Vehicle Dynamics

Technical Seminar Series - Vehicle Dynamics
August 2006
ArvinMeritor Quarterly Technical

Seminar Series – Part II
Vehicle Dynamics
Troy Tech Center

July 31, 2006
1
August 2006
Objectives
• To introduce the basic concepts in vehicle dynamics, focusing on
vehicle handling and stability
• To demonstrate the use of TruckSim software in simulating in the
dynamics of trucks and tractor-semi-trailer combinations
• To identify the vehicle parameters that are pertinent to vehicle
dynamics
• Identify parameters required as inputs to TruckSim
• Propose improvements to standard laboratory tests
• To identify the vehicle tests and associated vehicle performance
metrics used in assessing the handling performance of vehicles
• Propose improvements to skid pad tests
2
August 2006
Presentation Outline
• Basic Tire Behavior
• Basics of Vehicle Dynamics: Steady-State Cornering
• Vehicle Tests for Handling Performance
• Using TruckSim to Simulate Vehicle Dynamics
• Inputs to TruckSim: Vehicle Parameters
• Examples of Using Simulation Results in Generating
Vehicle Handling Performance Metrics
3
August 2006
Basic Tire Behavior
4
August 2006
SAE Tire Axis System
5
August 2006
Definition of Slip Ratio during Braking
6
August 2006
Generation of Longitudinal Force
7
August 2006
Longitudinal Force vs. Slip Ratio
8
August 2006
Effect of Road Surface on Longitudinal

Force Adhesion/Friction Coefficient
9
August 2006
Generation of Lateral Force and Aligning

Torque
10
August 2006
Lateral Force and Aligning Torque vs.

Slip Angle
11
August 2006
Comparing Cornering Force and Camber

Thrust
12
August 2006
Combined Slip: Friction Circle Diagram
13
August 2006
Combined Slip: Cornering Force and

Aligning Torque vs. Longitudinal Force
14
August 2006
Factors Affecting Tire Forces and

Moments
• Slip Ratio, Slip Angle, Inclination Angle
• Normal (Vertical) Force
• Road Surface
• Tire Inflation Pressure
• Speed of Travel
• Tire Wear
• Tread Pattern
• Tire Construction (Bias Ply vs. Radial Ply)
15
August 2006
Key Idea from Basic Tire Behavior:

• Control of vehicle dynamics implies controlling the
following 4 variables at each wheel:
• Tire Slip Ratio
• Tire Slip Angle
• Tire Inclination Angle
• Tire Normal Force
• The above variables determine the friction forces
between the tire and the ground
• How do we distribute the friction forces among all the
wheels to get the desired vehicle behavior?
16
August 2006
Basics of Vehicle Dynamics:

Steady-State Cornering
17
August 2006
SAE Vehicle Axis System
18
August 2006
Vehicle-Fixed SAE Coordinate System:

Symbols and Definitions
19
August 2006
Rigid Sprung Mass Equations of Motion
20
August 2006
Simplified Equations of Motion of the

Rigid Sprung Mass
21
August 2006
Bicycle Model for Lateral Dynamics
22
August 2006
Bicycle Model for Lateral Dynamics

• Assumptions
• Constant forward velocity, u
• No suspension, no vehicle roll or pitch
• Front wheel steer angle is the average of LH and RH steer
• Motions are small perturbations from an initial trim condition
• All angles are small
• Roadway is flat and level
• Tire lateral forces are linear functions of tire slip angles
• Neglect tire aligning moment
• Neglect lateral load transfer
• Vehicle is symmetric with respect to x-z plane
• Consider only “fixed control” response, i.e., steer angle input
23
August 2006
Bicycle Model: Kinematics

• Front slip angle:
v + ar
αf = −δ f
u
• Rear slip angle:
v −br
αr =
u
• C.G. lateral acceleration
•
ay =v + r u
24
August 2006
Bicycle Model Equations of Motion

