A Deformable Chassis Model: NTRCI - Clemson University

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S.
COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Copyright 2012 SAE International
Thursday, February 09, 2012 11:05:12 AM
A Deformable Chassis Model
2011-01-2165
Published
09/13/2011
Michael Arant
NTRCI - Clemson University
Copyright 2011 SAE International
doi:10.4271/2011-01-2165
ABSTRACT
When modeling the dynamic behavior of a vehicle with a
flexible chassis, it is often necessary to model the
deformation of the chassis in order to obtain accurate
simulation results. Typical solutions for managing the
deformation of the chassis require a trade-off between model
simplicity (e.g. lumped mass models) and model realism (e.g.
multi-body models). In this work, a different approach for
modeling the chassis is proposed where the chassis is
permitted to deform in bending and torsion similar to how a
real chassis would. The proposed chassis model is a simple
finite element model of the chassis which offers realistic
deformations with relatively low computational requirements.
The proposed chassis model manages vertical and lateral
bending deformations as well as torsional deformation. The
parameters needed to define the model can be obtained
through simple tests conducted on the vehicle to be modeled
or through evaluation of the virtual chassis if the vehicle is
still in the conceptual stage. The fidelity of the model can
also be easily adjusted by the user to suit the modeling goals.
Finally, the modeling methodology provides error estimates
which can be used to evaluate the model at each time step to
determine whether the chassis deformation needs to be
reevaluated or if the results obtained from the previous time
step's evaluation are sufficiently accurate to continue with the
vehicle dynamics simulation.
INTRODUCTION
The objective of the chassis model proposed here is to
simulate the deformations of a vehicle frame in a realistic
manner and with reasonable computational costs. Typically,
when a flexible chassis model is used in vehicle dynamics,
the chassis deformation is either simplified to a torsional
spring model without bending [1, 2] or a full chassis FEA

model is employed with the resulting increases in
computational costs [2,3,4,5].
The chassis model proposed here is a very simple onedimensional FEA model which can be inserted into a vehicle
dynamics simulation. The model divides the chassis into
small segments with either a single point load or distributed
load acting on each segment; the choice of load type being
left to the modeler. The modeler also sets the number of
chassis segment elements to be incorporated in the model
based on fidelity needs. These segment loads, along with the
suspension reactions, determine the deformation of the
chassis. Finally, the chassis is assumed to deform about its
neutral axis, the location of which is defined by the modeler.
The location of the neutral axis can be based on the observed
chassis deformation of the actual vehicle or a structural
deformation simulation (Finite Element Analysis) for a
vehicle in the design stage.
The forces and moments applied to the chassis (payload) are
resisted by the suspensions which are treated as point loads
and moments acting on the chassis. The model was developed
such that any number of suspensions could be added at any
location desired by the modeler to account for any given
vehicle configuration. The suspension model also accounts
for the possibility that the suspension(s) may not be aligned
orthogonally to the chassis centerline (e.g., fifth wheel
articulation effects when the tractor and trailer have differing
headings).
Finally, the proposed model was evaluated using test data
generated from steady state testing of a class 8 tractor and a
flatbed semi-trailer [6]. The resulting torsional deformation
and predicted roll angles of the trailer agreed with the
measured values. The validation work also indicated that the
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT

computational cost of the model were reasonable for

inclusion in a dynamics simulation.
MODEL JUSTIFICATION AND

OVERVIEW
Recent research activities by the National Transportation
Research Center Inc. (NTRCI) have provided the opportunity
to develop accurate and detailed functional models of a class
8 tractor and flatbed trailer. This vehicle was subsequently
instrumented with inertial measurement units, GPS,
displacement gages, and strain gages before being subjected
to a battery of handling tests [6]. The resulting track test data
was evaluated and shown to be of good quality (statistical
confidence intervals and repeatability). Unfortunately, the
resulting simulations of the vehicle could not reproduce the
results obtained from the track test data using standard rigid
chassis assumptions [6, 7]. One of the key conclusions drawn
from the modeling efforts was that the chassis deformation
had to be accounted for in order to obtain accurate simulation
results.
THE NEED FOR AN ALTERNATIVE

