective
attribute, by performing a multiple regression [70], which is defined by [71]:
y = aMR + b1 x1 + b2 x2 + . . . + bk xk (9)
where xl , with l = 1,.., k, are the independent variables; aMR is the intercept with the y-
axis (e.g. with two independent variables, (9) represents a plane); and bl are the partial
regression coefficients.
1896 G. GUASTADISEGNI ET AL.

Figure 11 depicts representative examples of linear correlation results from the litera-
ture, with values of the coefficients of determination exceeding 0.9, with a) – d) referring
to 50 km real road tests carried out by two vehicles, each of them assessed in two payload
conditions; e) – g) to speed bump tests for different vehicles; and h) to asymmetric road
excitation tests for different damper settings applied to the same car. The results allow to
predict how a subjective score can change in response to variations of the objective metrics.
After conducting the correlation and regression to find a law relating the two considered
variables, Lu et al. [70] perform a further step, namely the validation of the correlation,
which consists in verifying that very similar correlation levels occur in various case study
vehicles belonging to different segments, such as sedans and sport-utility vehicles. In fact,
for simplifying the ride comfort design process, the subjective-objective correlations need
to be valid for as wide as possible vehicle ranges.
Based on their correlation studies, Ali Böke et al. [16] have implemented a software tool
that allows to predict the subjective SAE score [68,69] of a vehicle. The prediction is based
on preliminary information to be provided to the tool, such as the type of manoeuvre, and
the main vehicle parameters such as mass, front-to-total weight distribution, wheelbase,
track widths, maximum vehicle width, centre of gravity position, tyre type and dimen-
sions, suspension parameters, engine type, and driveline architecture. The ultimate goal –
to be achieved through future developments – is to predict the influence of different vehi-
cle parameters on the SAE score in the early design phases, without having to involve any
human subjects.
From a different yet promising perspective, given the recent trends in machine learning
applied to engineering design problems, Cieslak et al. [52] use a neural network approach
to predict the subjective ratings. The study explores the effect on prediction accuracy
of the main neural network parameters, including training algorithms (e.g. Levenberg-
Marquardt and scaled conjugate gradient approaches), training functions (i.e. the functions
to compute the training errors), activation functions, and hidden layer sizes. Additionally,
overtraining prevention methods, such as noise injection, are implemented, to provide
robustness and independence from the specific data sets. Despite the very relevant and
promising analyses, the conclusions of [52] highlight the proof-of-concept nature of the
study, which should be the subject of further work, to make machine learning approaches
a viable – and possibly more effective and flexible – alternative to the traditional linear
regression methods.

5. Conclusions and future developments

Vehicle ride quality assessment is an area in which car manufacturers and their suppli-
ers tend to provide either obscure or incomplete information, given that it covers topics
that are at the core of the internal – and often confidential – know-how of the respective
company. Moreover, although a broad academic and technical literature, including a few
reviews focused on the objective evaluation procedures, deals with road vehicle ride com-
fort aspects, there is not a systematic analysis of the correlation methodologies between
the objective and subjective evaluation of ride quality. This survey has reviewed the rele-
vant literature, and, by combining it with the industrial ride evaluation experience of the
authors in high-performance passenger cars, has targeted the identified gap, by analysing:
 VEHICLE SYSTEM DYNAMICS 1897

Figure 11. Examples of linear regression results from the literature. Correlations between: a) RMS pitch
acceleration and ride control, referring to a 50 km road test, for two different vehicles in unladen and
laden conditions (from [7]); b) RMS vertical acceleration of the seat pad and choppy vibration level, from
[7]; c) RMS vertical acceleration of the seat pad and bounce control, from [7]; d) RMS vertical acceleration
of the seat pad and bobbing vibration, from [7]; e) P2P longitudinal acceleration of the front seat rail
and impact harshness (corresponding to the impact response indicators in Section 4), for a speed bump
at 30 km/h, for different vehicles (from [70]); f) P2P longitudinal acceleration of the rear seat rail and
impact harshness, in the same conditions as for subplot e), from [70]; g) P2P vertical acceleration of the
front suspension strut and impact after shake (which can be considered equivalent to the disturbance
dissipation attribute in Section 4), in the same conditions as for subplot e), from [70]; and h) NRMS vertical
acceleration of the seat and vertical ride control, for a straight line test on an asymmetric road profile
exciting chassis twisting, for different damping rates of the shock absorbers (from [4]).
1898 G. GUASTADISEGNI ET AL.

