Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
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.
SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel: 724-772-4028
Fax: 724-772-4891
ISBN 0-7680-1561-8
Copyright © 2005 SAE International
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. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract to Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
Printed in USA
2005-01-0398
10
Roll Angl e [deg]
The load rack above the truck bed was used to vary the -10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-6
Time [ s]
shown. It is seen that vehicle experiences significant
body roll oscillations and some oscillations in lateral Figure 3. Roll and Heave Motions Of Vehicle Body
acceleration and yaw rate responses during the portion During Fishhook Maneuver
of the maneuver when the steering angle is held
constant. The results of simulation for the same
According to SAE sign convention, positive vertical performance. Among other parameters considered, the
position corresponds to the body being down relative to height of roll centers and, to a lesser extent, nonlinearity
the static equilibrium. In the test data, the body roll angle in suspension stiffness characteristics proved to have the
and the vertical position were determined from three largest influence on vehicle behavior. Within the typical
height sensors placed in three corners of the body. Thus, range of values, reducing the height of roll centers and
the “measured” vertical position at the body center of making the stiffness characteristic more linear both
gravity is a derived value and may be inaccurate; hence reduced the amplitude of body oscillations, although they
the discrepancy between the traces of body heave increased the steady-state roll angle, about which the
obtained from test data and simulation. During a portion oscillations occur. An illustrative example is shown in
of the maneuver performed at a constant steering angle, Figure 5. Here the results for nominal vehicle, vehicle
the vehicle body is subjected to approximately periodic with linear suspension stiffness characteristic (versus
oscillations in both roll and heave of approximately the progressive characteristic for nominal suspension), and
same frequency of about 1.6 Hz. Both types of vehicle with nominal stiffness characteristic and roll
oscillations appear to be coupled; furthermore, vertical centers at the road level are shown.
oscillations appear to be coupled with the lateral
acceleration (not shown in Figure 3), as expected. A
possible explanation is that the vertical body motions 10 40
2/3 nominal
-20 -10
Yaw Rate [deg/s]
5 nominal 20 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
1.5 nominal Time [s] Time [s]
0 0
-5 -20
Figure 5. Effects of Roll Centers Heights and Nonlinearity
-10 -40
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 in Suspension Stiffness Characteristics on Vehicle
Behavior in Fishhook
10 5
Reducing the heights of roll centers increases the peak
Body Heave [cm]
Roll Angle [deg]
5 0
and steady-state values of roll angle, but it also
0 -5 significantly reduces amplitude of body heave vibrations
and roll oscillations at steady-state. The effect of
-5 -10
suspension nonlinearity is subtler, but making the
-10 -15 suspension stiffness characteristic linear also reduces
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
the roll and heave oscillations and makes them appear
Time [s] Time [s]
better damped. This is not surprising, since reducing
suspension stiffness at the operating point, while keeping
damping unchanged, increases the damping ratio.
Figure 4. Effect of Suspension Damping on Vehicle Reducing suspension nonlinearity and the heights of roll
Response in Fishhook Maneuver centers are both factors contributing to reduction in the
suspension jacking forces. These are the unbalanced
As expected, reducing the suspension damping vertical components of the suspension forces, which
increases the amplitude and time duration of oscillations, occur during cornering on a smooth road surface and
while increasing it has an opposite effect. Simulations tend to lift the vehicle body above the static equilibrium.
performed for wider range of damping variations showed Reducing the height of the roll centers reduces the
similar trend, with only minimal and quickly damped vertical components of the resultant forces in the rigid
oscillations when damping is increased to double the suspension arms during cornering. Reducing nonlinearity
nominal value. However, for the vehicle considered here, in the suspension stiffness characteristic makes the
oscillations cannot be entirely eliminated by variation of compression of the outside suspension closer to the
suspension damping within the range, which is normally extension of the inside suspension, thus reducing the
judged acceptable for good body isolation (ride)
lifting of body center. This is explained in more detail in state portion of maneuver. In order to verify this
the next section. conjecture, provide further insights, and establish
quantitative relationships between vehicle parameters
In maneuvers performed on smooth roads, jacking and the investigated phenomenon, stability analysis of
forces in the suspension constitute a primary coupling vehicle during steady-state limit cornering was
mechanism between the body roll and heave modes. conducted. It is described in the next section.