FLEXIBLE CHASSIS MODEL
When it becomes necessary to simulate the deformation of
the chassis in a dynamics simulation, multi-body or lumped
mass models are generally used. Each of these approaches
has benefits and limitations. Multi-body models are usually
quite accurate and capture all modes of deformation but
require both a significant amount of chassis data to develop
and significant computational time. Lumped mass models are
efficient but generally only model torsion. Lumped mass
models also require estimates of the segment-to-segment
torsional stiffness properties such that the resulting spring
series reproduces the observed full chassis torsional stiffness.
The chassis model presented here is a compromise model that
simulates bending as well as torsion but does not require
detailed data on the chassis design to construct.
MODEL OVERVIEW
The proposed deformable chassis model is simply a series of
one dimensional elements (segments) arranged sequentially
along the chassis neutral axis to which forces and moments
can be applied (Figure 1). The elements can deform in
bending (vertical and lateral) as well as torsion, but cannot
deform longitudinally. Through simple field tests of the
vehicle chassis, the products of the bending modulus and
inertia (EI) and shear modulus and inertia (GJ) can be
obtained. As the chassis deformations are functions of these
products there is no need to know the composite structure
moduli and inertias.
Figure 1. Simplified Chassis Loading
NEGLECTING SHEAR
While not documented here for space reasons, an analysis of
typical commercial vehicle chassis designs was undertaken to
verify that shear deformation could be ignored. The analysis
used the chassis configurations illustrated in the appendix
(Figures 15 and 17) with typical commercial vehicle
dimensions. The deformation energy due to shear was less
than 0.5% of the total deformation energy in all cases
indicating that the model could be limited to bending and
torsion without compromising accuracy.
MODEL DESIGN
The chassis model breaks the vehicle into a series of
longitudinal segments where each segment can have a unique
loading (point load or distributed load) and structural
properties (EI and GJ). The segments are combined using the
principle of superposition such that the deformation of any
given element is a product of that element's deformation plus
the deformations up to that element. This approach is more
efficient than a conventional full chassis (3-D) FEA approach
which typically must evaluate the stiffness and volume of
many hundreds of elements comprising the chassis. Finally,
all chassis deformations are taken to occur about the neutral
axis of the chassis, which is fixed within the chassis frame.
INITIAL CONDITIONS
As the vehicle is supported by the suspensions, the
suspension reactions must be included when evaluating the
chassis deformation. This poses a problem when initiating the
solver as reasonable suspension inputs are needed to produce
reasonable chassis deformations. The initial suspension loads
are estimated using rigid chassis assumptions.
The initial vertical and lateral suspension reactions to the
applied loads can be estimated using linear algebra (Equation
[1]). Here, xi is the location (longitudinal) of a payload force,
Fi is the force, Ff is the sum of the front axle forces, Fr is
the sum of the rear axle forces, xf is the location of the
front axles (averaged position), and xr is the location of the
rear axles (averaged position). An axle is any support
structure connected to the chassis, be that an actual axle, a
fifth wheel connection, or a converter dolly hitch. For cases

where there are more than two axles, the system is overconstrained (assuming a rigid chassis) and the suspension
reactions must be estimated using assumptions about load
sharing between the axles. This is not an unreasonable
approach as tandems are generally designed to equally share
loads permitting the suspension force per axle to be
estimated.
illustration presented here is for a vertical case. As lateral

bending is solved in the same manner as vertical bending, the
lateral case is not presented.
Figure 2. Chassis Loading and Suspension Reactions

(1)
For restorative moments, the rigid body roll angle is
determined as shown in Equation (2). Here the ks terms
denote the effective roll stiffness of each axle. It is
recognized that the roll stiffness of each suspension will not
be known explicitly in most cases and estimates of the roll
stiffness are acceptable. With the estimated roll angle known,
the restorative moment from each axle can be calculated (ks *
).
Beginning with a single chassis segment that is assumed to

have a fixed boundary condition (Figure 3), the slope and
deflection at the end of the segment can be derived as shown
in Equations (3), (4), (5), (6). Each segment can have a
unique modulus and inertia product (EIi) as well as a unique
length (li) and load (Vi or qi). The distributed load option
(Equation [3b]) is more expensive computationally, but has
better fidelity when the segment lengths are longer (fewer
number of segments in model).
(2)
INTERACTION OF SUSPENSION ROLL

