VehicleLabLaunch Studio
Menu

Start here / Result interpretation

Interpret the response as a connected engineering system.

Read body excitation, suspension working space, and tire behavior together—then connect each metric to its full time history.

Match the result to the active workspace

Study shows one completed response, Explore shows an immutable ordered sweep record, and Compare shows one internally consistent Baseline/Variant A record. Editing inputs does not rewrite completed evidence; the compact status reports when a rerun is required.

Result interpretation principle

There is no single best suspension based on one metric.

Ride isolation, suspension working space, and tire behavior can move in different directions when a parameter changes. A credible interpretation considers all of them, the complete transient, and the model boundary.

Peak absolute sprung-mass acceleration

This is the largest absolute body-side acceleration during the study, reported in m/s². A lower peak can indicate lower peak body excitation for the same event, but it is not a complete comfort metric: it does not capture frequency weighting, exposure context, direction sensitivity, or human-response criteria.

RMS sprung-mass acceleration

aRMS=1T0Tas2(t)dta_{\mathrm{RMS}}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{T}\int_0^T a_s^2(t)\,\mathrm{d}t}

The implemented sampled calculation approximates the study-wide acceleration magnitude by taking the square root of the mean squared acceleration samples. It is unweighted RMS acceleration—not ISO 2631 compliance and not a frequency-weighted human-comfort assessment.

Peak suspension travel

ztravel=zszuz_{\mathrm{travel}}=z_s-z_u

Suspension travel is the relative displacement across the suspension, internally in metres and displayed as a peak magnitude in millimetres. Positive travel follows the upward-positive sign convention above. Excessive travel can create packaging or working-space concerns, but this linear model has no bump stops or travel limits.

Peak dynamic tire deflection

ztire=zuzrz_{\mathrm{tire}}=z_u-z_r

This relative displacement compares wheel-side mass motion with prescribed road motion. It is not a complete normal-force or contact-patch analysis: the current linear tire assumes continuous contact and excludes tire damping, contact loss, and static preload.

Reading the plots

Displacement

Road, sprung, and unsprung displacement share one time base. Lag shows delayed response; overshoot and oscillation show modal motion; settling shows damping.

Sprung acceleration

Body acceleration is calculated directly from the governing equation, not by numerically differentiating the plotted velocity channel.

Suspension travel

The plot shows relative movement across the suspension spring and damper throughout the event.

Dynamic tire deflection

The plot shows relative movement between the wheel-side mass and prescribed road input under the continuous-contact assumption.

Reading parameter-response and trade-off plots

A parameter sweep repeats the same study while changing only suspension damping or suspension stiffness. The horizontal parameter-response axes show the exact simulated values. Each marker is one production simulation; gaps between markers are unknown, and the display does not claim a fitted response or continuous optimum.

Read peak and RMS sprung-mass acceleration alongside peak suspension travel and peak dynamic tire deflection. The explicit RMS-acceleration-versus-suspension-travel plot can make competing movement easier to see, but it is not a score or Pareto ranking. Lower acceleration can consume more working space or accompany a different tire response. Objectives, packaging constraints, excitation, the full time histories, and the linear model boundary determine whether a candidate is interesting.

The Baseline is identified where its exact value is a simulated candidate. Selecting a marker or table row only changes the inspection state; it does not alter the record. “Use as Variant A” copies that candidate into the normal comparison workflow so its detailed time histories and neutral deltas can be inspected under the same scenario.

Using exported numerical data, plots, and reports

Study and Compare CSV files use the exact stored numerical channels behind the visible plots, not reduced screen coordinates or recomputed values. Study exports one row per sample. Compare exports aligned Baseline/Variant A pairs on the shared time base. The comparison summary uses the completed record’s changed parameters and metric deltas.

CSV values remain in the documented SI units. Study, Compare, and Explore PNGs use the identical authoritative arrays with a report-oriented Canvas2D renderer, readable legend, grid, curves or discrete markers, and visible axis units. Styling and padding can be enlarged for export, but VehicleLab does not add points, smooth, normalize, resimulate, or silently change engineering values.

A PDF Engineering Report organizes the completed immutable record into configuration, metrics or deltas, professional plots, provenance, assumptions, and limitations. It is neutral evidence: a selected Explore candidate is a user selection, not a best, recommended, or optimized design. The report is generated locally and does not imply certification, measured correlation, OEM approval, or physical validation.

A project file has a different role: it preserves definitions and engineering context so the study can be rerun. It intentionally cannot be cited as a numerical result snapshot because it contains no time histories or completed metrics.

Reading a baseline-versus-variant comparison

Absolute change is Variant A minus Baseline in the quantity’s displayed unit. Relative change divides that signed difference by the baseline. When the baseline is zero, the percentage is Not defined; VehicleLab never displays Infinity or NaN.

Increased, decreased, and unchanged are neutral descriptions. A lower magnitude is not automatically preferable because engineering value depends on objectives, constraints, and the complete coupled response. Both runs therefore use exactly one road, initial state, duration, and solver setting.

Overlay plots expose timing, peaks, oscillation, and settling that a scalar delta cannot. Motion playback is an explanatory view of the same stored channels, not an additional simulation or evidence calculation.

Generated from the regression-protected default study

Worked interpretation

The 0.05 m half-sine event begins at 0.5 s and returns to zero after 0.2 s. The wheel-side response follows the short road event first, transmitting force through the tire and suspension. The body responds more slowly, then its lower-frequency motion decays under suspension damping. Suspension travel records the relative body/wheel motion, while dynamic tire deflection records wheel/road separation within the continuous-contact model.

Generated metricDefault-study value
Peak absolute sprung-mass acceleration5.908 m/s²
RMS sprung-mass acceleration0.830 m/s²
Peak suspension travel41.49 mm
Peak dynamic tire deflection12.84 mm

These values describe this generic input and parameter set only. Consider all four metrics and their plots together; neither setup is universally preferable.

Published numerical evidence

Visual overlap is useful, but quantitative error decides the benchmark.

The Zhao et al. benchmark compares VehicleLab sprung displacement with an independently extracted published passive curve. Maximum error, RMS error, normalized RMS error, peak-amplitude error, and peak-time error are calculated at the published reference times before the browser plot is reduced.

The source provides a plotted vector path rather than raw author data. Axis calibration, line thickness, and sampling therefore create digitization uncertainty and limit the precision VehicleLab can honestly claim. Close visual overlap cannot replace declared thresholds, and a numerical pass is not physical correlation.

Inspect the source, metrics, and limits →