The Multibody Systems Approach

to Vehicle Dynamics
A Short Course

Lecture 6 – Modelling and Analysis of the

Full Vehicle
Professor Mike Blundell
Phd, MSc, BSc (Hons), FIMechE, CEng
Course Agenda

Day 1
Lecture 1 – Introduction to Vehicle Dynamics
Lecture 2 – Multibody Systems Simulation Software

Day 2
Lecture 3 – Modelling and Analysis of Suspension Systems
Lecture 4 – Tyre Characteristics
Lecture 5 – Tyre Modelling

Day 3
Lecture 6 – Modelling and Analysis of the Full Vehicle
Discussion and Wrap Up
Close
Contents

Lecture 6 – Modelling and Analysis of the Full Vehicle

• Underlying Theory (Bicycle Model Approach)

• Understeer and Oversteer
• Modelling Strategies (Lumped Mass, Swing Arm, Roll Stiffness,
Linkages)
• Vehicle Body Measurements and Influences
 Vehicle Handling

“Handling” is
–different to maximum steady state lateral acceleration (“grip”)
–much less amenable to a succinct definition
–“a quality of a vehicle that allows or even encourages the operator to make
use of all the available grip”
–(Prodrive working definition)
–Emotional definitions like:
“Confidence” (Consistency/Linearity to Inputs)
“Fun” (High Yaw Gain, High Yaw Bandwidth)
“Fluidity” (Yaw Damping Between Manoeuvres)
“Precision” (Disturbance Rejection)

Courtesy of www.drivingdevelopment.co.uk
 Vehicle Handling

“Inertia Match” is the relationship between the CG position,

wheelbase and yaw inertia.

At the instant of turn in: u

w = Caf af a t / Izz
v
a
v = Caf af t / m

Combining these velocities gives an

b
“instant centre” at a distance c behind the CG:

c= Izz / ma w
Noting that Izz = m k2
Thus if c is equal to b then c
1 = k2 / ab
 Vehicle Handling

k2/ ab therefore describes the distance of the centre of rotation

with respect to the rear axle.

• It is referred to as the “Dynamic a

Index”
• DI fraction is length ratio
c/b
b
• DI > 1 implies c > b
• DI < 1 implies c < b
• Magic Number = 0.92
c
 Vehicle Handling –
Understeer and Oversteer
For pure cornering (Lateral Response) the following outputs
are typically studied:
• Lateral Acceleration (g)
• Yaw Rate (deg/s)
• Roll Rate (deg)
• Trajectory ( Y (mm) vs. X (mm))

Roll Angle

Lateral Typical lateral responses

Acceleration (Ay ) measured in vehicle
coordinate frame

Forward Speed
(Vx)
 Cornering at Low-Speed

Assuming small steer angles

do
Centre of Mass at the road wheels to avoid
t
scrubbing the wheels
di
L L
δo  δi 
(R  0.5 t) (R  0.5 t)
R
The average of the inner and
outer road wheel angles is
Known as the Ackerman Angle
L
δ 
R
 Centre of Turn
 Steady State Cornering

• Start with a simple ‘Bicycle’ model explanation

• The model can be considered to have two degrees of
freedom (yaw rotation and lateral displacement) No roll!
• In order to progress from travelling in a straight line to
travelling in a curved path, the following sequence of
events is suggested:

1. The driver turns the hand wheel, applying a slip angle at

the front wheels
2. After a delay associated with the front tyre relaxation
lengths, side force is applied at the front of the vehicle
3. The body yaws (rotates in plan), applying a slip angle at
the rear wheels
Steady State Cornering (continued)
• After a delay associated with the rear tyre relaxation lengths, side force
is applied at the rear of the vehicle
• Lateral acceleration is increased, yaw acceleration is reduced to zero

c b

ar
af
d


Centre of Turn
 Bicycle Model Simplified
c b

αr
X
αf
δ

Fry Ffy
Y

m ay

The bicycle model can be described by the following two

equations of motion:

Ffy + Fry = m ay
Ffy b - Fry c = 0
Understeer and Oversteer

Understeer Path

Neutral Steer Path

Oversteer Path

Disturbing force (e.g. side gust)

Acting through the centre of mass
Olley’s Definition (1945)
Understeer and Oversteer
• Understeer promotes stability
• Oversteer promotes instability (spin)
Neutral Steer

Oversteer Understeer
 The Constant Radius Test
The constant radius turn test procedure can be use to define
the handling characteristic of a vehicle (Reference the British
Standard)