AND BENDING
As the axles of the chassis may not remain orthogonal to the
chassis, it is necessary to monitor the orientation of the axles
and to account for their orientation in the analysis. In cases
where the axles are not aligned perpendicularly to the chassis
axis, such as with fifth wheel articulation, a pure roll of the
chassis will result in roll and bending moments from the
suspension. This reduces the restorative roll moment and can
introduce a vertical bending moment into the chassis
depending on the suspension connection properties. Thus the
model accounts for the potential effects of the axle rotating
under the chassis.
BENDING ANALYSIS
The bending analysis method used in the model is quite
simple. Vertical and lateral forces are divided into a series of
small point loads or a series of distributed loads and applied
to the chassis segments. These segments are initially straight
and constitute the longitudinal axis of the chassis. The
boundary conditions used to solve the model are based on the
observation that the free ends of the chassis cannot support
moments and that the sum of all the forces and moments must
be zero. The chassis deformation is then calculated using
assumed suspension reactions and the iterative solution
process continued until the calculated chassis deformation
and resulting suspension reactions meet the boundary
conditions and summation criteria. Note: The bending
Figure 3. Bending for Segment i (Point Load and

Distributed Load)
With the shear force known, the bending moment (Equation
[4]), slope (Equation [5]), and deflection (Equation [6]) can
then be determined. The integration constants are solved for
to achieve the zero net force and zero moment constraints.
(3a)
(3b)
(4)
(5)
(6)
While Equations (3), (4), (5), (6) properly describe the
solution process, they do not immediately convey the strategy

for building the model (coding the model). To illustrate the

method, Equations (3), (4), (5), (6) were recast for an
individual element. It can then be noted that Equations (7),
(8), (9) represent series expansions as the boundary of the ith
element is the end of previous element (i-1)th. Converting to
series summations produces Equations (10), (12), and (14) for
the moment, slope, and deflection. Note that the example case
uses a point force. A distributed force can be substituted if
needed by changing the force summation in Equations (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14).
(7)
(8)
(9)
(14)
It is important to note that Equations (10), (12), and (14)
should not be programmed as shown as this is a very
inefficient structure with multiple loops. Through careful
observation it can be noted that Equation (10) appears in
Equation (12) which appears in Equation (14). Thus the
summations can be stored in vector form (cumulative
summations) significantly speeding the solution calculation.
The A terms in Equation (14) are solved for to obtain a
solution where the sum of the forces is zero, the sum of the
moments is zero, and the moment at the end of the chassis is
zero. Finally, the Ms terms in the series represent potential
bending moments introduced by the suspensions if the
suspensions are not orthogonal to the chassis.
TORSION ANALYSIS
(10)
Like the bending analysis, the torsion analysis can be

completed using either point moments or distributed
moments (Figure 4). Again, the distributed moments are more
expensive computationally, but may be preferred for cases
where the segments are relatively long.
(11)
Figure 4. Torsion for Segment i (Point Load and
Distributed Load)
(12)
The torsion analysis begins with the summation of the

torsional moments (Equations [15a] and [15b]). The torsional
deformation is then the integration of the moments as shown
in Equation (16). As was the case with the bending
deformation, this syntax is not very useful for implementing
in a simulation so the torsional deformation was written as
the summation of the element deformations (Equation [17]).
Expanding the series produced Equation (18).
(13)
(15a)
(15b)

