Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2006-01-0499

A Method for Overcoming Limitations of Tire

Models for Vehicle Level Virtual Testing
Nicolas Gandoin
Renault S.A.

Shawn You
MTS Systems Corporation

Reprinted From: Load Simulation & Analysis in Automotive Engineering

(SP-2038)

2006 SAE World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
April 3-6, 2006

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

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.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel: 724-772-4028
Fax: 724-776-3036

For multiple print copies contact:

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

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2006 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
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018
A Method for Overcoming Limitations of Tire Models for Vehicle
Level Virtual Testing
Copyright © 2006 SAE International
ABSTRACT
The intention of this work is to illustrate a method used to
overcome limitations of tire models developed during an
evaluation study of an Empirical Dynamic™ (ED) damper
model. A quarter vehicle test system was built to support
the evaluation, and a model of the test system was also
developed in ADAMSTM. In the model, the damper was
represented by a polynomial spline function and by an ED
model separately. Vehicle level comparisons between
the physical measurements and the model predictions
were conducted. The actuator displacement signal from
the physical test was used to drive the virtual test system.
Spindle acceleration, spindle force, and other signals
were collected for comparison.
The tire model was identified as a significant source of
error and as a result, the direct vehicle level correlation
study did not illustrate any advantage of the ED damper
model over a spline damper model.
Subsequently the Remote Parameter Control™ (RPC®)
process was used to reproduce lab measured spindle
acceleration and body to wheel displacement signals and
thus to minimize the influence of the tire model. A fair
comparison base was established for vehicle signals
above the tire.
After RPC™ iterations, a correlation study was
conducted on shock tower load and acceleration signals.
It was found that the ED damper is better than the spline
damper in high load (velocity) conditions. For low damper
force conditions, the model with an ED damper predicts
similar results as compared to the model with a spline
damper. This is understandable since for conditions of
low damper force, the damper exhibits a more linear
behavior. In this case, both the spline damper model and
the ED damper model were adequate.
2006-01-0499
Nicolas Gandoin
Renault S.A.
Shawn You
MTS Systems Corporation
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, neural network methods have been
investigated as a way to model nonlinear, frequency
dependent components. Neural networks are
computational structures that can ‘learn’ a complex
relation or pattern, much like biological neural systems.
They’re used extensively in modern pattern recognition
algorithms, with applications such as handwriting and
speech recognition. With proper interfacing, they can
also be used as black box models for dynamic systems.
In this application, the models are generated solely from
measured input and output signals, without a direct
requirement for information about the component
geometry or physical parameters. The principal benefit of
neural network modeling is to enable accurate predictions
of component behavior when significant nonlinearity and
hysteresis are present.
Previously, work has been done to compare the accuracy
of ED damper models and spline damper models in
component level experiments [1]. It has been shown that
at the component level, ED damper models are more
accurate in simulating high load (velocity) conditions.
However, the impact of this accuracy improvement on the
vehicle level simulation has not been thoroughly
evaluated. For this purpose, a quarter vehicle test
system was built (see Figure 1 and 2). Three events
(Three Bumps, Belgian Block, and Step Event) were
tested using the system. Actuator displacement, spindle
acceleration, spindle wheel force transducer loads, body
to wheel displacement, shock tower load, and shock
tower acceleration signals were collected for vehicle level
evaluation.
Two ADAMS models of this quarter vehicle test system
were also created (see Figure 3). The only difference
between the two models is that one has a spline damper
model and the other has an ED damper model.
The ED damper model was created by exciting the
damper with a shaped random noise signal while
recording damper load and displacement. Component
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

EDM (cEDM) software was then used to build the ED

damper model based upon the damper load and
displacement signals.

Vehicle system is often very complicated and difficult to

model. Some elements, such as the tire, are extremely
nonlinear. It is very important to model these elements
accurately in order to achieve meaningful comparison
results between measurements and simulations.
Likewise it is also important to accurately model such
elements to compare ED damper and spline damper
model results. Otherwise, the modeling error associated
with elements other than the damper may be much larger
than the impact of damper model improvement and thus
lead to incorrect conclusions.
Figure 3, ADAMS model of the quarter vehicle test
system

DIRECT VEHICLE LEVEL CORRELATION

Actuator displacement signals collected in the test were

used as the actuator motion command in the virtual
models. Spindle loads, spindle acceleration, body to
wheel displacement, shock tower load, and shock tower
acceleration signals were collected for comparison with
the tests.

