Niccolo` Baldanzini

Davide Caprioli
Marco Pierini

Designing the Dynamic Behavior

of an Engine Suspension System
Through Genetic Algorithms

e-mail: marco.pierini@unifi.it
Dipartimento di Meccanica
e Tecnologie Industriali,
Universita` di Firenze,
Via di Santa Marta, 3,
50139 Firenze, Italy

This work presents an innovative approach to dynamic design that has the significant
advantage of allowing the dynamic requirements to be specified from the earliest design
stage. The method applies genetic algorithms to optimize the dynamic behavior of the
engine-subframe system and its links to the chassis. The optimization minimizes the sum of
the amplitudes of the forces transmitted to the chassis from each mounting, while complying with the static and dynamic constraints. The genetic algorithm was applied to a
multibody system model of the engine-subframe system and its links to derive new, improved configurations. DOI: 10.1115/1.1383968

Introduction
Quality and competitiveness are the challenges confronting todays automotive industry. To better meet them, numerical methodologies capable of predicting the behavior of complex system
are gaining increasing importance in the process. Not long ago,
computer-aided engineering CAE and computer-aided design
CAD drastically reduced the number of trial and error loops
required in the costly validation process. The next step will be to
provide designers with simple and efficient models that allow the
evaluation of alternatives and design optimization to be moved up
to the earliest design stages. Our objective in this work was to
develop a method for predicting the dynamic behavior of an automotive subsystem as part of the optimization process. Since
structural problems involve numerous independent variables, we
turned to genetic algorithms, which are eminently suited to such
applications.

Genetic Algorithms
Genetic algorithms are adaptive algorithms that function according to the principles of natural selection and genetics. Their
outstanding feature is the ability to search through complex multidimensional spaces, which derives from their being able to simultaneously explore in several directions. Moreover, needing
only objective functions, they do not require restrictive assumptions about the search spaces regarding the behavior of the function in the domain i.e., continuity and the existence of derivatives. For all the above reasons, genetic algorithms are
particularly advantageous with respect to the conventional gradient, heuristic, and analytical methods.
These features make genetic algorithms especially suited to numerous applications, including self-repair and self-guidance of artificial systems, machine learning, optimization processes, and
wherever biological flexibility is a prime requisite. Genetic algorithms have been successfully used to optimize sensor positions
1 and random signals 2. They are being increasingly applied to
structural problemsalthough the maximum number of independent variables used so far twenty is still quite limited. Some of
the most interesting structural applications to date include optimizing a model to minimize the frequency response function
FRF in a specific frequency band 3, performing threedimensional pipe routing 4, identifying the mounting locations
of a hydraulic pipe circuit that minimize energy transfer to the
support 5, defining the best shape for an elastomeric vibration
Contributed by the Technical Committee on Vibration and Sound for publication
in the JOURNAL OF VIBRATION AND ACOUSTICS. Manuscript received Dec. 1999;
revised Mar. 2001. Associate Editor: J. Q. Sun.

480 Vol. 123, OCTOBER 2001

isolator 6, and optimizing the thickness of a beam damping material to achieve the best performance with the least amount of
material 7.
In the preliminary stage of our research, a specific geneticbased optimization routine was developed to obtain an algorithm,
that would converge quickly and stably to the optimum solution
when applied to complex multidimensional problems. We also
attempted to verify the possibility of solving the problem with an
undersized set of possible solutions population.
Current literature abounds with general purpose criteria to determine the appropriate population size 8 10. Among the simplest is the Levin-Lievin criterion 10, which sets the dimension
of the population to four times the length of a binary coded solution. The problem under investigation comprised a maximum of
48 variables, each of which was binary coded by five digits. Consequently, the coded solution, which was 240 digits long, would
have produced a population of 960 possible solutions. To avoid
the cumbersome and time-consuming process of evolving such a
large population toward optimum, we created a efficient genetic
algorithm to speed up and improve the optimization problem.
We developed a genetic-based optimization routine starting
from a basic structure 11, which comprised the simple genetic
operators reproduction, single-point crossover, and mutation.
Each variable was binary coded with five digits. Reproduction
was performed with a roulette wheel that was linearly biased on
the basis of the objective function values fitness values.
The algorithm was applied to a De Jong test environment as
defined by Goldberg 11 to verify its capabilities and determine
the proper values for the main parameters of the genetic operators.
The fact that the test environments five functions were potentially continuous/discontinuous, convex/nonconvex, unimodal/
multimodal, etc. in mathematical terms notably complicated the
optimization. We rated the validation process as sufficient, since
structural problems may generally be represented by better conditioned functions. Prior to testing, the functions had been extended
to fit the dimensionality of the problem.
The optimization of each function was repeated three times
with a maximum of 100 generations iterations per run. The dimension of the population was also a variable of the turning process. Each modification to the algorithm was tested separately to
properly evaluate its influence, and performance was evaluated on
the basis of optimum attainment and convergence stability.
We analyzed the results to determine the best values for crossover and mutation probabilities (p cross80%, p mut0.7%. In
addition, we modified the algorithms basic structure by adding
new genetic operators and changing some of the existing ones:

Copyright 2001 by ASME

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Several population dimensions were tested 30, 50, 70, and

100 individuals. Fifty individuals were chosen as the optimum
dimension, since with larger populations there was no increase in
the convergence rate as computation times increased.
The single point crossover was replaced with a double point
crossover to preserve long schemata, since the coding of the variables cannot guarantee the constitution of building blocks. A more
detailed explanation of the schema theorem and the importance of
the building blocks for the algorithm convergence can be found in
Goldberg 11;
The preservation of the best solution generation gap was
introduced to avoid the loss of valuable genetic codes in the next
generation;
The scaling of the fitness function was introduced to increase
the weight of the best individuals in the reproduction process.
After testing several kinds linear, quadratic, cubic, etc., we selected a bilinear formulation Eq. 1, because it rewarded the
best solutions without excessively penalizing the worst ones,
thereby avoiding the creation of an overly uniform population.
f

f f AVG

a f f AVG f AVG

f f AVG

Table 1 Mass properties of the engine

(1)

In Eq. 1, a, which must exceed unitary, is the slope of the function. By attributing a higher fitness value to the individuals
which are greater than the population averagewe indirectly contribute to rewarding the most promising schemata, with the result
that the convergence of the optimization occurs at a significantly
faster rate.

Engine Mounting System

The optimization algorithm was applied to an engine mounting
system 1215. The configuration consisted of an engine entirely
supported by a subframe through three mountings. The subframe
was linked to the chassis through four additional mountings. Other
configurations were possible, as both the engine-subframe and
subframe-chassis sets could have either three or four mountings.
Six independent variables were considered for each mounting
three coordinates representing the mounting location in space and
three stiffness along the three main directions, giving a minimum
of 36 and a maximum of 48 independent variables examined in
the system optimization.
Optimization Objectives. Our objective was to optimize the
dynamic performance of an engine support system by minimizing
the sum of the amplitudes of the forces transmitted to the chassis.
The test system consisted of a five-cylinder engine, with secondorder and second-and-a-half-order unbalanced inertia loads, and a
rectangular subframe 16. It was tested at speeds ranging between
600 and 6000 rpm. The constraints were as follows:

was no chance of errors being introduced because at the upper test

limit of 250 Hz considering the second-and-a-half order unbalanced loads and an upper speed limit of 6000 rpm, the engine
actually acted as a rigid body. The subframe was arbitrarily modeled as a rigid body to simplify the model and make it easy to
solve.
Since engine mass generally exceeds the mass of the other components more than one order of magnitude, the engine movements
occurring above its rigid body frequencies were assumed independent of the presence of other components. Thus, the engine behavior was characterized through spatial charts showing the displacements of points stiffly connected to it. These displacements
constituted the inputs needed to determine the forces transmitted
to the chassis. The mass properties of the engine and the subframe
used in the investigation are given in Tables 1 and 2.
The mountings, each of which was made of elastomer with
metal supports, was modeled as a stiffness with a damper mounted
in parallel. The damping was not included in the design variables,
owing to its narrow variation range and the difficulty of manufacturing an elastic mounting with a specific damping value. Damping could be included if, for instance, an active mounting was
considered. An averaged structural damping value of 0.15, obtained by previous experimental measurements, was used for all