(16)
EI terms for each section of the chassis are desired, then the
deflection needs to be measured at multiple locations along
the trailer and the slopes calculated. The local EI property
determines the local slope of the trailer.
(19)
(17)
(20)
(18)
Similar to the bending analysis (Equation [14]), Equation
(18) should not be programmed as shown as this is a very
inefficient structure with multiple loops. Careful observation
shows that this is a cumulative summation so only the ith
segment needs to be evaluated as the previous elements have
already been solved. The B term is solved so that the total of
all the moments, including the suspensions, is zero. B1 also
represents the initial roll angle at the end of the chassis.
COLLECTING CHASSIS DATA

As the chassis model depends on knowing the product of the
material bending modulus and area moments of inertia (EI)
and the product of the material shear modulus and polar
moment of inertia (GJ), practical means for determining the
chassis properties were needed. To define the bending
response of the chassis, a simple field test was developed in
which a known load could be applied to the chassis and the
deformation assessed (Figure 5). Note that the deflection is
referenced to a line connecting the suspension centers to
remove any suspension compliance effects. The
determination of the torsional response characteristics of the
chassis also required the development of a simple torsion test
where the chassis is twisted using shims and the vertical
forces measured [5].
For the torsion test, the applied torque (measured using the
load cells) and the rotation (from the shim stack height) can
be used to define the GJ property [5]. Equation (21) can be
used for the entire chassis (uniform GJ) or for segments of
the chassis by adjusting the L to be the segment length and
to be the torsional deformation across that segment.
(21)
A VEHICLE DYNAMICS MODEL

TEST CASE
At this point, a vehicle dynamics model needs to be
introduced to illustrate the methodology of implementing the
chassis model. As there was not a dynamics simulation
program on hand which could accept a new chassis model, a
simple static model was developed (Figure 6). This model
could simulate steady state turning but not transient
maneuvers. But as the validation data was from a steady state
test, this was an acceptable solution. Note that the vehicle
model developed here accounts for the potential offset
between the chassis neutral axis (chassis torsion) and the
suspension axis (vehicle roll axis) and that the chassis can
rotate relative to the suspension (deformation).
Figure 5. Bending Test Illustration

Solving for the chassis deflection (Figure 5) resulted in
Equation (19). This was then restated in terms of EI
(Equation [20]). For simplicity, this solution assumes a
constant value for EI for the length of the chassis. If the local
Figure 6. Model Assembly Illustration

FORCES AND MOMENTS

Beginning with any arbitrary chassis segment (Figure 7), the
equilibrium equations (Equations [22], [23], [24]) define how
the applied forces and moments are passed from one segment
to the next where the t terms denote the preceding element
and the r terms denote the following segment or a
combination of the following segment and a suspension. The
result is that the accelerations (linear and angular) of a
segment are functions of the forces and moments applied to
that segment and the segment-to-segment reactions.
Figure 8. Suspension Free body Diagram
(25)
(26)
(27)
Finally, the axle transmits the suspension reactions to the
ground (Figure 9). As the axle is not mass-less, there are
inertial terms associated with the equations of motion
(Equations [28], [29], [30]). Also, the axle is taken to rotate
about the ground and not its center of mass thus the inertia of
the axle needs to be calculated accordingly.
Figure 7. Chassis Free body Diagram
(22)
(23)
(24)
If the restorative terms (Fyr, Fzr, and Mr) are generated from
a suspension (Figure 8) then it can be seen that the
suspension simply transmits the forces and moments to the
axle (Equations [25], [26], [27]). As the suspension mass can
be partitioned and applied either to the chassis or axle as
appropriate, the suspension is treated as mass-less. The result
is that the only contribution the suspension makes to the
stability of the model is the introduction of two additional
degrees of freedom (roll and bounce) and the introduction of
an additional couple from the transmission of the suspension
forces (Equation [27]).
Figure 9. Axle Free body Diagram
(28)
(29)
(30)
ITERATIVE ROLL SOLUTION