• Tire force-vs-slip angle relation:
Fyf = − C f α f ; Fyr = − C r α r
• Derivation of equation of motion along the lateral
direction:
m a y = ∑ Fy = Fyf + Fyr
•
m ( v + r u) = − C f α f − Cr α r
•  (aC f − bC r )  (C f + C r )
m v + mu + r + v = Cfδ f
 u  u
25
August 2006

• Derivation of equation of motion along the yaw direction
•
I zz r = ∑ M z = a Fyf − b Fyr
•
I zz r = − a C f α f + b C r α r
• (a 2 C f + b 2 C r ) (a C f − b C r )
I zz r + r+ v = a Cf δ f
u u
26
August 2006

• Let the state variables be (v, r )
• Coupled equations of motion are:
•  (aC f − bC r )  (C f + C r )
m v + mu + r + v = Cfδ f
 u  u
• (a C f + b C r )
2 2
(a C f − b C r )
I zz r + r+ v = a Cf δ f
u u
27
August 2006

• Standard, first-order matrix form of the state equations:
 − (C f + C r ) (bC r − aC f )   Cf 
 −u
d  v  mu mu  v  m 
  =   + δ f
dt r   (bC r − aC f ) − ( a C f + b C r )  r   a C f
2 2

 I zz u I zz u   I zz 
 
28
August 2006
Steady-State Response
• Steady-state response determined by setting the first
derivatives of the state variables to zero
• Yaw rate gain
r u
=
δf m(aC f − bC r )u 2
ss ( a + b) −
(a + b)C f C r
• Lateral acceleration gain
ay u2
=
δf m(aC f − bC r )u 2
ss ( a + b) −
(a + b)C f C r
29
August 2006
Steady-State Response
• If we define the understeer coefficient as
Fzf Fzr m g (bC r − aC f )
K us = − =
C f Cr (a + b)C f C r
• Yaw rate gain
r u
=
δf K us u 2
ss ( a + b) +
g
• Lateral acceleration gain
ay u2
=
δ f ss K us u 2
( a + b) +
g
30
August 2006
v +ar v −br
αf = −δ f αr =
u u
( a + b) r L
δf = − α f +α r δ f = − α f +α r
u R
31
August 2006
Equilibrium Equations during

32
August 2006
Steady-State Handling Equation

L
δ f = − α f +α r
L  Fzf Fzr  u r
δ f = + − 
R R  C f C r  g
Fyf = − C f α f Fyr = − C r α r
L  Fzf Fzr  u 2
L  Fyf Fyr  δ f = + − 
δ f = + −  R  C f C r  R g
R  C f C r 
b a FzfFzr
Fyf = m u r Fyr = m u r K us = −
L L C f Cr
L b / L a / L  L u2
δ f = + −  mu r δ f = + K us
R  C f C r 
R Rg
33
August 2006
Characteristic Speed and Critical Speed

• Characteristic speed (understeer vehicle) – the speed at
which the steer angle required to maintain the turn
radius is equal to twice the Ackermann steer angle
gL
u char =
K us
• Critical speed (oversteer vehicle) – the speed at which
the steer angle to maintain the turn radius is equal to
zero gL
u crit =
− K us
34
August 2006
Steady-State Response to Steer Inputs

L u2
• Steer angle versus speed δ f = + K us
R Rg
35
August 2006

• Curvature response 1/ R 1
=
δf K us u 2
ss L+
g
36
August 2006

• Yaw rate gain r u
=
δf K us u 2
ss L+
g
37
August 2006

• Lateral acceleration gain ay u2
=
δf K us u 2
ss L+
g
38
August 2006
Vehicle Tests for Handling Performance
39
August 2006
Constant Radius Test
L ay
δ f = + K us
R g
∂δ f
K us =
∂ (a y / g )
40
August 2006
Constant Speed Test
gL  ay  ay
δf = 2   + K us
u  g  g
∂δ f gL
= 2 + K us
∂ (a y / g ) u
gL
u 2
crit =
− K us
41
August 2006
Constant Speed Test: Handling

Diagrams
ay
K us = −( r ⋅ L / u − δ f )
g
42
August 2006
Constant Steer Angle Test
1 δ f K us a y
= −
R L L g
∂ (1 / R) K us
=−
∂ (a y / g ) L
43
August 2006
Constant Steer Angle Test :

Understeer Gradient Prediction
• Understeer gradient can be predicted by using an ADAMS or
TruckSim model of the vehicle
• Based on constant steer angle test
• Perform 2 simulations of vehicle response to a specified step steer
input, each simulation having a different initial velocity
• No need to model driver steering control, no need to model vehicle
speed (drive torque) control
L ( a y )1 L (ay )2
δ f = + K us = + K us
R1 g R2 g
(1 / R2 − 1 / R1 ) Lg  a y 2 a y1 
K us = L g =  2 − 2 
( a y1 − a y 2 ) ( a y1 − a y 2 )  u2 u1 
44
August 2006
Constant Steer Angle Test :

Understeer Gradient Prediction
Steady-State Values: 70 kph 80 kph 90 kph 100 kph
Vehicle Speed (km/hr) 69.95 79.94 89.94 99.20
Lateral Acceleration (g's) 0.26 0.29 0.31 0.33
Yaw Rate (degrees/sec) 7.63 7.28 6.95 6.66
Vehicle Roll Angle (degrees) 4.18 4.85 5.32 5.68
Vehicle Slip Angle (degrees) -0.73 -1.06 -1.38 -1.66
Percent Overshoot: 70 kph 80 kph 90 kph 100 kph

Lateral Acceleration (pct.) 3.86 6.29 9.61 12.81
Yaw Rate (pct.) 15.26 21.01 25.82 30.08
Vehicle Roll Angle (pct.) 5.45 9.11 10.72 13.70
Vehicle Slip Angle (pct.) 25.31 33.34 42.99 52.48
Response Time: 70 kph 80 kph 90 kph 100 kph

Lateral Acceleration (sec) 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34
Yaw Rate (sec) 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.17
Vehicle Roll (sec) 1.15 1.12 1.09 1.07
Vehicle Slip (sec) 0.83 0.79 0.79 0.79
Handling Performance Metrics 75 kph 85 kph 95 kph Average

Understeer Gradient (deg/g) 10.80 9.18 8.18 9.39
Vehicle Roll Gradient (deg/g) 27.22 21.62 20.21 23.02
45
August 2006
Take-Away: Steady-State Cornering

Fzf Fzr
• Understeer gradient: K us = −
C f Cr
L u2
• Steady-state handling equation: δ f = + K us
R Rg
• A critical speed exists when a vehicle is oversteer
• Characteristic speed is a measure of understeer
• Steady-state characteristics are important performance
metrics of vehicle handling capabilities
• Understeer gradient determines steady-state response
• Standard tests are available for measuring understeer
gradient
46
August 2006
Other Factors Affecting Understeer
47
August 2006

• Lateral load transfer / roll moment distribution
• Tire camber (may be induced by vehicle roll)
• Roll steer
• Lateral force compliance (steer and camber)
• Aligning torque compliance (steer and camber)
• Aligning torque
• Tractive force (FWD vs. RWD)
• Steering system compliance
48
August 2006
49
August 2006
50
August 2006
51
August 2006
Understeer Budget: Example 1

• Prof. Barak’s example (SAE Seminar)
• Tire cornering stiffness and weight distribution
contributes 50% to vehicle understeer
• Aligning torque compliance steer contributes 23% to
vehicle understeer
Factor Front (deg/g) Rear (deg/g) Front – Rear
(deg/g)
Tire Cornering Stiffness 3.24 1.86 1.38
Aligning Torque 0.065 -0.088 0.153
Aligning Torque Compliance 0.665 0.038 0.627
Lateral Force Compliance 0.20 0.11 0.09
Roll Camber (with aligning torque) 0.86 0.46 0.40
Roll Steer 0.35 0.23 0.12
Understeer Gradient 5.38 2.61 2.77
52
August 2006
Understeer Budget: Example 2