V The procedure may be summarised as:

ay
• Start at slow speed, find Ackerman angle
• Increment speed in steps to produce
increments in lateral acceleration of
33 m
typically 0.1g
• Corner in steady state at each speed and
ay = V2 / R measure steering inputs
• Establish limit cornering and vehicle
Understeer / Oversteer behaviour
 Understeer Gradient
• It is possible to use results from the test to determine Understeer
gradient
• Use steering ratio to establish road wheel angle d from measured
hand wheel angles
At low lateral acceleration the road
wheel angle d can be found using:
δ (deg)
 180  L
Understeer
δ    K ay
Ackerman K = Understeer Gradient  PI  R
Angle Where:
 180  L δ = road wheel angle (deg)
 
 PI  R Oversteer K = understeer gradient (deg/g)
Ay = lateral acceleration (g)
Lateral Acceleration (g) L = track (m)
R = radius (m)
 Limit Understeer and Oversteer
Behaviour

δ
δ
Limit (deg)  180  L
(deg) 2 
Understeer  PI  R

Understeer
Neutral  180  L
Steer  
Limit  PI  R
Vehicle 1 Oversteer
Oversteer
Vehicle 2 Critical
Characteristic
Speed
Speed
Lateral Acceleration (g)
Vehicle Speed (kph)
Consideration of Cornering Forces
using a Roll Stiffness Approach
-m ay
FRy FFy
V V
FRy FFy

m ay

 Fy = m ay  Fy - m ay = 0

Where ay is the centripetal Where –m ay is the

acceleration acting towards d’Alembert Force
the centre of the corner
 Free Body Diagram Roll Stiffness
Model During Cornering
Representing the inertial force as a d’Alembert force consider
the forces acting on the roll stiffness model during cornering as
shown K Tr

RCrear
Roll Axis
FROy
m ay
FROz cm

FRIy h

KTf
FRIz
RCfront

Z FFOy

X
FFIy FFIz
Y

FFIz
Forces and Moments Acting at the Roll
Axis
MRRC
m ay
FRRCy cm
Roll Axis
h

MRRC
MFRC
FRRCy FFRCy
KTr
RCrear
FROy

FROz
FRIy MFRC
FFRCy KTf
FRIz RCfront
Z FFOy
FFIy X
FFIz
Y

FFIz
 Forces and Moments (continued)

• Consider the forces and moments acting on the vehicle body

(rigid roll axis)
• A roll moment (m ay .h) acts about the axis and is resisted in
the model by the moments MFRC and MRRC resulting from the
front and rear roll stiffnesses KTf and KTr

FFRCy + FRRCy - m ay = 0
MFRC + MRRC - m ay . h = 0

• The roll moment causes weight transfer to the inner and outer
wheels
Forces and Moments (continued)
MRRC

RCrear ΔFFzM = component of weight transfer

on front tyres due to roll moment
ΔFRzM = component of weight transfer
on rear tyres due to roll moment

DFRzM Outer Wheels

MFRC
tr
DFRzM
RCfront

Inner Wheels Z
X
DFFzM
Y

tf
DFFzM
 Forces and Moments (continued)

• Taking moments for each of the front and rear axles gives:

MFRC  K Tf  1
FFzM   m a y .h  
tf  K Tf  K Tr  t f

MRRC  K Tr  1
FRzM   m a y .h  
tr  K Tf  K Tr  t r

• It can be that if the front roll stiffness KTf is greater than the
rear roll stiffness KTr there will be more weight transfer at the
front (and vice versa)
• It can also be seen that an increase in track will obviously
reduce weight transfer
 Forces and Moments (continued)
Consider again a free body diagram of the body roll axis and
the components of force acting at the front and rear roll centres
FRRCy
m ay
cm
Roll Axis
c
h

b FFRCy

 c   b 
This gives: FFRCy  m a y   FRRCy  m a y  
 bc   bc 
 Forces and Moments (continued)
• From this we can see that moving the body centre of mass forward would increase
the force, and hence weight transfer, reacted through the front roll centre (and vice
versa)
• We can now proceed to find the additional components, DFFzL and DFRzL, of weight
transfer due to the lateral forces transmitted through the roll centres
ΔFFzL = component of weight transfer
RCrear
on front tyres due to lateral force
FRRCy
Δ FRzL = component of weight transfer
on rear tyres due to lateral force
hr
DFRzL Outer Wheels
Taking moments again for each
tr of the front and rear axles gives:
DFRzL RCfront
FFRCy h   c   hf 
Inner Wheels hr ΔFFzL  FFRCy  f   m a y .h    
 tf   b  c   tf 
DFFzL
h   b   hr 
ΔFRzL  FRRCy  r   m a y .h    
DFFzL
tf  tr   b  c   tr 
 Forces and Moments (continued)
• It can be that if the front roll centre height hf is increased there will be more
weight transfer at the front (and vice versa)
• We can now find the resulting load shown acting on each tyre by adding or
subtracting the components of weight transfer to the front and rear static
tyre loads ( FFSz and FRSz)
RCrear
cm
FROy
m ay