By combining the roll moment equations (Equations [24] and
[27]) and the chassis segment linear equations (Equations
[22] and [23]) it can be observed that the suspension roll
moment is a function of the sprung mass location relative to

the suspension roll center and the moments developed while

transmitting the forces acting on the chassis over this
distance. The chassis moments (Mt, mi* i* (Zi+Zs), and
simulations the vertical loads remain reasonably constant

requiring updating only under significant braking when load
transfer is present.
) and the moments generated

across the suspension (Fzt*Ys and Fyt*Zs) combine to form
the suspension moment as shown in Equation (31).
Rearranging Equation (31) produces Equation (32) which
shows the contribution from the sprung mass CG and roll
center separation distance more clearly.
With this observation, the solution process adopted was to

assess the vertical chassis deformation, then the lateral
deformation, and finally the torsional deformation. As the
illustration example documented here is for a single time step
(steady state model), the validation check suggested prior to
solving the system was not executed. However, one can
easily observe that the bending and torsional solvers could be
called once from the vehicle dynamics program to assess the
magnitude of the error (sum of forces and sum of moments)
before deciding to execute the solver loop.
(31)
(32)
Here the lateral offset of the sprung mass CG is a function of
the segment roll angle while the roll angle is a function of the
overturning moment, which is in turn proportional to the
lateral CG offset. This indicates that there exists a feedback
problem with the determination of the overturning moment
experienced by any given chassis segment. It is this
interaction that indicates the need for an iterative solution for
assessing the vehicle's roll and torsional deformation.
SOLUTION IMPLEMENTATION
With the solutions for evaluating the chassis deformation
response to loads defined, a methodology for efficiently
implementing the model was needed. The approach
developed and presented here was designed to minimize the
number of computations needed to obtain a solution. This
was accomplished by minimizing the number of loops needed
to solve the model as well as assessing whether a given time
step needed to be solved or could be skipped based on the
results from the previous time step and the current loading
conditions. The method presented here is by no means the
only approach, but rather an example of how the chassis
deformations might be solved in practice.
ANALYSIS SEQUENCE
As the vertical and lateral forces are functions of the mass
and accelerations only, they can be directly solved for and
used to define the bending deformations of the chassis.
Further, so long as the accelerations experienced by the
chassis do not change appreciably the deformations will not
change appreciably from one time step to the next. This is
especially true for the vertical deflection since many lateral
vehicle dynamics simulations will have a constant vertical
acceleration (gravity). For longitudinal vehicle dynamics
SOLVER SEQUENCE
As vertical loads are usually the simplest to estimate the first
analysis would be the vertical deformation and then lateral
deformation of the chassis. If the suspension behavior is
reasonably linear, the deformation of any given suspension
can be quickly estimated based on the load carried by that
suspension and the effective spring rate obtained from the
previous time step or initial condition estimation. From that
point, the optimization process will generally progress
quickly unless the suspension is entering or exiting a nonlinear region (jounce bumper for instance). Note: The model
works much faster if the first derivative of the stiffness curve
is continuous so instant slope changes in the suspension
curves should be avoided.
With the known vertical and lateral deformations, the
torsional deformation can be determined. This solution may
require an iterative process as the roll response and lateral
load shift produced by the roll of the chassis need to reach an
equilibrium. Fortunately, assessing roll is the shortest and
fastest of the deformation cases to solve.
MODEL VALIDATION
To assess the performance of the proposed chassis model, a
simulation of a flexible flatbed trailer was conducted. The
torsional stiffness properties for the trailer were based on the
results of the kinematics and compliance testing referenced in
U02: Heavy Truck Rollover Characterization (Phase-A)
Final Report [5] while the bending stiffness properties were
based on the geometric chassis model in the appendix and
dimensional measurements made of the flatbed trailer. The
purpose of the simulations was to determine if the chassis
model behaved in a similar manner to the actual vehicle and
to evaluate the potential influence of the chassis deformation
on the solution results.
TEST DATA
The tractor and flatbed trailer were used in a series of steady
state turning tests which documented the vehicle's behavior to

a constant lateral acceleration. The trailer load consisted of

two lumped masses, one centered over the drive axles and the
other over the trailer axles. The data acquired from the testing
included vehicle articulation angle, lateral accelerations, roll
angle for the tractor, roll angle for the front of the trailer, and
roll angle for the rear of the trailer [5].
To avoid the non-linear suspension responses of the jounce