• The key elements of the objective evaluation process, namely: (i) the key performance
indicators, including their relevance to either ride comfort or road holding, and their
association to specific manoeuvres; (ii) the ride evaluation manoeuvres, which can be
divided into single obstacle and long-type road based tests, depending on the road pro-
files; (iii) the instrumentation, providing the data for the computation of the metrics,
and typically including accelerometers on both the vehicle body and unsprung masses,
as well as on the human machine interfaces (physical points of contact), e.g. the seat
and pedals; potentiometers to measure suspension stroke; and 6DoF inertial measure-
ment units installed on the sprung mass; and (iv) the methodology to obtain the data,
which can involve using real vehicles either driven on dedicated test tracks or operating
on post-rigs, or, alternatively, adopting high-fidelity driving simulators or simulation
models.
• The main components of the subjective evaluation methods, i.e.: (i) the subjective
attributes, qualitatively describing specific and relevant aspects of the ride quality, for
which a classification has been proposed, given the very broad range of available def-
initions from different sources; (ii) the procedures to be followed by the involved test
drivers/passengers, including detailed evaluation questionnaires; and (iii) the appropri-
ate selection of the human evaluator sample and control of the test conditions, to reduce
or predict/control the inevitable variability of the subjective scores, e.g. related to the
level of driver experience, anthropological factors, and environment.
• The typical steps to establish the correlation between the objective and subjective ride
assessment results, including: (i) data collection; (ii) pairing the objective metrics with
the subjective attributes; (iii) calculating the correlation levels; and (iv) obtaining the
regression coefficients and related – usually linear – functions, with the ultimate target
of predicting the subjective scores only from the objective metrics, without having to
repeat the subjective assessment for each new vehicle design. To maximise and gener-
alise the benefit on the ride design process, the strength of the correlation identified
through (i) – (iv) should be verified across multiple vehicles of different segments.

In summary, the correlation between objective indicators and subjective attributes could
lead to significant time and cost savings in the vehicle development process, by a pri-
ori discarding design choices, such as suspension geometries and tyre selections, which
could have a negative impact on customers’ satisfaction. However, to reach such benefits,
further research is required, with focus on: (i) establishing the required tools for dealing
with nonlinear correlations, rather than conventional linear regressions; (ii) integrating
the most recent machine learning methodologies into the correlation process, to establish
complex multi-variable models of the subjective human ride sensitivity; and (iii) develop-
ing and comprehensively assessing tools to automatically and robustly translate the vehicle
measurements into subjective scores, and vice versa.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Patrick Gruber http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1030-6655
Aldo Sorniotti http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4848-058X
 VEHICLE SYSTEM DYNAMICS 1899