Nonlinearities in suspension damping can also contribute
an unbalanced vertical force during transient maneuvers, ANALYSIS
but this effect is generally smaller and occurs only during
transients. In this section a simplified analytical model is developed,
which describes the coupling between the roll and heave
The effects of other parameters of the vehicle were body modes and subsequently the yaw plane motion.
considered in simulations. For example, the influence of The model needs to be simple enough to facilitate
front steer compliance is illustrated in Figure 6. studies of the system stability and to describe explicitly
Performance of a vehicle with nominal steer compliance the effects of important design parameters on vehicle
is compared to one with one half and double the nominal body roll oscillations in fishhook tests. At the same time,
compliance. Within a reasonable range of values the the model should capture the important aspects of
effect of steer compliance is small. However, even when vehicle behavior in a steady-state turn at the limit lateral
the front steer compliance is twice the nominal value, the acceleration, as the vehicle experiences in the second
body roll and heave oscillation do not decrease, even phase of fishhook maneuver. In particular, the effects of
though the steady-state values of lateral acceleration and suspension jacking forces, which couple the roll and
roll angle are reduced. This is somewhat surprising, heave modes must be included in the model.
since the oscillations generally decrease as severity of
maneuver is reduced. Additional simulations As described earlier, during steady-state cornering
demonstrated that in maneuvers performed at higher jacking forces arise primarily due to two sources: vertical
speeds, increasing front steer compliance may even lead components of forces transmitted by suspension rigid
to increased body roll oscillations in the steady-state links and nonlinearities in suspension stiffness
portion of maneuver. This effect is further analyzed in the characteristics. The first effect is illustrated in Figure 7.
next section.
10 40 hroll
Meas. Lat. Accel. [m/s 2]
1/2 st.com.
Yaw Rate [deg/s]
5 nominal 20
2 st.com.
C
0 0
-5 -20
R
Fz
-10 -40 F
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 hrollc
Fy
10 2 γ
0
Body Heave [cm]
Roll Angle [deg]
5 tw/2
-2
0
-4
-5
-6
Figure 7. Jacking Force Exerted by Suspension Links
-10 -8
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Time [s] Time [s] Lateral forces generated during cornering maneuvers are
transmitted between the body and the wheels through
relatively rigid suspension links. In general, these
members are not parallel to the ground; therefore the
Figure 6. The Effect of Front Steer Compliance on
reaction forces in these elements have vertical
Vehicle Response in Fishhook Maneuver
components, which usually do not cancel out during
cornering, resulting in a vertical net force, which pushes
It is concluded that the most likely primary cause of the body up. It is known (Gillespie, 1993; Reimpell and
sustained body roll oscillations in steady-state portion of Stoll, 1996) that forces transmitted between the vehicle
the maneuver is coupling between the vehicle roll, heave body and a wheel through lateral arms are dynamically
and subsequently yaw modes resulting from suspension equivalent to a single force, which reacts along the line
jacking forces. These forces cause vertical (heave) from the tire contact patch to the roll center of
motions of vehicle body, which in turn affect tire normal suspension. The roll center is by definition the point in
and subsequently lateral forces, influencing yaw the transverse vertical plane at which lateral forces
response of the vehicle. As a result, sustained roll, heave applied to the sprung mass do not produce suspension
and yaw oscillations occur during essentially a steady- roll. This is illustrated in Figure 7 for a double A arm
suspension. If the tire lateral force is Fy, then the jacking ∆z ext − ∆z comp
force, Fz, is ∆z = (2)
2
Fz = F y tan γ (1)
Thus for any value of roll moment (in static conditions)