bumpers, the roll and torsion estimates were made at 0.2 g of
lateral acceleration.
From kinematics and compliance testing, the trailer's

torsional stiffness was known [5]. The kinematics and
compliance testing also provided the vertical, lateral, and roll
stiffness curves for the suspensions of the tractor and trailer.
The fifth wheel moment was modeled using geometric
measurements of the hitch and video footage to measure lash
[5].
MODEL RESULTS
The simulation results indicated that the chassis experienced
less than 70 mm of vertical deformation. While there were no
vertical deformation measurements (unloaded vs. loaded) to
reference from the actual vehicle, this number is reasonable
for a flatbed trailer. Additionally, the model's convex shape
(Figure 10) is what was expected given that the two lumped
masses were located 1 meter and 11 meters from the end of
the trailer. The 70 mm vertical compression of the suspension
also agrees with the theoretical response of the trailer based
on the suspension spring rates from the K&C testing. Note:
The actual vehicle used a self-leveling air suspension so the
deflection was subsequently compensated by the leveling
device.
Figure 10. Modeled Vertical Bending Results

The torsional simulation (Figure 11) results were also as
expected indicating that the front of the trailer rolled further
than the rear as observed in testing. The model results also
agreed with the trailer's predicted roll behavior based on the
K&C data and the estimated overturning moments generated
in the test (Table 1). The actual vehicle had a very high
payload which resulted in a low rollover threshold of 0.31 g.
Figure 11. Modeled Torsional Deformation Results (Ay

= 0.2g)
Table 1. K&C Estimated Torsional Deformation Results
(Ay = 0.2 g)
The roll of the tractor and trailer chassis was measured using
two sets of height sensors with known lateral separations.
One set of height sensors was used on the tractor near the
longitudinal CG location of the tractor. Two sets were used
on the flatbed trailer to gage chassis torsion. The first of these
height sensor sets was mounted approximately 2.5 meters
from the rear of the trailer and the second set approximately
10 meters from the rear of the trailer. The resulting front and
rear roll angles of the trailer as a function of lateral
acceleration are presented in Figure 12. The colors represent
four repeats of the test. Note that the time axis is not
expressed so some of the noise in the data is actually the
influence of inertia as the acceleration built up to 0.32 g and
then returned to 0 g.

Figure 12. Physical Test of Trailer Chassis Torsion

The test data indicates that at a lateral acceleration of 0.2 g
the torsional deformation was about 1.2 degrees and the mean
roll angle was about 2.8 degrees. The model results indicated
that the chassis experienced about 1.1 degrees of twist at 0.2
g of acceleration and a mean roll angle of 2.7 degrees. Not
unreasonable estimations from the model.
EFFECT OF ROLL ANGLE ERRORS ON

AXLE STEER
As noted in the introduction, when the chassis deformation is
not properly accounted for, it can result in incorrect roll
moment and roll angle estimations. But errors in estimating
chassis roll angles can also result in incorrect evaluations of
suspension behaviors such as roll steer. If a rigid chassis was
assumed for the vehicle modeled here, the roll angle of the
chassis at the suspension locations would have been
approximately 0.6 degrees off from the true roll angle (half
the torsional deformation per suspension). If the axle steer to
body roll ratio is taken to be 0.2 degrees of steer per degree of
roll, then the error in estimating the axle steer angles would
have been on the order of 0.12 degrees per axle. For the track
test case where the measured side slip was 2.2 degrees at a
lateral acceleration level of 0.2g (Figure 13), this would have
constituted an error in assessing the drive axle steer angle of
about 5%. With a similar error in estimating the trailer's roll
steer, it is easy to see how the understeer properties of the
vehicle could be incorrectly estimated with a rigid chassis
model. Note: This error grows with increased torsional
deformation thus steering response errors increase for higher
lateral acceleration levels.
Figure 13. Measured Drive Axle Side Slip
SUMMARY
The proposed chassis model is a very simple finite element
model where the chassis parameters are derived from simple
tests of the actual vehicle. The user can tune the fidelity of
the model by defining the number of longitudinal segments in
the model where more segments improve accuracy at a cost
of more computational time. Multiple suspensions can also be
accommodated by the model through the addition of
suspension reaction points where appropriate. Finally, the
suspension and chassis reactions are properly managed to
account for axle roll steer and articulation effects so that the
moments developed in the suspension are correctly applied to
the chassis.
While it was not possible to conduct a full non-linear
dynamic simulation to validate the proposed chassis model,
the performance of the chassis model was evaluated in a
steady state (fixed lateral acceleration) case. The results
showed that the model was able to reproduce the correct
trailer deformation shapes and roll behavior. The deformation
magnitudes were also reasonable given that the overturning
moments applied to the modeled chassis had to be estimated
from the field tests.
The chassis model illustrated here was solved using a very
fine 10 mm segment length. This resolution is much finer
than needed for accurate simulation studies. The fine
resolution was selected solely because it produced very
smooth deformation shapes. As the computational time is
related to the number of elements, reducing the model
resolution will significantly reduce the computational cost of
the model.