References
[1] British Standards Institute (BSI).. Mechanical vibration and shock. Human exposure. Vocabu-
lary. London: BSI; 1998. BS ISO 5805:1997.
[2] Deubel C, Ernst S, Prokop G. Objective evaluation methods of vehicle ride comfort-a literature
review. J Sound Vibrat. 2022:548. doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2022.117515.
[3] Drotar T, Palandri J, Wolf-Monheim F, et al. CAE-based driving comfort optimization
of passenger cars. SAE Int J Passenger Cars - Mech Syst. 2015;8(2015-01-1583):703–710.
doi:10.4271/2015-01-1583
[4] Sinasac Z. Subjective evaluation of vehicle semi-active suspension for improved ride and
handling [Master’s dissertation]. University of Windsor in Canada; 2021.
[5] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Road vehicles-vehicle dynamics test
methods-Part 3: General conditions for passenger cars ride comfort tests. 2022. ISO 15037-
3:2022.
[6] Badiru I, Cwycyshyn WB. Costumer focus in ride development. SAE Technical Paper. 2013;
No. 2013-01-1355. doi:10.4271/2013-01-1355
[7] Ghanwat H, Gosavi S, Chasker Sr M, et al. Ride and comfort measurements-a challenge
of subjective and objective correlation. SAE Int J Adv Curr Practi Mob. 2021;4(2021-26-
0445):828–835. doi:10.4271/2021-26-0445
[8] Versace J. Measurement of ride comfort. SAE Technical Paper. 1963; No. 630103.
doi:10.4271/630103
[9] Fichera G, Scionti M, Garesci F. Experimental correlation between the road roughness and the
comfort perceived in bus cabins. SAE Trans. 2007;116:39–49.
[10] Bennett LJ. Ride and handling assessment of vehicles using four-post rig testing and simulation
[Doctoral dissertation]. Oxford Brookes University; 2012.
[11] Neal MW, Cwycyshyn W, Badiru I. Tuning dampers for ride and handling of production
vehicles. SAE Int J Commer Veh. 2015;8(2015-01-1589):152–159. doi:10.4271/2015-01-1589
[12] Fernandes CG, Duarte MDR. A semi-analytical approach for vehicle ride simulation. SAE
Technical Paper. 2008; No. 2008-36-0048. doi:10.4271/2008-36-0048
[13] Little E, Handrickx P, Grote P, et al. Ride comfort analysis: practice and procedures. SAE
Technical Paper. 1999; No. 990053. doi:10.4271/990053
[14] Kaldas MM, Çalışkan K, Henze R, et al. The influence of damper top mount characteristics on
vehicle ride comfort and harshness: parametric study. SAE Int J Passenger Cars - Mech Syst.
2012;5(2012-01-0054):1–21. doi:10.4271/2012-01-0054
[15] Genta G, Morello L. The automotive chassis. volume 2: system design. Springer; 2009.
[16] Ali Böke T, İsa Albak E, Kaya N, et al. Correlation between objective and subjective
tests for vehicle ride comfort evaluations. Proc Instit Mech Eng, Part D: J Automob Eng.
2022;237(4):706–721. doi:10.1177/09544070221080362.
[17] Pepe G, Roveri N, Carcaterra A. Experimenting sensors network for innovative optimal control
of car suspensions. Sensors. 2019;19(14):3062. doi:10.3390/s19143062
[18] Burkhard G, Enders E, Vos S, et al. Acquiring requirements on drive comfort by quantifying
the accelerations affecting vehicle occupants. In AmE 2018-Automotive meets Electronics. 9th
GMM-Symposium. VDE. 2018; 1-6.
[19] Enders E, Burkhard G, Fent F, et al. Objectification methods for ride comfort. Forsch Inge-
nieurwes. 2019;83(4):885–898. doi:10.1007/s10010-019-00361-6
[20] Burkhard G, Berger T, Enders E, et al. Objectifying ride comfort in autonomous driving. In
2nd International Comfort Congress. Delft. Netherlands. 2019; 1–8.
[21] Karjanto J, Wils H, Yusof NM, et al. Measuring the perception of comfort in acceleration varia-
tion using Eletro-Cardiogram and self-rating measurement for the passengers of the automated
vehicle. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2022;17:18–196.
[22] De Rafael S, Manuel J. Development of an on-line ride comfort evaluation tool [master’s thesis].
Stockholm: Farkost och flyg. 2008.
[23] Suciu CV. Ride-comfort of an automobile equipped with colloidal dampers at its frontal
suspension. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Noise and Vibration Eng. 2010: 4233–4245.
1900 G. GUASTADISEGNI ET AL.