RPC Pro™ software, an application software widely used

in testing labs, was employed as the main analysis and
control software. RPC Pro™ was configured such that it
could open the ADAMS model, run the simulation and
Figure 1, Quarter vehicle test system collect response signals in the RPC™ data format
automatically. In this way, the simulation process was
simplified significantly.
Body accel sensor

Az_c Figures 4 to 8 show comparisons of spindle vertical load,

Supplementary mass
Dz_tc
Body/rod displacement sensor
Driving : road profile
Ms Entry Body load sensor body to wheel displacement, spindle acceleration, shock
Fz_c tower load, and shock tower acceleration signals of
models with ED and spline dampers and of test
measurements for the Belgian Block event.
Body/wheel displacement sensor
From the plots, it is easy to see that spindle vertical force
Dz_rc (Fz) has poor correlation between the test measurements
and model predictions. The predicted spindle Fz signals
load sensor:
Dynamometric wheel were much lower than the measured signal. Spindle
acceleration, body to wheel displacement and shock
Az_pf Fz_rd tower load signals had better correlation. However,
clearly there was phase error between the virtual and
Spindle acceleration sensor physical results. The phase error contributed to high
levels of RMS errors.

Poor virtual to physical correlation results indicated that

Figure 2, Schematic diagram of the quarter vehicle test
the ADAMS models (with both the ED damper and spline
system
damper models) were quite different from the physical
testing system. Since the spindle forces had poor
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

correlation and the tire was modeled as a simple impact

80
function in the ADAMS model, it was suspected that the Test Result
tire modeling method was a significant source of the 60 ED Model
error. The tire modeling error would certainly propagate Spline Model
40
to other parts of the model and negatively impact

Displacement [mm]
correlation of all signals. 20

0
Among the correlation signals, the spindle force had
generally poor correlation when compared to other -20
signals. This may be due to the fact that spindle load is -40
more sensitive to the tire modeling error. The behaviors
such as tire rotation, rubbing, and squeezing were not -60

modeled in the ADAMS model. These factors would have -80

a direct impact on spindle load. However, spindle motion
may not be as sensitive to these modeling errors. This 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
theory supports the observations of poor spindle load Time [s]

correlation while spindle acceleration and body to wheel Figure 5, Comparison of body to wheel displacement
displacement correlation is relatively good. Likewise the (mm) signal for the Belgian Block event
effect of tire modeling errors may be damped out by the
20
damper, therefore, supporting the observation of better Test Result
body load and body acceleration signal correlation. ED Model
10 Spline Model
Figure 4 to 8 show that signals predicted by models with Acceleration [g]
the ED damper and spline damper are similar. This 0
means that by implementing the ED damper, the overall
accuracy of the vehicle model did not significantly
-10
change. The effect of the ED damper may be
overwhelmed by the tire modeling error.
-20

-30
7000
Test Result
ED Model 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
5000
Spline Model Time [s]

3000
Figure 6, Comparison of spindle acceleration (g) for
Force [N]

1000 the Belgian Block event

5000
-1000 Test Result
4000 ED Model
-3000 Spline Model
3000

-5000 2000
Force [N]

1000
4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Time [s] 0
Figure 4, Comparison of spindle load Fz (N) for the
-1000
Belgian Block event
-2000

-3000

4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

Time [s]

Figure 7, Comparison of shock tower load (N) for the

Belgian Block event
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

and body to wheel displacement were reduced to 15.3%

and 12.3 % respectively for the Belgian Block event with
1.2
Test Result an ADAMS model using the ED damper. The RMS error
1.0 ED Model was relatively low. Figure 10 shows the comparison of
0.8 Spline Model measured spindle acceleration vs. achieved signals after
0.6 the RPC™ iterations. Figure 11 shows the same
Acceleration [g]