REFERENCES
1. Lawson, R., Optimization to Reduce Rollover Propensity
of Tractor Semi-Trailers during Steady State Cornering,
Clemson University, 2004.
2. Evers, W., Besselink, I., Nijmeijer, H. & Van der Knaap,
A., Development and Validation of a Modular Simulation
Model for Commercial Vehicles, Int. J. Heavy Vehicle
Systems, vol. 16, no. 1/2, pp. 132-132-153, 2009.
3. Yi, T., Vehicle Dynamic Simulations Based on Flexible
and Rigid Multibody Models, SAE Technical Paper
2000-01-0114, 2000, doi:10.4271/2000-01-0114.
4. Zhang, Y., Xiao, P., Palmer, T., and Farahani, A.,
Vehicle Chassis/Suspension Dynamics Analysis - Finite
Element Model vs. Rigid Body Model, SAE Technical
Paper 980900, 1998, doi:10.4271/980900.
Iyy
Area moment of inertia about Y axis
J
Polar moment of inertia
Pl
Lateral force applied to the chassis
Pv
Vertical force applied to the chassis
mi
Mass of chassis segment i
5. Azadi, S., Vaziria, M. & Hoseinia, M. 2110, Vehicle

dynamic control of a passenger car applying flexible body
model, Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 587-617
Ii
6. Pape, D., Arant, M., Hall, D., Nelson, S., Petrolino, J.,
Franzese, O., Knee, H.E., Wood, N., Yeakel, S., Hathaway,
R., Keil, M. & Pollock, P., U02: Heavy Truck Rollover
Characterization (Phase-A) Final Report, National
Transportation Research Center Incorporated, 2008.
7. Arant, M., Assessing the Effect of Chassis Torsional

Stiffness on the Accuracy of Heavy Vehicle Understeer and
Rollover Modeling, Clemson University, 2010.
Rotational inertia of chassis segment i
Roll angle of chassis segment i

i
Lateral acceleration of chassis segment i
CONTACT INFORMATION
Michael Arant
National Transportation Research Center, Inc.
9125 Cross Park Drive
Suite 150
Knoxville, TN 37923
-AND4 Research Drive
Clemson University International Center for Automotive
Research
Greenville, SC 29607
moarant@gmail.com
Vertical acceleration of chassis segment i

Yi
Lateral distance between CG of segment i and the
neutral axis of segment i
Zi
Vertical distance between CG of segment i and the
neutral axis of segment i
Mt
Moment passed between chassis segments
DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
E
Bending modulus
G
Shear modulus
Ixx
Area moment of inertia about X axis
Fyt
Lateral force passed between chassis segments
Fzt
Vertical force passed between chassis segments

Mr
Fzi
Moment passed from suspension to chassis
Fyr
Vertical ground force (inside wheel)