[24] Tong W, Guo KH. Simulation testing research on ride comfort of vehicle with global-coupling
torsion-elimination suspension. Phys Procedia. 2012;33:1741–1748. doi:10.1016/j.phpro.2012.
05.279
[25] Klinger F, Edelmann J, Plöchl M, et al. Virtual chassis tuning with emphasis on the damper
characteristics–a method for optimal integrative damper adjustment by means of vertical
and lateral dynamics simulation and evaluation criteria. In 6th International Munich Chassis
Symposium; 2015; Munich. Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden; 2015. 325-346.
[26] Kong Y, Zhao D, Yang B, et al. Non-fragile multi-objective static output feedback con-
trol of vehicle active suspension with time-delay. Veh Syst Dynam. 2014;52(7):948–968.
doi:10.1080/00423114.2014.909942
[27] Zhu JJ, Khajepour A, Esmailzadeh E, et al. Ride quality evaluation of a vehicle with a planar
suspension system. Veh Syst Dynam. 2012;50(3):395–413. doi:10.1080/00423114.2011.592591
[28] Kim BS, Joo KJ, Bae KI. Ride comfort improvement of a compact SUV considering
driving manoeuvre and road surface. SAE Technical Paper. 2011; No. 2011-01-0558.
doi:10.4271/2011-01-0558
[29] Canale M, Milanese M, Novara C. Semi-active suspension control using “fast” model-
predictive techniques. IEEE Trans Cont Syst Technol. 2006;14(6):1034–1046. doi:10.1109/TCS
T.2006.880196
[30] Hegazy S, Sandu C. Vehicle ride comfort and stability performance evaluation. SAE Technical
Paper. 2009; No. 2009-01-2859. doi:10.4271/2009-01-2859
[31] Kashem SBA, Ektesabi M, Nagarajah R. Comparison between different sets of suspension
parameters and introduction of new modified skyhook control strategy incorporating varying
road condition. Veh Syst Dynam. 2012;50(7):1173–1190. doi:10.1080/00423114.2012.659743
[32] Vidal V, Stano P, Tavolo G, et al. On pre-emptive in-wheel motor control for reducing the
longitudinal acceleration oscillations caused by road irregularities. IEEE Trans Veh Technol.
2022;71(9):9322–9337. doi:10.1109/TVT.2022.3172172.
[33] Karen İ, Kaya N, Öztürk F, et al. A design tool to evaluate the vehicle ride comfort character-
istics: modeling, physical testing, and analysis. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2012;60(5):755–763.
doi:10.1007/s00170-011-3592-z
[34] Kim MS, Kim KW, Yoo WS. Method to objectively evaluate subjective ratings of ride comfort.
Int J Automot Technol. 2011;12(6):831–837. doi:10.1007/s12239-011-0095-8
[35] Mastinu G, Gobbi M, Pennati M. Theoretical and experimental ride comfort assessment of
a subject seated into a car. SAE Int J Passenger Cars-Mech Syst; 3(2010-01-0777):607–625.
doi:10.4271/2010-01-0777
[36] Vilela D, Gueler GF. Simulation applied to ride comfort suspension optimization. SAE Tech-
nical Paper. 2005; No. 2005-01-4021. doi:10.4271/2005-01-4021
[37] Mansfield NJ, Whiting-Lewis E. Correlation between objective and subjective measures of
automobile ride comfort for 1203 drivers. In 18th International Congress on Acoustics, Kyoto,
Japan; 2004.
[38] Lauwerys C. Control of active and semi-active suspension systems for passenger cars [Doctoral
dissertation]. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium; 2005.
[39] Narayan J, Gorji SA, Ektesabi MM. Power reduction for an active suspension system in a quar-
ter car model using MPC. In IEEE International Conference on Energy Internet (ICEI). IEEE.
2020; 140-146.
[40] British Standards Institute (BSI). Mechanical vibration. road surface profiles. Reporting of
Measured Data. BSI; 2016. BS ISO 8608:2016.
[41] Šagi G, Lulić Z, Ilinčić P. Multi-objective optimization model in the vehicle suspension system
development process. Tehnièkivjesnik. 2015;22(4):1021–1028.
[42] Kaldas M, Caliskan K, Henze R, et al. Preview enhanced rule-optimized fuzzy logic
damper controller. SAE Int J Passenger Cars - Mech Syst. 2014;7(2014-01-0868):804–815.
doi:10.4271/2014-01-0868
[43] Johnston M. Development and evaluation of vehicle suspension tuning metrics [master’s
thesis]. University of Windsor; 2010.
 VEHICLE SYSTEM DYNAMICS 1901

[44] Johnston MJ, Rieveley R, Johrendt J, et al. Metrics for evaluating the ride handling compromise.
SAE Technical Paper. 2010; No. 2010-01-1139. doi:10.4271/2010-01-1139
[45] British Standards Institute (BSI). Passenger cars. Test track for a severe lane-change manoeuvre.
BSI; 2018. BS ISO 3888-1:2018.
[46] British Standards Institute (BSI). Passenger cars. Test track for a severe lane-change manoeuvre.
BSI; 2011. BS ISO 3888-2:2011.
[47] dos Santos MGD, Chrysakis G, Willmersdorf RB, et al. Development of semi-active
suspension for Formula SAE vehicle. SAE Technical Paper. 2018; No. 2018-36-0224.
doi:10.4271/2018-36-0224
[48] British Standards Institution (BSI). Measurement and evaluation of human exposure to whole-
body mechanical vibration. London: BSI; 1987. BS 6841:1987.
[49] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Mechanical vibration and shock-
Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration. 1997. ISO 2631-1:1997.
[50] Albinsson A, Routledge C. The damper levels influence on vehicle roll, pitch, bounce and cor-
nering behaviour of passenger vehicles-A study in cooperation with Volvo Car Corporation
[master’s thesis]. Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology; 2013.
[51] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Human response to vibration-
Measuring instrumentation. 2017. ISO 8041-1:2017.
[52] Cieslak M, Kanarachos S, Blundell M, et al. Accurate ride comfort estimation combining
accelerometer measurements, anthropometric data and neural networks. Neu Comput Appl.
2020;32(12):8747–8762. doi:10.1007/s00521-019-04351-1
[53] Hu HX. Experimental validation of a half-vehicle suspension model. SAE Technical Paper.
1993; No. 931966. doi:10.4271/931966
[54] Anderson M. Unsprung mass with in-wheel motors-myths and realities. Proc. AVEC’10. 2010;
261.
[55] Leatherwood JD, Barker LM. A user-oriented and computerized model for estimating vehicle
ride quality. 1984; No. L-15745.
[56] Soliman AM. Improvement of vehicle ride comfort using control strategies for the
switchable damper suspension system. SAE Technical Paper. 2016; No. 2016-01-0441.
doi:10.4271/2016-01-0441
[57] Zhang X, Ahmadian M, Guo K. A comparison of a semi-active inerter and a semi-active
suspension. SAE Technical Paper. 2010; No. 2010-01-1903. doi:10.4271/2010-01-1903
[58] Bhagwan Kumbhar P, Xu P, Yang J. A literature survey of biodynamic models for whole body
vibration and vehicle ride comfort. In International Design Engineering Technical Conferences
and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference; American Society of Mechanical
Engineers; 2012. Vol. 45059, 671-687.
[59] Tang C, Zhang Y, Zhao G, et al. Annoyance rate evaluation method on ride comfort of vehicle
suspension system. Chinese J Mech Eng. 2014;27(2):296–303. doi:10.3901/CJME.2014.02.296
[60] Wang F, Easa S. Analytical evaluation of ride comfort on asphalt concrete pavements. ASTM
Int. 2015.
[61] Wang Y, Zhao W, Zhou G, et al. Suspension mechanical performance and vehicle ride comfort
applying a novel jounce bumper based on negative Poisson’s ratio structure. Adv Eng Soft.
2018;122:1–12. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2018.04.001
[62] Lin KY, Hwang JR, Chang JM, et al. Development of a ride comfort evaluation method with a
laboratory testing system. Int J Veh Des. 2011;57(2-3):162–177. doi:10.1504/IJVD.2011.044719
[63] Griffin M. Vibration dose values for whole-body vibration: Some examples. 1984.
[64] Deouskar A, Ramola R, Jha A. A comparative study to assess the effect and cause of ride quality
and comfort of passenger vehicle with subjective correlation. SAE Technical Paper. 2019; No.
2019-28-2410. doi:10.4271/2019-28-2410
[65] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Road vehicles-vehicle dynamics test
methods-Part 1: general conditions for passenger cars. 2010. ISO 15037-1:2019.
[66] SDI 2210, 2260 & 2266 Accelerometers. Available from: https://www.silicondesigns.com/2210-
2260-2266.
1902 G. GUASTADISEGNI ET AL.

[67] Yoo WS, Na SD, Kim MS. Relationship between subjective and objective evaluations of steering
wheel vibration. J Mech Sci Technol. 2011;25(7):1695–1701. doi:10.1007/s12206-011-0420-1
[68] SAE International. Subjective rating scale for evaluation of noise and ride comfort character-
istics related to motor vehicle tires. 2014. J1060. doi:10.4271/J1060_201405
[69] SAE International. Subjective rating scale for vehicle ride and handling. 2016. J1441.
doi:10.4271/J1441_201609
[70] Lu Y, Ma L, Guo J. Study of the subjective and objective correlation on vehicle ride comfort. In
Proceedings of China SAE Congress 2019: Selected Papers. Springer, Singapore. 2021; 319-338.
[71] Bluman A. Elementary statistics: a step by step approach. 9th ed. McGraw Hill. 2014.