• J. C. Dixon, Tires, Suspension and Handling (SAE
Publication, 1996):
• Tire cornering stiffness and weight distribution
contributes 14% to vehicle understeer
• Aligning torque compliance steer contributes 29% to
vehicle understeer
Factor Front (deg/g) Rear (deg/g) Front – Rear
(deg/g)
Tire Cornering Stiffness 7.2 6.6 0.6
Aligning Torque 0.1 -0.1 0.2
Aligning Torque Compliance 1.3 0.1 1.2
Lateral Force Compliance 0.2 0.2 0.0
Roll Camber 1.2 0.0 1.2
Roll Steer 0.5 -0.5 1.0
Understeer Gradient 10.5 6.3 4.2
53
August 2006
Take-Away: Factors Affecting Understeer

• Understeer is not determined by the ratio of axle load to
tire cornering stiffness alone
• Suspension design can have a big impact on vehicle
understeer/oversteer characteristics
• The steady-state handling equation derived from the
linear bicycle model can still be used as long as we
account for other effects that contribute to the
understeer gradient
54
August 2006
Limit Handling Performance due to

Nonlinear Tire Characteristics
55
August 2006
Limit Handling due to Tire Nonlinearities

• Motivation: load sensitivity of rear axle tire lateral force
• Normal force increases due to lateral load transfer
• Increase in normal force results in increase in required slip
angle to maintain the same level of required lateral force
• Increase in slip angle results in decrease in cornering force
• Change in cornering compliance may result in oversteer
56
August 2006

• Basic kinematic relation between steer angle and tire
slip angles still applies
L L
δ f = − α f +α r δ f = + α1 − α 2
R R
• Four possible cases, as lateral acceleration increases:

• Initial oversteer, becomes more oversteer (vehicle spins)
• Initial understeer, becomes more understeer (vehicle plows)
• Initial understeer, becomes oversteer (vehicle spins)
• Initial oversteer, becomes understeer (vehicle plows)
57
August 2006
Case 1:
OS
Case 2:
US
58
August 2006
Case 3: US OS Case 4: OS US
59
August 2006
Ideal US
60
August 2006
Take-Away: Limit Handling

• Vehicle US/OS characteristics are not constant due to
nonlinearities in the tire force-deflection relations
• Other factors such as body roll will change the US/OS
characteristics of the vehicle during operations
• Commercial vehicles, due to their high C.G. locations,
are more susceptible to changes in US/OS
• Consider understeer gradient as the slope of (α1 – α2)
vs. (Ay/g) curve
61
August 2006
Steady-State Handling of Tractor-Semi-Trailer

Combinations
62
August 2006
Steady-State Handling Model of Tractor-Semi-

Trailer Combination
63
August 2006
Handling Equation for the Tractor
 W
Lt  f Wr  u  2
δf = + −
R  Cαf Cαr  R g
2
Lt u
δ f = + K us ,t
R Rg
64
August 2006
Handling Equation for the Semi-Trailer
Ls  Wr Ws  u 2
Γ = +  − 
R  Cαr Cαs  R g
2
Ls u
Γ = + K us , s
R Rg
65
August 2006
Trailer Articulation Angle Gain
Γ ( Ls R ) + K us , s u R g
=
( 2
)
δ f ( Lt R ) + K us ,t u R g
2
( )
• 2 Modes of Instability Possible
• Tractor Jackknife
• Trailer Swing
• Note: stability analysis results are first-order
approximations from linear model
66
August 2006
Tractor Jackknife
• 2 Cases Possible
• Case 1: K us ,t < 0 and K us , s > 0
• Case 2: K us ,t < 0 and K us , s < 0
and (K us , s K us ,t ) < ( Ls Lt )
g Lt
• Critical Speed ucrit =
− K us ,t
67
August 2006
Tractor Swing
• K us ,t < 0 and K us , s < 0
and (K us , s K us ,t ) > ( Ls Lt )
• Critical Speed
g Lt
ucrit =
− K us ,t
68
August 2006
Using TruckSim to Simulate Vehicle Dynamics
69
August 2006
Vehicle Test or Computer Simulation?