Roll Axis This gives:

FROz
FRIy
FFIz = FFSz - DFFzM – DFFzL
FFOz = FFSz + DFFzM + DFFzL
FRIz FRIz = FRSz - DFRzM - DFRzL
RCfront
FROz = FRSz + DFRzM + DFRzL
Z FFOy
X
FFIy FFIz
Y

FFIz
 Loss of Cornering Force due to
Nonlinear Tyre Behaviour
• At this stage we must consider the tyre characteristics
• The tyre cornering force Fy varies with the tyre load Fz but
the relationship is not linear

Lateral
Force 
Fy 
ΔFy


Inner Static Outer Vertical Load Fz

Tyre Tyre Tyre
Load Load Load
 Loss of Cornering Force
(continued)

• The figure above shows a typical plot of tyre lateral force

with tyre load at a given slip angle
• The total lateral force produced at either end of the vehicle
is the average of the inner and outer lateral tyre forces
• From the figure it can be seen that DFy represents a
theoretical loss in tyre force resulting from the averaging
and the nonlinearity of the tyre
• Tyres with a high load will not produce as much lateral force
(in proportion to tyre load) compared with tyres on the
vehicle
 The Effect of Weight Transfer on
Understeer and Oversteer
• More weight transfer at either end will tend to reduce the
total lateral force produced by the tyres and cause that end
to drift out of the turn
• At the front this will produce Understeer and at the rear this
will produce Oversteer
Drift

Increase front weight

transfer - Understeer

Drift

Increase rear weight

transfer - Oversteer
 The Effect of Weight Transfer
(continued)

In summary the following changes could promote Understeer:

•Increase front roll stiffness relative to rear.

•Reduce front track relative to rear.
•Increase front roll centre height relative to rear.
•Move centre of mass forward
Case Study - Vehicle Modelling Study

LINKAGE MODEL
LUMPED MASS
MODEL

SWING ARM MODEL

ROLL STIFFNESS
MODEL
Vehicle Handling Tests
The following are typical of the tests which have been performed on the proving ground:

(i) Steady State Cornering - where the vehicle was driven around a 33 metre radius circle at constant velocity. The
speed was increased slowly maintaining steady state conditions until the vehicle became unstable. The test was
carried out for both right and left steering lock.

(ii) Steady State with Braking - as above but with the brakes applied at a specified deceleration rate ( in steps from 0.3g
to 0.7g) when the vehicle has stabilised at 50 kph.

(iii) Steady State with Power On/Off - as steady state but with the power on (wide open throttle) when the vehicle has
stabilised at 50 kph. As steady state but with the power off when the vehicle has stabilised at 50 kph.

(iv) On Centre - application of a sine wave steering wheel input (+ / - 25 deg.) during straight line running at 100 kph.

(v) Control Response - with the vehicle travelling at 100 kph, a steering wheel step input was applied ( in steps from 20
to 90 deg. ) for 4.5 seconds and then returned to the straight ahead position. This test was repeated for left and
right steering locks.

(vi) I.S.O. Lane Change (ISO 3888) - The ISO lane change manoeuvre was carried out at a range of speeds. The test
carried out at 100 kph has been used for the study described here.

(vii) Straight line braking - a vehicle braking test from 100 kph using maximum pedal pressure (ABS) and moderate
pressure (no ABS).
Computer Simulations

Following the guidelines shown performing all the simulations with a given ADAMS vehicle model, a set of results
based on recommended and optional outputs would produce 67 time history plots. Given that several of the
manoeuvres such as the control response are repeated for a range of steering inputs and that the lane change
manoeuvre is repeated for a range of speeds the set of output plots would escalate into the hundreds.
This is an established problem in many areas of engineering analysis where the choice of a large number of tests
and measured outputs combined with possible design variation studies can factor the amount of output up to
unmanageable levels.

MANOEUVRES - Steady State Cornering, Braking in a Turn, Lane Change, Straight Line Braking, Sinusoidal
Steering Input, Step Steering Input,

DESIGN VARIATIONS - Wheelbase, Track, Suspension, ...

ROAD SURFACE - Texture, Dry, Wet, Ice, m-Split

VEHICLE PAYLOAD - Driver Only, Fully Loaded, ...

AERODYNAMIC EFFECTS - Side Gusts, ...

RANGE OF VEHICLE SPEEDS - Steady State Cornering, ...

TYRE FORCES - Range of Designs, New, Worn, Pressure Variations, ...