0.4 comparison for body to wheel displacement signals. The

0.2 figures show that the achieved signals matched very well
with lab measured signals.
0.0
-0.2
The same RPC™ iterations were conducted for the
-0.4 Belgian Block event with the ADAMS model using a
-0.6 spline damper. Similar results were obtained.
-0.8
For the Step event RPC™ iterations were able to drive
4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 the RMS error to low levels similar to the Belgian Block
Time [s]
event. As a result, the achieved signals after RPC™
Figure 8, Comparison of body acceleration (g) for the
iterations were very close to the lab measured signals.
Belgian Block event
For the Three Bumps event, jounce bumper impact
For the Step event and Three Bumps event, similar
occurred. In this case, a small change in drive file
correlation results were achieved.
displacement would cause large difference in spindle
acceleration. Since the impact was not modeled to a
RPC™ SIMULATION PROCESS sufficient level of accuracy, the RMS error was still above
40% after RPC™ iterations were conducted.
Remote Parameter Control (RPC™) is an advanced
simulation technique used to repeatedly replicate and
analyze “in service” vibrations and motions of a specimen
using a dynamic mechanical system in a controlled
laboratory environment or a virtual model [2].

In this work, the RPC™ process was used to make sure

that spindle acceleration and body to wheel displacement
of the virtual models matched the lab measurements.
Subsequently shock tower load and acceleration signals
could be compared to determine whether the ED damper
model was more accurate than the spline damper model.
This method minimizes the requirement for an accurate
tire model and establishes a fair comparison base for ED Figure 9, RMS error plot for the Belgian Block event with
and spline damper model results. ED damper model
Lower line: spindle acceleration; Upper line: wheel
In the RPC™ iteration process, the actuator displacement signals
displacement signal was the drive channel. The spindle
acceleration and body to wheel displacement signals
were used as response channels. The control band was
from 0.25 Hz to 80 Hz. The reason for this frequency
range selection was that the testing system was an
inertial reacted system. It is difficult to achieve low
frequency control without large actuator displacements.
On the other hand, beyond 80 Hz, there was very little
road induced damaging content. Therefore, there was no
need to reproduce the content beyond 80 Hz.

During the iteration process, gains were adjusted to

achieve the fastest convergence. Figure 9 shows that
after six iterations, the RMS errors of spindle acceleration
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

model with an ED damper predicted more accurate loads

30
Lab Measurement than the model with a spline damper did. At low load
Achieved after RPC Iterations situations (usually corresponding to low damper velocity),
20 the model with an ED damper predicted similar results as
compared to the model with a spline damper. This is
Acceleration [g]

10 likely due to the fact that for low damper velocities, the
damper is in the linear operation range. Both ED damper
0 and spline damper models are accurate in this range.
The advantage of the ED damper is in the high velocity,
non-linear range.
-10

Figure 13 shows shock tower acceleration comparisons

-20
of the test measurement with the ED damper model and
spline damper model predictions. The figure shows that
9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.0
Time [s] correlation between measurement and prediction was
poor because the measured signal was noisy. However,
Figure 10, Spindle accelerations for the Belgian Block the trends of the signals matched well.
event with ED damper model

5000
Test Result
70 4000 ED Model
Lab Measurement
60 Spline Model
Achieved after RPC Iterations 3000
50
40 2000
Displacement [mm]

Force [N]

30
20 1000
10 0
0
-10 -1000
-20 -2000
-30
-40 -3000
-50
3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8
Time [s]
9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.0
Time [s] Figure 12, Comparison of body load signal (N) for the
Belgian Block event
Figure 11, Body to wheel displacements for the Belgian
Block event with ED damper model 1.0
Test Result
0.8 ED Model
0.6 Spline Model
VEHICLE LEVEL CORRELATION AFTER
0.4
Acceleration [g]

RPC™ ITERATIONS
0.2
After RPC™ iterations, spindle acceleration and body to 0.0
wheel displacement signals were accurately reproduced
-0.2
for two events. The influence of the simple tire model was
minimized. A fair comparison base was established for -0.4
vehicle models with an ED damper and a spline damper -0.6
model. -0.8