the corresponding values of roll angle and vertical rise of
where γ is the inclination angle of the line connecting tire body center can be determined. This vertical
contact patch with the roll center to the horizontal. Note displacement can be expressed in terms of suspension
that in SAE sign convention the force lifting the body up force at the operating point. Carrying out these
is negative. calculations for front and rear suspensions, the jacking
effect at vehicle center of gravity can be determined and
The second jacking effect is due to non-linear spring expressed in terms of vertical force in response to body
characteristics. Suspension stiffness characteristics are roll angle:
usually progressive; that is, stiffness increases with
suspension deflection in order to maintain good ride Fzs = k zφ (φ )φ (3)
properties with a full load and to minimize bottoming of
suspension. During cornering maneuvers, a progressive
Here Fzs is the jacking force due to the non-linearity in
characteristic of suspension permits smaller deflection in
compression of the outside suspension than deflection in suspension stiffness and kzφ denotes the coefficient
extension of the inside suspension. As a result, height of relating the jacking force to roll angle. Note that since the
vehicle center of gravity increases. This effect can be jacking force is always negative in SAE sign convention,
particularly significant for fully loaded vehicle, for which kzφ is negative for positive roll angles.
the suspension can become fully compressed during
heavy cornering, thus entering the region of high STABILTY ANALYSIS OF ROLL AND HEAVE MOTION
nonlinearity. This effect is illustrated in Figure 8.
As stated earlier, our objective here is to develop a
simplified model, which would permit one to study the
Fz effects of design parameters on stability of roll and heave
modes during limit cornering. According to Liapunov’s
∆zcomp ∆zext indirect method, local stability of a nonlinear system can
be determined, under quite general conditions, by
studying the stability of linearized model, as long as the
linearized system is not marginally stable (Vidyasagar,
∆Fz 1978, Section 5.4). In this section we first introduce a
O simple non-linear model describing the lateral motion of
∆z
vehicle along with the body heave and roll, which takes
A into account fundamental couplings between these
∆Fz
modes. Subsequently, we linearize equations for this
model around the operating point corresponding to
steady-state limit cornering; using this linearized
equations, we formulate necessary and sufficient
conditions for the asymptotic stability (or instability) of the
system. Since the parameters in the equations of motion
depend on the characteristic parameters of the vehicle
Figure 8. Jacking Effect Resulting from Non-linearity in and the suspension system, the effects of these design
Suspension Stiffness Characteristic parameters on stability in steady-state limit cornering can
be examined.
The nominal operating point, corresponding to static
equilibrium of lightly loaded vehicle is the point O, and The lateral, roll and heave modes can be approximately
the operating point with full load is A. In Figure 8 described by the following equations:
suspension extension is positive and compression
negative. During cornering, part of the roll moment,
which is not balanced by a roll bar, Mrolls, is balanced by ma y + m s (hroll − z )φ = F yf cos δ + F yr
the suspension springs, resulting in a vertical load I xx φ + cφ φ + k φ φ = −m s (hroll − z )(a y − gφ )
transfer of ∆Fz = Mrolls/ts, where ts is either the lateral (4)
distance between the suspension springs (for a rigid
( )
m s z + c z z + k z z = − F yLF − F yRF cos δ tan γ f
In order to simplify the terms involving the differences in The system of equations (10) can now be linearized
lateral tire forces appearing in the last of equations (4), it about the operating point (ay0, φ0, z0), which corresponds
is assumed that the tire lateral forces in limit cornering to steady-state limit cornering. Let us denote
are proportional to the normal forces. That is, for the