• Vehicle tests are more appropriate when:
• Test vehicle for a specific product is available
• Objective is to identify potential problems in normal operation of
a specific vehicle
• A subjective evaluation is required from a driver or passenger
• Problem requires high fidelity modeling such that modeling and
simulation requires too much time
• Operator safety (e.g., crash or rollover events) is not an issue
• Etc.
70
August 2006
Vehicle Test or Computer Simulation?

• Modeling and simulation are more appropriate when:
• Test vehicle for a specific product is not available
• Objective is to identify the cause of performance problems
• A sensitivity study on one or more design variables is desired
• Design synthesis: evaluate candidate designs and answer many
“what if” questions
• Problem of concern requires low or moderate fidelity models
such that modeling and simulation can be accomplished in a
reasonable amount of time
• Repeatable tests of rollover or crash events are desired
• Accident reconstruction
• Etc.
71
August 2006
TruckSim
• Simulate dynamic behavior of trucks, buses, and tractor-
semi-trailer combinations
• Simulate response of vehicle to driver inputs such as
steering, braking, and acceleration
• Simulate response of vehicle to environment such as
rough roads, wind
• Includes provisions for interfacing with Matlab/Simulink
to simulate the response of the vehicles with active
controls (e.g., active suspension or steering)
72
August 2006
Why Use TruckSim?

• Pre-defined vehicle models – no need to create a model
from scratch; requires user to input vehicle parameters
• Fast runtime – vehicle models are represented by
ordinary differential equations (ODE’s) using a minimum
number of independent variables
• Easy to use interface –interfaces are intuitive, and can
be navigated like a web browser
• What If Analysis – vehicle design parameters can be
changed quickly, hence, design decisions regarding
vehicle dynamics can be made quicker
• Mature product – developed by UMTRI in 1980’s
73
August 2006
TruckSim Models
• Single-unit truck or bus
• 1 or 2 steer axles
• Single or tandem drive axles
• Front: solid axle or independent suspension
• Rear: solid axle suspension
• Frame twist feature available with custom license
• Tractor-semi-trailer combination
• Tractor: 2 or 3 axles, all solid axle suspensions
• Semi-trailer: 1, 2, or 3 axles, all solid axle suspensions
• A-train doubles
• Double trailers with single trailer axles
• Special configurations possible with custom license
74
August 2006
TruckSim: Typical Scenarios

• Constant Radius Test
• Step Steer Test
• Double Lane Change
• Straight-line braking (constant-µ or split-µ)
• Braking while turning
• Acceleration
• Rollover: fish-hook maneuver
75
August 2006
TruckSim: Run Control Screen
76
August 2006
TruckSim: Vehicle Configuration Screen
77
August 2006
TruckSim: Tractor Screen (3 axles)
78
August 2006
TruckSim: Trailer Screen (3 axles)
79
August 2006
TruckSim: Trailer Payload Screen
80
August 2006
TruckSim: Tractor Screen (2 axles)
81
August 2006
TruckSim: Tractor Sprung Mass Screen
82
August 2006
TruckSim: Solid Axle Kinematics Screen
83
August 2006
TruckSim: Axle Lateral .vs. Roll Motion
84
August 2006
TruckSim: Suspension Screen
85
August 2006
TruckSim: Suspension Compliance
86
August 2006
TruckSim: Suspension Damping
87
August 2006
TruckSim: Auxiliary Roll Stiffness
88
August 2006
TruckSim: Tires
89
August 2006
TruckSim: Tire Data - Longitudinal Forces
90
August 2006
TruckSim: Tire Data - Lateral Forces
91
August 2006
TruckSim: Tire Data - Aligning Moment
92
August 2006
TruckSim: Tire Model – Pacejka Coefficients
93
August 2006
TruckSim: Steering System
94
August 2006
TruckSim: Steered Wheel Kinematics
95
August 2006
TruckSim: Brake System
96
August 2006
TruckSim: Brake Torque Data from Dyno
97
August 2006
TruckSim: Truck with Powertrain
98
August 2006
TruckSim: 4WD Powertrain
99
August 2006
TruckSim: Engine Torque Map
100
August 2006
TruckSim: Transmission Gear Ratios
101
August 2006
TruckSim: Transmission Shift Schedule
102
August 2006
TruckSim: Viscous Differential
103
August 2006
TruckSim: X-Y Plots (Post-Processing)
104
August 2006
Embedding a TruckSim Model in