Fi
Lateral force passed from suspension to chassis

Fzr
Point load force

xi
Vertical force passed from suspension to chassis

Ys
Location of a point load force

Ff
Lateral distance between suspension roll center and

the neutral axis of segment i
Front axle force

xf
Zs
Location of front axle

Vertical distance between suspension roll center and
the neutral axis of segment i
Fr
Rear axle force
Ms
Moment passed from suspension to axle
xr
Location of rear axle
Fys
Lateral force passed from suspension to axle
ks
Suspension roll stiffness
Fzs
Vertical force passed from suspension to axle
ma
Mass of axle
a
Lateral acceleration of axle
Vertical acceleration of axle

Fyo
Lateral ground force (outside wheel)
Fzo
Vertical ground force (outside wheel)
Fyi
Lateral ground force (inside wheel)

APPENDIX
CENTROID AND SHEAR CENTER
For non-symmetrical structures, bending moments can
produce torsional deformations and torsional moments can
produce bending deformations as the centroid and shear
centers are offset from each other. This interaction of bending
and torsion was not accounted for in the chassis model
presented here as almost all commercial vehicle chassis are
nearly symmetric (left to right and top to bottom). To
illustrate the chassis symmetry, a typical tractor chassis and
trailer chassis are documented below (Figure 14, Figure 16)
along with a schematic of each chassis (Figure 15, Figure 17).
Figure 16. Typical Flatbed Trailer Chassis Geometry
Figure 17. Modeled Trailer Chassis Geometry

Figure 14. Typical Tractor Chassis Geometry
Figure 15. Modeled Tractor Chassis Geometry

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has
successfully completed SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session
organizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE.
ISSN 0148-7191
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not
necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.
SAE Customer Service:
Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org
SAE Web Address: http://www.sae.org
Printed in USA

A Deformable Chassis Model: NTRCI - Clemson University

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Deformable Chassis Model: NTRCI - Clemson University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S.

A Deformable Chassis Model

spring model without bending [1, 2] or a full chassis FEA

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT

computational cost of the model were reasonable for

MODEL JUSTIFICATION AND

THE NEED FOR AN ALTERNATIVE

Figure 1. Simplified Chassis Loading

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT

illustration presented here is for a vertical case. As lateral

Figure 2. Chassis Loading and Suspension Reactions

Beginning with a single chassis segment that is assumed to

INTERACTION OF SUSPENSION ROLL

Figure 3. Bending for Segment i (Point Load and

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT

for building the model (coding the model). To illustrate the

Like the bending analysis, the torsion analysis can be

The torsion analysis begins with the summation of the

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT

COLLECTING CHASSIS DATA

A VEHICLE DYNAMICS MODEL

Figure 5. Bending Test Illustration

Figure 6. Model Assembly Illustration

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT

FORCES AND MOMENTS

Figure 8. Suspension Free body Diagram

Figure 7. Chassis Free body Diagram

Figure 9. Axle Free body Diagram

ITERATIVE ROLL SOLUTION

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT

the suspension roll center and the moments developed while

simulations the vertical loads remain reasonably constant

) and the moments generated

With this observation, the solution process adopted was to

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT

a constant lateral acceleration. The trailer load consisted of

To avoid the non-linear suspension responses of the jounce

From kinematics and compliance testing, the trailer's

Figure 10. Modeled Vertical Bending Results

Figure 11. Modeled Torsional Deformation Results (Ay

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT

Figure 12. Physical Test of Trailer Chassis Torsion

EFFECT OF ROLL ANGLE ERRORS ON

Figure 13. Measured Drive Axle Side Slip

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT

5. Azadi, S., Vaziria, M. & Hoseinia, M. 2110, Vehicle

7. Arant, M., Assessing the Effect of Chassis Torsional

Rotational inertia of chassis segment i

Roll angle of chassis segment i

Vertical acceleration of chassis segment i

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT

Vertical ground force (inside wheel)

Lateral force passed from suspension to chassis

Point load force

Vertical force passed from suspension to chassis

Location of a point load force

Lateral distance between suspension roll center and

Front axle force

Location of front axle

Vertical acceleration of axle

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT

Figure 16. Typical Flatbed Trailer Chassis Geometry

Figure 17. Modeled Trailer Chassis Geometry