Table 2 Mass properties of the subframe

Specific limits had to be respected for the engine displacements and rotations during coded situations, e.g., breaking with a
deceleration of 0.5 g, turning left and right on a flat road with a
friction coefficient of 0.5, applying 80 percent of the maximum
torque along the front axle. The loads were generated by the inertia of the system, but they were time-independent and were thus
simulated as static ones. For this reason, the displacements were
called quasistatic displacements.
The engines rigid body frequencies had to range between 4
and 15 Hz to avoid excitation from vehicle vibration lower limit
and to prevent the excitation of rigid body frequencies at idling
speeds upper limit.
The subframes rigid body frequencies had to be in excess of
50 Hz to prevent the system from being excited at the wheels
rotating frequency.
System Model. A multibody model of the system was created. The engine and subframe were modeled as rigid bodies having a mass and moments of inertia. In the case of the engine, there
Journal of Vibration and Acoustics

OCTOBER 2001, Vol. 123 481

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Table 3 Frequency limits for rigid bodies

exponential formulation was chosen because it better rewarded the

solutions closer to the target with respect to the more distant ones.
Lastly, the values obtained from the exponential function were
linearly scaled to range between zero and a maximum value Eq.
3
f V MAX

Fig. 1 Front view of the mutibody system model

the dampers. The mounting masses, each weighing less than a

half-kilogram, were split into two parts and positioned at the ends
of the couple stiffness-damper.
The effect of the chassis was reproduced with an equivalent
stiffness of 8000 N/mm in series with the subframe-chassis
mountings. The model is schematically illustrated in Fig. 1.
The information regarding the system components were used in
drawing up the systems mass, damping, and stiffness matrices,
which in turn were used to create a linear set of dynamic equations. From this general formulation, a simpler set that neglected
the mass and damping matrices was derived to perform the static
analysis. The full equations were used for two different analyses
to obtain the systems normal modes and its forced response in
terms of displacements which were needed to compute the forces
transmitted to the chassis.

System Optimization
Objective Functions. Objective functions are the most critical aspect of genetic algorithms, because they strongly affect the
entire optimization procedure. Since we were dealing with a multiobjective problem, we had to include several terms that would
simultaneously evaluate performance in terms of constraints and
objectives. This was not an easy task owing to the terms differences in meanings and units of measure. We chose a function
composed of many modules, each of which would account for a
different constraint or objective. Their formulation is independent
of the specific system being analyzed and of the units of measure,
thereby making it possible to compare the different terms.
The first term of the fitness function was related to the quasistatic engine displacements and rotations. A nondimensional variable was defined for each component of the displacements translations: j1, . . . ,3 and rotations: j4, . . . ,6 according to Eq.
2.

x j x jLIM

xj
x jLIM

x j x jLIM

x jMAX
x jLIM

x j x jMAX

and

x j x jMAX

(2)

where x jMAX was set as a multiple of x jLIM . The nondimensional

values were singularly inserted in an exponential function, to
quantify the fitness of the solution of the particular problem. The
482 Vol. 123, OCTOBER 2001

B y B y MAX
B y MINB y MAX

(3)

where y MIN was obtained at the x jLIM and y MAX at the x jMAX .
Equations 2 and 3 reveal that no distinction was made among
the solutions within the limits. To all these solutions the maximum
value of the objective function was assigned. In addition, no distinction was made for the solutions that were very far from the
target and above a fixed threshold; these solutions were assigned a
value of zero. The global value of the module for the quasistatic
displacements was obtained by assuming all the contributions
from all the displacement components of all the coded situations.
The second term of the fitness function Eq. 4 was related to
the systems rigid body frequencies. Since the engine and subframe requirements differed, it was imperative that their vibration
modes be distinguished. A check of the eigenvectors revealed that
the engines rigid body frequencies were the six lowest frequencies, since at least one of its components in each of the first six
eigenvectors was bigger than the corresponding components at the
other frequenciesa predictable effect of the engines substantial
mass. As in the case of the previous module, a nondimensional
variable was defined Eq. 4 before computing the fitness function

f r INF f r i
f r INF

f r i f r INF

f r i f r SUP
f r SUP

f r i f r SUP

for other cases

(4)

where the limits were set according to Table 3.

The previous defined variable was inserted in Eq. 3 to obtain
the fitness function values. The value of y MAX was set to unitary,
which corresponds to an error of 100 percent with reference to the
limits in Table 3. The global value of the module was the summation of the contributions of al the systems rigid body modes. The
V MAX values were allowed to differ for each fitness function module, but they all had to be the same for the components inside the
modules. As a rule of thumb, the V MAX values should be big
enough to have a wide range of variability so as to allow the
genetic algorithm to discriminate among the different solutions.
There is no formal upper limit for the values, but comparable
values should be used among modules. The value may be increased from the current module to the following if the modules
are evaluated consecutively. We used values of 1000 for the displacement module and 2000 for the rigid body modes.
The optimization target comprised contributions of the secondorder and second-and-a-half-order unbalanced inertia loads evaluTransactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Table 4 Engine-subframe mounting stiffness

ated between speeds of 600 and 6000 rpm, yielding, respectively,

frequency ranges of 20200 Hz and 25250 Hz. The contributions were defined according to Eqs. 5 and 6
y

f V MAX

F CALC
F RIF

(5)

yy MAX
y MINy MAX

(6)

where the force reference values changed according to whether

the second-order or the second-and-a-half-order unbalanced forces
were considered.
The value of y MAX was necessarily set greater than unitary. The
possibility of assigning a nonzero fitness value having higher
forces transmitted to the chassis directs the algorithm toward optimum values. Otherwise, the algorithm cannot discriminate
among the solutions which are close to the reference configuration
and those far from the optimum area, thereby missing the information required to move into the domain area where the best
solutions are located.
During optimization, only the first two terms representing constraint compliance were always determined. This last module was
only considered if the other two modules had reached their maximum values, thereby speeding up the optimum search by avoiding
having to compute the forced system response when the solution
was not within the constraints.
Reference Configuration. A system configuration based on
an actual production series was used as reference to evaluate algorithm performance. It consisted of three elastic mountings by
which the engine was attached to the subframe. The subframe was
supported by four elastic mountings on the chassis. The stiffness
for the subframe-chassis mountings were K X 4000 N/mm, K Y
4000 N/mm, and K Z 3000 N/mm. The engine-subframe
mounting stiffness are shown in Table 4.
The model was solved to obtain reference data for the following
test. All the engine displacements were below limits, except for
two rotation values along the X-axis:
X rotation, turn-right test 0.004149 rad limit 0.001745
rad

Fig. 2 Forces of the reference configuration solid line: sum of

all forces; line with circles: second-order forces; line with xs:
second-and-half-order forces

X rotation, application of 80 percent of maximum torque

0.002529 rad limit 0.001745 rad.
Of the systems rigid body frequencies Table 5, the engines
highest frequency exceeded the upper limit. The subframes rigid
body frequencies were quite high in relation to the lower limit.
The results revealed difficulties in limiting engine displacements when the engine was configured with three mountings. The
forces transmitted to the chassis had a mean value of 7.2 N for the
second-order forces and a mean value of 10 N for the second-andhalf-order forces. The peak value of the sum of both contributions
was 42 N at about 3500 rpm Fig. 2.
The transmitted forces were examined to verify the models
compliance to its physical counterpart. The check confirmed that
the values were suitable references for optimization. Thereafter,
no further verifications were necessary, since our main objective
was to make improvements with respect to the reference configuration, i.e., a procedure that only requires good approximation of
the physical model.
Stiffness Optimization. Exploiting the algorithms capabilities, we optimized the reference model with the stiffness as variables so that the program had to optimize only 21 independent
variables. This approach was useful because it enabled us to enhance system performance without modifying the structure.
The stiffness optimization ranges were set for the engine
mountings between 100 and 800 N/mm and for the subframechassis between 1000 and 8000 N/mm. The optimization was per-

Table 6 Comparison
stiffnesses

of

the

engine-subframe

mounting

Table 5 Frequencies of the systems rigid bodies

Journal of Vibration and Acoustics

OCTOBER 2001, Vol. 123 483

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Fig. 4 Forces of the configuration with optimized stiffness

solid line: sum of all forces; line with circles: second-order
forces; line with xs: second-and-half-order forces
Fig. 3 Top and front view of the subframe and the mounting
positions for the reference configuration square: engine center of gravity; circle: engine-subframe mounting; x: subframechassis mounting

formed with an algorithm operating on 50 individuals for a period

of 400 generations. Extremely positive results were achieved, with
the stiffness mostly decreasing. With the changes in the Z-axis
stiffness, which had been modified to achieve better engine balance Table 6, all the constraints could be respected. The results
can be better understood by integrating the stiffness and position
data, as shown in Fig. 3.
With the optimization of the other mountings, all but three of
the stiffnesses decreased below the reference model values and
were set to the lower limit of the variability range. The consequences of the stiffness variations are also visible in the rigid body
frequencies in Table 7: Although both sets of values are well
within the limits, the subframe values are distributed over a wide
range, thereby avoiding the superimposition of the peaks for the
two unbalanced orders Fig. 4.
The transmitted forces increased from 7.2 to 8.0 N for the
second-order forces and decreased from 10 to 6.9 N for the
second-and-a-half order forces. Hence, the optimization which
caused a decrease in the total mean value from 17 to 15 N, was
successful. The peak value decreased from 42 to 24 N and a
smoother behavior was achieved Fig. 4.

maximum range of 0.10.2 m in each direction. The algorithm

parameters number of individuals and generations were the
same.
The results were excellent, with all the engine displacements
and rotations below the limits. The engine-subframe stiffnesses
mostly repeated the pattern of the first optimization, as can be
seen in Table 8. The rigid body frequencies exhibited the same
distribution as in the first optimization Table 9. The frequency
distribution of the forces transmitted to the chassis was qualitatively unchanged, but the average transmitted values decreased
strongly Fig. 5 because of the new position of the mountings
Fig. 6, which better balanced the engine. The sum of the average
transmitted forces decreased from 17 to 11 N as a result of a slight
increase in the second-order forces from 7.2 to 7.8 N and a
decrease in the second-and-a-half-order forces from 10 to 3.4 N.

Table 8 Comparison
stiffness

of

the

engine-subframe

mounting

Global Optimization.
In the second optimization, which
was performed on the same model, the mounting positions were
also considered variables, so that a total of 42 variables was available for the process. The position variability ranges were determined to allow the mountings to move along the subframe over a

Table 7 Frequencies of the systems rigid bodies

484 Vol. 123, OCTOBER 2001

Table 9 Frequencies of the systems rigid bodies

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

the design process. The method is thus applicable from the earliest
design stages to specify and optimize the dynamic performance of
a generic mechanical system. In a forthcoming work, we intend to
improve the model by adding subframe material elasticity. Improvements in subframe modeling will also allow the introduction
of other optimization variables.

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Giovanni Boreanaz, Davide Vige`,
and Marco Danti of the FIAT Research Center for their invaluable
support

Nomenclature

Fig. 5 Forces of the configuration with the optimized stiffnesses and positions solid line: sum of all forces; line with
circles: second-order forces; line with xs: second-and-halforder forces

B base of the exponential function

F CALC sum of all the forces transmitted to the chassis in the
generic solution
F RIF sum of all the forces transmitted to the chassis in the
reference configuration
FRF frequency response function
V MAX maximum value for a module of the fitness function
f fitness value
f fitness value after scaling
f AVG average fitness value of the population
f r i generic frequency
f r INF lower frequency limit for the frequency response
function calculation
f r SUP upper frequency limit for the frequency response
function calculation
p cross crossover probability
p mut mutation probability
x j generic displacement
x jLIM limit for quasistatic displacements and rotations
x jMAX maximum value of x j for which the objective function is evaluated
y nondimensional variable for the calculation of the
fitness function
y MAX maximum value of the nondimensional variable for
the calculation of the fitness function
y MIN minimum value of the nondimensional variable for
the calculation of the fitness function