Matlab/Simulink
105
August 2006
TruckSim: Animation (Post-Processing)
106
August 2006
TruckSim Results: Constant Radius Test
107
August 2006
TruckSim Results: Constant Speed Test
108
August 2006
TruckSim Results: Constant Steer Angle Test
Lateral Acceleration Yaw Rate
109
August 2006
Summary of Suspension Characterization

Inputs Required in TruckSim
• Suspension kinematics • Suspension compliance
• Axle steer vs. axle roll • Spring force vs. displacement
• Axle dive vs. wheel travel • Shock force vs. velocity
• Wheel recession vs. jounce • Auxiliary roll stiffness
• Lateral motion vs. jounce • Axle lateral stiffness
• Lateral motion vs. axle roll • Axle fore-aft stiffness
• Toe and camber settings • Toe angle vs. Fx
• Axle steer vs. axle wrap • Steer angle vs. Fy
• Axle steer vs. wheel travel • Steer angle vs. Mz
• Left wheel vs. right wheel • Camber angle vs. Fx
steer angle (Ackerman) • Camber angle vs. Fy
• Spring and shock motion • Camber angle vs. Mz
ratios
110
August 2006
Questions?
111

Vehicle Dynamics

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Vehicle Dynamics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Seminar Series - Vehicle Dynamics

ArvinMeritor Quarterly Technical

Troy Tech Center

Basic Tire Behavior

SAE Tire Axis System

Definition of Slip Ratio during Braking

Generation of Longitudinal Force

Longitudinal Force vs. Slip Ratio

Effect of Road Surface on Longitudinal

Generation of Lateral Force and Aligning

Lateral Force and Aligning Torque vs.

Comparing Cornering Force and Camber

Combined Slip: Friction Circle Diagram

Combined Slip: Cornering Force and

Factors Affecting Tire Forces and

Key Idea from Basic Tire Behavior:

Basics of Vehicle Dynamics:

SAE Vehicle Axis System

Vehicle-Fixed SAE Coordinate System:

Rigid Sprung Mass Equations of Motion

Simplified Equations of Motion of the

Bicycle Model for Lateral Dynamics

Bicycle Model for Lateral Dynamics

Bicycle Model: Kinematics

Bicycle Model Equations of Motion

Bicycle Model Equations of Motion

Bicycle Model Equations of Motion

Bicycle Model Equations of Motion

Equilibrium Equations during

Steady-State Handling Equation

Characteristic Speed and Critical Speed

Steady-State Response to Steer Inputs

Steady-State Response to Steer Inputs

Steady-State Response to Steer Inputs

Steady-State Response to Steer Inputs

Vehicle Tests for Handling Performance

Constant Radius Test

Constant Speed Test

Constant Speed Test: Handling

Constant Steer Angle Test

Constant Steer Angle Test :

Constant Steer Angle Test :

Percent Overshoot: 70 kph 80 kph 90 kph 100 kph

Response Time: 70 kph 80 kph 90 kph 100 kph

Handling Performance Metrics 75 kph 85 kph 95 kph Average

Take-Away: Steady-State Cornering

Other Factors Affecting Understeer

Other Factors Affecting Understeer

Other Factors Affecting Understeer

Other Factors Affecting Understeer

Other Factors Affecting Understeer

Understeer Budget: Example 1

Understeer Budget: Example 2

Take-Away: Factors Affecting Understeer

Limit Handling Performance due to

Limit Handling due to Tire Nonlinearities

Limit Handling due to Tire Nonlinearities

• Four possible cases, as lateral acceleration increases:

Limit Handling due to Tire Nonlinearities

Limit Handling due to Tire Nonlinearities

Limit Handling due to Tire Nonlinearities

Take-Away: Limit Handling

Steady-State Handling of Tractor-Semi-Trailer

Steady-State Handling Model of Tractor-Semi-