Figures 12 to 13 show comparisons of shock tower load 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8
signals from models with an ED damper and a spline Time [s]
damper and from lab measurements for the Belgian Block Figure 13, Comparison of body acceleration signal (g) for
event. It is clear that at most of the high load peaks Belgian Block event
(usually corresponding to peak damper velocity), the
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Figure 14 shows the comparison of shock tower load
signal from test measurement, and from predictions of
the models with an ED damper, and a spline damper for
Step event. It is clear that at the high peak, the model
with an ED damper predicted more accurate loads than
the model with a spline damper did. This shows that the
ED model is more accurate in the high load case. At low
load cases, the figure shows that the model with an ED
damper predicted similar results as the model with a
spline damper. Again, this is due to the fact that for low
damper velocity situations, the damper is in the linear
operating range. Both the ED damper model and the
spline model are accurate.
Figure 15 shows same comparison for shock tower
acceleration signal. The figure shows that correlation is
not very good because the measured signal is noisy.
However, at the peak, which corresponding to an impact,
ED modal predicted more accurate shock tower
acceleration.
14000
12000
Figure 15, Comparison of shock tower acceleration signal
(g) for the Step event
Figure 16 and 17 show the comparison of shock tower
load and acceleration signals from models with an ED
damper and a spline damper and from lab measurements
on the three bumps event. In this event, jounce bumper
impact occurred. The result is sensitive to small details in
modeling the impact. After approximately 12 RPC™
iterations, the RMS error of spindle acceleration was still
about 40%. This means the jounce bumper impact was
not modeled properly in the ADAMS model. As a result,
the lab measured spindle acceleration and body to wheel
displacement could not be accurately reproduced. The
jounce bumper impact error in the models may
overwhelm the accuracy improvement of the ED damper.
Therefore, the ADAMS models with ED and spline
dampers show similar results.
10000
8000
6000
Test Result 4000
ED Model
2000
Force [g]

10000 Spline Model

0
8000
-2000
Force [N]

6000
-4000
4000 -6000 Test Result
2000 -8000 ED Model
Spline Model
0 -10000
-2000
4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.7
-4000 Time [s]
Figure 16, Comparison of shock tower load signal (N) for
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 the Three Bumps event
Time [s]
Figure 14, Comparison of body load signal (N) for the
3
Step event

2
4
Test Result
Acceleration [g]

ED Model 1
3
Spline Model

2
Acceleration [g]

1
-1 Test Result
0 ED Model
Spline Model
-2
-1
4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.7
-2 Time [s]
Figure 17, Comparison of shock tower acceleration signal
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 (g) for the Three Bumps event
Time [s]
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

CONCLUSION
To adequately evaluate the accuracy of an ED damper
model at the vehicle level, an accurate vehicle model is
required. In this case, since the tire in the vehicle model
was modeled by a simple impact function, high levels of
error were induced. This error may overwhelm the
influence of an ED damper model. As a result, the direct
vehicle level correlation study did not illustrate the
advantage of an ED damper model over a spline damper
model for all three events.
REFERENCES
[1] A.J. Barber, Accurate Models for Bushings and
Dampers using the Empirical Dynamics Method,
Proceedings of the International ADAMS Users’
Conference, Mechanical Dynamics GmbH, 1999.
[2] Grote, P., Grenier, G. “Taking the Test Track to the
Lab”, Automotive Engineering, June 1987, Volume 95,
Number 6.

The RPC™ process was used to reproduce lab

measured spindle acceleration and body to wheel
displacement signals. In this way, the influence of the
simple tire modeling method was minimized. A fair
comparison base was established even though the
vehicle model was not perfect. The RPC Pro™ Virtual
Test software was used for the RPC™ iteration process.
This software feature enables RPC Pro™ to send a drive
file to the ADAMS model, run the ADAMS model and then
collect desired response signals automatically. A large
amount of time is saved by this easy-to-use process.
RPC™ iterations were able to reproduce spindle
acceleration and body to wheel displacement signals for
the Belgian Block and Step events. However, for the
Three Bumps event, RPC™ iterations could only reduce
spindle acceleration RMS errors to about 40%. This is
attributed to insufficient accuracy of the jounce bumper
impact modeling.

After the RPC™ iterations, a correlation study was

conducted on shock tower load and acceleration signals.
For the Belgian Block and Step events, it was found that
for most of the high damper load conditions (usually
corresponding to high damper velocity situations), the
vehicle model with an ED damper predict more accurate
results. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that the ED
damper is better than the spline damper in high load
(velocity) conditions. For low damper force conditions
(usually corresponding to low damper velocity situations),
the model with an ED damper predicts similar results as
compared to the model with a spline damper. This is
understandable since for low damper force situations, the
damper exhibits a more linear behavior. In this case,
both the spline damper model and the ED damper model
are accurate.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful for the assistance given by

Darragh Murphy, Christoph Leser, Juan Garcia, Marv
Westermann, and Mike Englerth at MTS Systems
Corporation and Eric Vaillant, Huu-Khoa Nguyen,
François Parolini and Daniel Corneille at Renault.