References

Fig. 6 Top and front view of the subframe and the mounting
positions for the optimized configuration square: engine center of gravity; circle: engine-subframe mounting: x: subframechassis mounting

Conclusions
In this work a novel approach for the design of the dynamic
behavior of an engine suspension system was presented. In the
first part a genetic algorithm for high dimensional problems was
developed and illustrated. A new kind of fitness function was defined to improve performance so that the attainment of each objective was evaluated by a function module. The algorithm was
then applied to the optimization of an actual automotive system
composed of an engine, its subframe, and elastic mountings. The
system was optimized with two different approaches: In the first,
the mounting stiffness was modified; in the second, the mounting
stiffness and positions were modified. In both cases, the results
showed that the optimization improves the configuration, thereby
providing the designer with the information needed to facilitate
Journal of Vibration and Acoustics

1 Concilio, A., De Vivo, L., and Sollo, A., 1996, A Comparison of Different
Strategies for Interior Active Noise Control by Piezoactuators, Proceedings,
ISMA21 Conference, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 247258.
2 Cooper, J. E., De Fonseca, P., and Swivers, J., 1996, Optimal Random Excitation, Proceedings ISMA21 Conference, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 903913.
3 Heylen, W., and Mas, P., 1996, Optimization of Structural Modifications
Based on Frequency Response Functions, Proceedings, ISMA21 Conference,
Leuven, Belgium, pp. 18431850.
4 Chen, W., Fadel, G. M., and Sandurkar, S., 1997, GAPRUS: ThreeDimensional Pipe Routing Using Genetic Algorithms and Tessellated Objects, Proceedings, 1997 Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Sacramento, CA.
5 Edge, K. A., and Kwong, A. H. M., 1996, Minimization of Noise Transmission through Optimizing Hydraulic Pipe Mounting Locations, Proceedings,
ISMA21 Conference, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 549558.
6 Muscia, R., 1997, Development of a Methodology for Vibration Elastomeric
Isolators Design, Proceedings, 10th International ADM Conference, Florence, Italy, pp. 255264.
7 Bregant, L. and Pediroda, V., 1998, Optimal Unconstrained Damping Distributions for Vibrating Elements Using Algorithms, Proceedings, ISMA23
Conference, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 10471054.
8 Cant-Paz, E., Goldberg, D. E., Harik, G. R., and Miller, B. L., 1997, The
Gamblers Ruin Problem, Genetic Algorithms, and the Sizing of Populations,
Proceedings, 1997 IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE
Press, New York, NY.
9 Giguere, P., and Goldberg, D. E., 1998, Population Sizing for Optimum Sampling with Genetic Algorithms: A Case Study of the Onemax Problems, Proceedings, 3rd Annual Conference on Genetic Programming, San Francisco,
CA.
10 Levin, R. I., and Lievin, N. A. J., 1997, Dynamic Finite Element Model
Updating Using Simulated Annealing and Genetic Algorithms, Proceedings,
15th International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, FL, pp. 11951201.

OCTOBER 2001, Vol. 123 485

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

11 Goldberg, D. E., 1989, Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimizations and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, New York, NY.
12 Rivin, E. I., 1985, Passive Engine MountsSome Directions for Further
Developments, SAE Paper #850481.
13 Schmitt, R. V., and Leingang, C. J., 1976, Design of Elastomeric Vibration
Isolation Mounting Systems for Internal Combustion Engines, SAE paper
#760431.
14 Swanson, D. A., Miller, L. R., and Norris, M. A., 1992, Multi-dimensional

486 Vol. 123, OCTOBER 2001

Mount Effectiveness for Vibration Isolation, AIAA/ASME/AHS/ASC, Proceedings, 33rd Conference on Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials,
Dallas, TX.
15 Zhu, J., Haghighi, K., and Krutz, G. W., 1988, Dynamic Analysis of an
Engine Chassis Mount Bracket Using the Finite Element Method, SAE paper
#881854.
16 Heisler, H., 1999, Vehicle and Engine Technology, SAE Edition, Warrendale, PA.

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use