ADVANCED OPTIONS - Active Suspension, ABS, Traction Control, Active Roll, Four Wheel Steer, ...
Double Lane Change Manoeuvre

30 m 25 m 25 m 30 m 15 m

A C

A - 1.3 times vehicle width + 0.25m

B - 1.2 times vehicle width + 0.25m

C - 1.1 times vehicle width + 0.25m

Lane Change Simulation
Determination of Roll Stiffness

SPH
Applied Roll Rear Roll
Angle Motion Centre
Rear Roll
Centre
CYL

Front Roll
Centre Front Roll
Centre

CYL Applied Roll

Angle Motion SPH
INPLANE
INPLANE

INPLANE
INPLANE
Determination of Roll Stiffness

Roll Moment (Nmm) FRONT SUSPENSION

Roll Angle (deg)

Modelling the Steering System

Steering
MOTION motion applied
at joint
Steering column

part
Steering rack
REV COUPLER
part
Revolute joint
to vehicle
body

TRANS Translational joint

to vehicle body

Front

suspension
Modelling the Steering System

Motion on the steering

system is ‘locked’ during
the initial static analysis

Downward motion of
vehicle body and steering
rack relative to suspension
during static equilibrium

Connection of tie
rod causes the front
wheels to toe out
Modelling the Steering System

COUPLER
COUPLER
Modelling a Speed Controller

REV
TORQUE

Dummy transmission
part located at mass
centre of the body
COUPLER

REV

REV

FRONT

WHEELS
Comparison with Track Test
(Lane Change)
Case Study – Dynamic Index Investigation

Tests Performed at the Prodrive Fen End Test Facility:

•Coordinated by Damian Harty
•Coventry University Subaru Vehicle
Calibration of Dynamic Index
Vehicle Ballast Conditions:

High DI = 1.02 Mid DI = 0.92 Low DI = 0.82

Front Ballast 48 kg 27 kg 5.5 kg

Rear Ballast 57 kg 29 kg 0 kg

Central Ballast 40.5 kg 90 kg 140 kg

Calibration of Dynamic Index
• Excel Spreadsheet
• ADAMS Simulation
• Prodrive Inertia Rig (Quadrifiler)
Calibration of Dynamic Index

ADAMS Quadrifiler Simulation:

Proving Ground Tests
Tests Performed at the Prodrive Fen End Test Facility:
•Basalt Strip X2
•Lane change (50MPH)
•0.3g and 0.8g Step steer
•Sine wave steering input increased frequency (50MPH)
•Lift off and turn in
•Lane change (60MPH)

•3 Expert Drivers (Prodrive)

•1 Experienced Automotive Engineer (Coventry University)
•5 Non-Expert Student Drivers (Coventry University)

•3 Settings of Dynamic Index (0.82, 0.92 and 1.02)

Proving Ground Tests
Driving on Wet Basalt

Expert Driver Non-Expert

ADAMS Simulations
ADAMS Simulations
Example Results
0.7G Step Steer
Yaw rate vs Lateral Acceleration vs Time
20 0.8
Yaw rate

Lateral Acceleration (m/s2)

15 0.6
Yaw rate (g)

0.4
10
0.2
5
0
0 -0.2
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
-5 -0.4
Time (s)

Proving Ground Results

ADAMS Results
Subjective Assessment

Example Questionnaire
Subjective Assessment
Example Questionnaire
Subjective Assessment

Subjective Analysis Average Results for each

DI
9
8
7
Score from 10

6
5
4
3 0.82
2 0.92
1 1.02
0
Subjective Assessment

DI 0.82 Subjective Analysis

10
9
8
7
Score from 10

6
5
4 Damian
DriverHarty
1
3 Driver
Lee 2
Adcock
2 Driver
David 3
Lapworth
1
0
Subjective Assessment

DI 0.92 Subjective Analysis

10

7
Score from 10

5 Damian
DriverHarty
1
Driver
Lee 2
Adcock
4
Driver
David 3
Lapworth
3

0
TURN IN Confidence Accuracy Body Slip Rate of Angle Lateral
Control Change Gain/Grip
Feel
Subjective Assessment

DI 1.02 Subjective Analysis

10

7
Score from 10

5 Damian Harty
Driver 1
Lee Adcock
Driver 2
4
Driver
David 3
Lapworth
3

0
TURN IN Confidence Accuracy Body Slip Rate of Angle Lateral
Control Change Gain/Grip
Feel
Conclusions
• Dynamic index (DI) is an important modifier of vehicle handling
performance.
• Subjective assessment indicates a DI of 0.92 is desirable.
• Experienced drivers may prefer a more “agile” vehicle with a low DI.
•Non-expert drivers may prefer a more “forgiving” car with a high DI.
• A detailed validated multi-body systems model of a vehicle allows in
depth analysis of responses that may be difficult to measure on the
proving ground.
•Subjective/objective correlation remains a challenge in vehicle
dynamics