front axle a y = a y 0 + ∆a y , φ = φ 0 + ∆φ , z = z o + ∆z (11)
F yLF − F yRF FzLF − FzRF where the symbol ∆ signifies presumably small
= (5)
F yf Fzf incremental variables. Carrying out the linearization
procedure (that is, substituting (11) into (10), canceling
where subscript z refers to vertical forces. Similar equal terms on both sides of equations, and neglecting
equation holds for the rear axle. In addition, the normal higher order terms in incremental variables), the
force for the left front tire can be approximated by the following linear equations are obtained:
following equation
m∆a y + m s hroll1 ∆φ = − µ y m s ∆z
FzLF =
mb m
g − s z + κ f
mh
(
a y − gφ ) (6) I xx ∆φ + cφ ∆φ + kφ1 ∆φ − m s a y 2 ∆z = − m s hroll1 ∆a y
(12)
2L m tw
( )
m s ∆z + c z ∆z + k z ∆z = −2 A f + Ar a y1 ∆a y
b4 s 4 + b3 s 3 + b2 s 2 + b1 s + b0 = 0 (14)
Here Af and Ar are the following coefficients:
Af =
2mκ f h
tan γ f , Ar =
(
2m 1 − κ f h ) tan γ r (8)
In order to abridge the subsequent equations, the
following notation is introduced:
tw g tw g
0.5
Similarly the effects of other vehicle design parameters,
which affect parameters in equation (12), on stability of
vehicle in steady state limit cornering can be
Rear Roll Center Height [m]
0.4
UNSTABLE investigated. These parameters include suspension
stiffness and damping, roll stiffness distribution between
0.3
front and rear axles, vehicle mass (payload), roll moment
of inertia, etc. Although the effect of tires is not directly
0.2
STABLE included, it is reflected to some extend in the steady
state lateral acceleration at the limit, ay0. For example, it
0.1 can be shown that increasing this value by use of more
aggressive tires makes the linearized system less stable.
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 It is noted that during Fishhook maneuvers vehicle body
Front Roll Center Height [m]
experiences not only roll and heave, but also pitch
motion. This has primarily two causes: longitudinal
Figure 9. Influence of Roll Center Locations on Stability deceleration of vehicle during hard cornering and
of Linearized System differences in proportion between front and rear jacking
forces relative to weigh distribution. The effect of body
Increasing the height of roll centers (with other pitch was neglected in the interest of simplicity. Taking it
parameters unchanged) can make the vehicle unstable. into account would not provide significant new insights,
The size of the stability region, however, is sensitive to but would make close form solution too complex.
the operating point, in particular to the lateral
acceleration, ay0. The line separating the stable and ANALYSIS OF EFFECT OF STEER COMPLIANCE
unstable regions is a straight line since the effects of roll
center heights are contained in parameters hroll, Af and Vehicle response in the steady-state cornering at the
Ar, with the first being a linear function of roll center limit can be affected by steering compliance, which
heights and the latter appearing only as a sum in introduces coupling between the lateral acceleration and
front steering angle. Considering a vehicle model that
describes yaw plane motion along with the roll and heave Fyf
body motions yields equations that are too complex for β0 Cf0 = tanβ0
explicit analysis. Fortunately, significant insights
regarding this coupling mechanism can be gained by
considering vehicle motion in the yaw plane only. The
equations of motion are:
( )
m v y + v x Ω = F yf cos δ + F yr
(17)
= F a cos δ − F b
I zz Ω yf yr
Cfl = tanβl
Here Ω denotes vehicle yaw rate, vx and vy are the
longitudinal and lateral velocities of vehicle center of βl
mass, a and b are the distances of vehicle center of αf
mass to the front and rear axles, respectively, Izz denotes
vehicle yaw moment of inertia and the meaning of other
symbols remains the same as before. Due to front steer Figure 10. Front Axle Lateral Force Characteristic
lateral force compliance, the front steer angle is
The incremental front axle lateral force, ∆Fyf, is related to
δ = δ 0 − K F F yf (18) the front axle incremental slip angle, ∆αf, as follows: