2014-01-0872
Tire Model Application and Parameter Identification-A Literature Review
Author, co-author (Do NOT enter this information. It will be pulled from participant tab in
Affiliation (Do NOT enter this information. It will be pulled from participant tab in MyTechZone)
Copyright © 2014 SAE International
Abstract
A tire may be one of the most critical and complex components
in vehicle dynamics and road loads analyses because it serves
as the only interface between the road surface and the vehicle.
Extensive research and development activities about vehicle
dynamics and tire models have been published in the past
decades, but it is still not clear about the applications and
parameter identification associated with all of these tire
models. In this literature review study, various published tire
models used for vehicle dynamics and road loads analyses are
compared in terms of their modeling approaches, applications
and parameters identification process and methodologies. It is
hoped that the summary of this literature review work can help
clarify and guide the future research and development direction
about tire modeling.
Keywords: Tire model; vehicle dynamics; vehicle handling and
stability; ride comfort; road load; parameter identification.
Introduction
A pneumatic tire is usually the only component interfacing with
the road from a vehicle, thus it plays an important role in the
vehicle dynamics system. The pneumatic tire has three
fundamental functions: (i) generating proper forces during
vehicle cornering or traction/braking, (ii) absorbing the shock
and vibration caused by road irregularity, and (iii) supporting
the vehicle weight on various terrains (Wong, 2001). From this
point of view, it can be concluded that the design of a
pneumatic tire is vital to vehicle performance. To achieve a
proper tire design that meets all three function requirements, it
is essential to understand the tire dynamics characteristics
experimentally and/or analytically. Experimental approach is
ultimately considered to be necessary, direct and reliable, but
expensive, time consuming and practically impossible to cover
all operating conditions. Alternatively, analytical method via
modeling and simulation becomes more and more popular for
its significant advantages in many ways.
Like any other virtual models, the accuracy and predictability of
a tire model is most important. Ideally if one tire model could
fbe applied accurately for all operating conditions, it would be
highly accepted by users. Unfortunately such an “ideal” tire
model may not be viable in engineering practice. Therefore in
the past decades, various tire models have been developed for
different applications, such as handling and stability analysis,
ride comfort analysis, and road load analysis, etc.
Page 1 of 13
MyTechZone)
In general, we have divided tire models into two groups: the
on-road tire model and the off-road tire model. The on-road
refers to the paved road such as the highway and the local city
roads with hard surfaces; while the off-road case refers to the
road which is unpaved such as sand, mud, snow road. The
main purposes for tire models to be used for driving/braking
and handling analysis are to predict the longitudinal force
during braking/traction and/or the lateral force and self-align
torque during cornering at on-road situation. For these types of
analyses, the road is usually assumed to be flat and rigid and
the tire model is required to be valid up to around 8 Hz
(Pacejka and Bakker, 1992). In general, two approaches were
employed to construct this type of tire models: the analytical
approach and the empirical approach (Pacejka, 2005). Brush
model is one of the earliest analytical tire models, and it is an
origin of many other analytical models, e.g. Fiala’s theory
(Fiala, 1954), Pacejak’s physical-based analytical model
(Pacejka and Sharp, 1991), Gim’s analytical model (Gim and
Nikravesh, 1990; 1991), Levin’s tire model (Levin, 1994) and
CF-SAT system model (Miyashita and Kabe, 2005). Other
important analytical tire models include Sakai’s tire model
(Sakai, 1981), Sharp’s multi-radial-spoke tire model (Sharp and
El-Nashar, 1986), Mastinu’s FEM tire model (Maustinu and
Fainello, 1992), and Maurice pragmatic tire model (Maurice et
al., 1999). As for the empirical tire models, Pacejka’s Magic
Formula tire model (Pacejaka and Besselink, 1992) is the most
popular one and is still undergoing development. The latest
version of MF tire model is TNO MF-SWIFT (Schmeitz et al.,
2007; Besselink et al., 2010). Other empirical tire models
include TMeasy tire model (Hirschberg et al., 2002) and
Svendentius’s Semi-empirical tire model (Svendentius and
Gafvert, 2006). The handling and stability type of tire modeling
has been well developed and the models can satisfy all
requirements for almost all actual situations in terms of
accuracy and efficiency.
The second group of tire models is the ride comfort tire
models. The major concern is the human comfort and the tire
acts as a filter which is able to absorb the shock generated by
the obstacle between the road and tire. Human body sensitive
frequency range is less than 20 Hz (ISO 2631-1, 1997).
Therefore, this type of tire models has to be valid up to around
20 Hz. In particular, we mainly pay attention on vertical
direction forces for ride comfort study. Related research work
includes Bandel’s ‘black box’ model (Bandel and Monguzzi,
1988), Takayama’s tire model (Takayama and Yamagishi,
1984), Oertel’s model (Oertel, 1997), Elchler’s ride comfort tire
model (Elchler, 1997). More recent ride comfort tire models
include Belluzzo’s road-noise model (Belluzzo et al., 2002),
Kim’s 2D analytical tire model (Kim et al., 2007), Hegazy’s
quarter and half vehicle model (Hegazy and Sandu, 2010) and
Diglio’s rack model (Diglio, 2009). This type of tire models can
also satisfy requirements in terms of accuracy and efficiency.
Tire models for load analysis are typically more complex. This
type of models is required to be valid up to around 50 Hz
(Zegelaar and Pacejka, 1996) and is primarily applied for
predicting the vehicle durability road loads. In this case, forces
at all three directions (longitudinal, lateral and vertical) should
be studied. Tire models used for load analysis include
Mousseau’s rigid on elastic foundation model (Mousseau and
Clark, 1994), Zegelaar’s rigid ring model and flexible ring
model (Zegelaar and Pacejka, 1996) and Kao’s BAT Tire
Model (Kao, 2000). In particular, since tire models for road load
analysis have higher valid frequency, this type of tire models
can also handle the ride comfort situation. Four powerful
commercial tire models which can be used for both ride
comfort and durability cases are MF-SWIFT (Lugner et al.,
2005), RMOD-K tire model (Oertel and Fandre, 1999), FTire
(Gipser, 2005) and CDTire (Gallrein and Backer, 2007).
However, the accuracy of current available tire models is only
around 85% (Gallrein and Backer, 2007) and some of models
are difficult to determine models’ parameters.
Based on above discussions, various tire models for three
types of applications have been proposed during the past 4
decades. However, few studies can be found in literature about
the summary of various tire models’ advantages,
disadvantages, accuracy, efficiency, parameter identification.
Therefore, it is difficult to select appropriate tire models for
specific applications. This paper attempts to summarize these
characteristics for various tire models based on their
applications and parameter identification. In additional, this
paper aims to collect all available field/lab test data for
parameter identification to facilitate tire model users to use
these data.
more consistent between the steady state case and non-
steady state case. However, their accuracy is low compared
with the empirical tire models (Reinalter et al., 2007).
In Table 1, sixteen tire models used for handling and stability
analysis are summarized and compared. Among these tire
models, the following models can be applied only for purely
steady state situation, and the rest models can be applied for
both steady state and transient state situation: Fiala’s theory
(Fiala, 1954), Sakai’s tire model (Saikai, 1981), analytical tire
model (Gim et al., 1990, 1991), physical based analytical
model (Pacejka and Sharp, 1991), Levin’s model (Levin, 1994),
TMeasy tire model (Hirschberg and Weinfurter, 2002), CF-SAT
system model (Miyashita and Kabe, 2005), friction model
(Velenis, 2005) and Ph.An.Ty.M.H.A tire model (Capone et al.,
2009). Among all the steady state tire models, Fiala’s theory
(Fiala, 1954), TMeasy tire model (Hirschberg and Weinfurter,
2002), and CF-SAT system model (Miyashita and Kabe, 2005)
are only valid at pure slip situation. And the rest steady state
tire models can be used for combined slip situation. The
following models are based on the ‘brush concept’ include: the
Fiala’s theory (Fiala, 1954), analytical tire model (Gim et al.,
1990, 1991), physical based analytical model (Pacejka and
Sharp, 1991), Levin’s model (Levin, 1994), and CF-SAT
system model (Miyashita and Kabe, 2005). The accuracies for
most tire models are satisfactory except Fiala’s theory (Fiala,
1954). However, Fiala’s theory (Fiala, 1954) is very important
since many tire models are developed based on this theory. As
for the computational loads, the multi-radial-spoke tire model
(Sharp and EI-Nashar, 1986; Zhou et al., 1999) is the only one
which has high computational costs among all the summarized
handling analysis tire models due to its multi-spoke modeling
approach.

Tire Model Applications

In this section, we divide all available tire models into three
groups based on their applications. For each group of tire
models, we compare their application limitations, advantages
and disadvantages, simulation time, accuracy, how easy to
diverge, how easy to model.

Tire models for Handling and Stability Analysis

In this section, we reviewed various tire models suitable for the

handling and stability analysis, and compare them as shown in
Table 1. As we discussed before, the main purpose for
handling and stability analysis model is to analyze the
longitudinal/lateral force and self-align torque due to
longitudinal/lateral slip and tire deformation in both steady state
case and the non-steady state case. The tire models we
summarized covers almost all the situations for handling and
stability analysis including the pure steady slip case, combined
steady slip case, and the combined non-steady state case. In
general, the empirical tire models, e.g. TMeasy Tire Model
(Hirschberg and Weinfurter, 2002), etc., can accurately predict
the tire behavior for standard handling analysis case. However,
they cannot handle the large slip or high tire deformation
cases. Meanwhile, the analytical approach tire models, e.g.
CF-SAT System Model (Miyashita and Kabe, 2005), etc., are

Page 2 of 13
Table 1: Comparison among various tire models used primarily for handling and stability analysis
Advantage/ Parameter
Tire Models Accuracy Capability Complexity
Disadvantage Identifications
Advantages: Only have 10
Only valid at 1)
1) Easy to construct and apply; 2) The trend of the parameters,
Fiala’s pure steady state
one of the default tire models in simulation results Easy to construct and each parameter
Theory side slip case;
MSC ADAMS. matches the easy to apply can be
(Fiala, 1954) 2) normal load
Disadvantages: experimental results. determined from
distribution
1) Narrow application range. experiment
This paper presents the
simulation results of the Valid for steady The calculation of the
Advantages: This method can be
Sakai’s tire side force up to 60◦ side state case, can be forces and moments Parameters are
applied to calculate the six
model slip angle, and the slip used for involving integration of identified through
components of the force and
(Sakai, 1981) ratio up to 0.08. And the combined slip these component over experiments.
moments.
results match the situation the contact region
experimental data.
Multi-radial-
Advantages: 1) High accuracy and It is possible to select
spoke Tire
only small amount of parameters the model parameters Can be applied in
Model (Sharp Hard to construct Small amount of
need to be determined; 2) easy to such that the theoretical both steady state
and EI- compared to some parameters need
apply; 3) wide range of application. results are sufficiently and non-steady
Nashar, other approaches to be determined
Disadvantages: accurate in certain state case
1986; Zhou
High computational load. cases.
et al., 1999)
For both pure slip and This model
Advantages:1) Can be used for
combined slip cases, the maximize the
traction and braking simulation; 2) Can be used for
force results satisfy the Based on brush tire parameters
Analytical can be used in both on and off combined slip
experimental results; but model, divide the dependent on
Tire Model road conditions; case including the
the Self-aligning torque contact region into two the tire geometry
(Gim et al., 3) can be used in both pure and camber angle;
doesn’t fully fit the adhesion region and and minimize the
1990, 1991) combined slip case. only valid at
experimental data when sliding region parameters
Disadvantage: Only valid at steady steady state case
the normal loads get dependent on
state case.
higher. the experiments
Physical
based Advantages: Easy to construct, For pure slip case, the
Parameters are
Analytical and simple; Disadvantages: 1) forces match the Based on the brush
Only valid at identified from
Model Only valid at steady state case; 2) measured results; the model, the transition
steady state case. experimental
(Pacejka and doesn’t fit the experimental data at moment doesn’t fully region are introduced
tests
Sharp, 1991) combined slip case. match the experiment

1) Can be used in
Advantages: 1) Easy to construct
both steady state More than 50
and apply; 2) high accuracy and
and transient parameters need
efficiency;
MF Tire state conditions; to be
3) one of the most widely used
Model 2) can be used to determined, and
empirical tire models, still High accuracy up to 10 Easy to construct and
(Pacejka and analyze more all the
undergoing development; 4) can Hz apply
Bakker, complex tire constructing
capture the nonlinearity in tire
1992) behavior in parameters have
behavior at very low to very high
combination with physical
slip conditions.
some other tire background.
models.
Some
parameters are
Advantages: 1) Use to examine
Qualitatively matches This model is determined by
the steady state tire behavior at
Levin’s the experimental data, used for analysis direct
large velocities; 2) includes the Based on brush model,
Model (Levin, additional verification is the steady state measurements
vertical load distribution influences. easy to construct
1994) need for racing and tire behavior for and some
Disadvantages: Can’t be used at
aircraft tires large velocities parameters are
transient condition.
determined from
experiments.
Advantages: 1) can be used for Parameters
vehicle dynamics and tire design; includes the
Semi- 2) can be used in both steady Used in both geometrical
Analytical state and transient state steady state and parameters, tire
Valid up to 10 to 15 Hz, Not easy compared to
Tire Model conditions. transient state structure
not fully accurate for the some other empirical
(Mastinu and Disadvantages: 1) The results of conditions, also parameters and
moment results models
Gaiazzi, the moment don’t fully fit the can be used for the tire ground
1997) experimental data even for steady tire design parameters, they
state conditions; 2) valid up to 10- are obtained by
15 Hz. experiments
Pragmatic Advantages: 1) Easy to apply and Valid at large slip Used to analysis The relaxation length is The parameters
Tire Model easy to construct; 2) the results of variations. The results of the transient tire introduced for model are determined
(Maurice et the force fit the experiment well. self-align moment vs. behavior construction, easy to from estimation
al., 1999) Disadvantage: 1) The results of slip don’t match well with construct the model equations.
self-align moment vs. slip don’t the experimental data.
match well with the experimental
data; 2) the model can’t be used at
 high frequency situations.
Advantages:
1) Easy to Construct and apply; 2) 10 parameters
TMeasy Tire 1) Can be used
efficient; 3) high accuracy at are identified
Model when some data
applicable region. The model is through
(Hirschberg High accuracy within is missing;
Disadvantages: constructed based on experiments, and
and applicable range 2) only valid for
1) Restrict to pure slip case; 2) experiment tests each of them has
Weinfurter, pure slip steady
only apply to certain types of tire; actual physical
2002) state case
3) difficult to predict tire behavior interpretations
beyond the experimental range.
An analytical
model for
CF-SAT
Advantages: 1) Easy to construct; cornering force The parameters
System
2) can be applied for tire design and self-aligning Based on Fiala’s are determined
Model Fit the experimental data
and vehicle cornering simulations. torque. Can be Model, easy to by least-square
(Miyashita at valid range
Disadvantages: Limited to the side used for tire construct fit of the
and Kabe,
slip angle case. design and measured data.
2005)
vehicle dynamic
simulation
This model can be
used at both
Advantages: 1) First includes
Semiphysical steady state and All the
transient steer effect; 2) wide Matches the
Tire Model transient state parameters are
range of application. experimental data well Easy to construct
(Gim et al., case, especially, it determined from
Disadvantages: Doesn’t apply at at steady state case
2005) models the experiments
short wavelength road conditions.
transient steer
effect
Parameters are
Advantages: Can be used for
Velenis’s determined by
control design Based on LuGre’s
Friction the comparison
Disadvantages: 1) doesn’t Can be used for friction model, can be
Model Accurate at steady state between the
consider the camber, normal load control and on- extended to
(Velenis, slip case steady state tire
distribution and belt deflection, and line estimation longitudinal/lateral
2005) model and the
so on; 2) the results only fit for case.
existing tire
steady state case.
model
Can be used in
Semi- Advantages: 1) Easy to apply and combination of
Empirical construct; 2) wide range of combined slip,
Accurate in steady-
Tire Model application; 3) analyze the camber angle and Only 6
steady situation due to Easy to construct and
(Svendenius coupling between lateral and velocity parameters need
semi-empirical apply
and Gafvert, longitudinal dynamics. dependence in to be determined
approach.
2006) Disadvantages: Can’t be used for both steady and
short wavelength road conditions. transient
conditions
Can be used to
analysis various
PAC2002 Advantages: 1) The inputs are vehicle handling
The parameters
Tire Model extended with turn slip; 2) can be behavior such as
Belongs to Magic are determined
(Kuiper and used for both steady state and Valid up to 12 Hz parking, low
Formula type tire from
Oossten, transient state case; 3) wide range speed application,
model group. experiments.
2007) of application. variation of friction
properties and
ABS braking
The parameters
Ph.An.Ty.M. Advantages: An analytical model The model is built in this model are
H.A Tire with low computation load. Used to predict based on the physical and
Accurate at steady state
model Disadvantages: The lateral and the normal tire- equilibrium condition geometrical, and
case
(Capone et longitudinal forces are not given in road interaction and the geometrical can be
al., 2009) this paper. relations. measured
directly.

Tire models for Ride Comfort Analysis

In this section, various tire models suitable for ride comfort analysis are reviewed and the comparison is shown in Table 2. Ride
comfort tire models should be able to accurately capture the tire/road interactions that are the major contributing factors to human
perception about vehicle ride comfort. The key point for ride comfort analysis is to locate the idealized contact point and to properly
describe the tire filtering properties (Reinalter et al., 2007). In general, driver/passenger ride comfort is dominantly associated with the
vehicle pitch plane motion. Thus, 2D (In-plane) tire models are sufficient for ride comfort analysis.

In Table 2, we have summarized nine tire models which can be applied for ride comfort analysis. Most of the tire models have relatively
low computational costs except Oertel’s model (Oertel, 1997), road-noise model (Belluzzo et al., 2002) and rack model (Digio, 2009).
The relatively higher accurate tire models include the road-noise model (Belluzzo et al., 2002), 2D analytical tire model (Kim et al.,
2008), and the rack model (Digio, 2009). Both ‘black-box’ model (Bandel and Monguzzi, 1988) and road-noise model (Belluzzo et al.,
2002) are valid up to 100 Hz.
Table 2: Comparison among various tire models used primarily for ride comfort analysis
Advantages/Disadvantage Parameter
Tire Models Accuracy Capability Complexity
s Identification

Advantages: Conclude that

the tangential force and the Only valid for
Both the time domain The forces are
radial force are determined the 2D case
Takayama’s Tire results and the derived from a The parameters are
by the radial rigid mode when the tire
Model (Takayama and frequency domain mass-spring tire given based on
vibration and the torsional passes
Yamagishi, 1984) results match the model with 5 165SR 13 tire.
vibration separately. through a
experimental data. degree of freedom.
Disadvantages: Can’t be cleat
used for multiple obstacles
case.
Advantages: Avoid the
complexity of tire road
interaction due to semi- The tire is assumed Five parameters
‘Black-box’ model empirical approach. More tests need to be as a damped one should be
Disadvantages: 1) More Valid up to
(Bandel and conducted to prove the degree of freedom determined, they can
tests are needed to confirm 150 Hz
Monguzzi, 1988) accuracy of this model (DOF) oscillating be obtained from
this approach; 2) we may system. experimental tests
need to improve or modify
this model without
changing its basic
structure.
Advantages: Two types of
model are given: 1) tire
model with discretized
contact region used for Can be used
long wavelength road to simulate
condition; 2) tire model the ride The stiffness
The results for the
with discretized belt used comfort test parameters are
twist-beam rear axle
Ride Comfort Tire for short wavelength road at the case 56 degrees of determined based on
condition doesn’t fully
Model (Eichler, 1997) condition. of running freedom the equations in
match the experimental
Disadvantages: 1) The over a cleat, terms of the free
data
results for the beam rear multi-link natural frequencies.
axle condition and multi- rear
link rear suspension don’t suspensions
fully match the
experimental data; 2)
doesn’t consider the road
excitation.
Advantages: Decouple the
dynamic characteristics The results doesn’t
and geometric match the experimental FEM are used for Parameters are
Oertel’s Model
characteristics by using data due to the lack of the tire model determined from
(Oertel, 1997)
sensorpoints. inner friction construction. measurement
Disadvantages: The results consideration
don’t fully match the
experimental data.
Can be used
Matlab Based Advantage: Simple and low Not very accurate
as a teaching The parameters are
Numerical Model computational load. since it doesn’t include 10 DOF simple
tool, not determined from
(Greco and Barcellos, Disadvantage: Not suitable the detailed information numerical model
suitable for experiments.
2001) for industrial application of the tire.
industrial
due to low accuracy.
Advantages: 1) Valid in a
wide range up to 250 Hz,
the frequency can easily Based on finite
extend to 400 Hz; 2) the Valid up to element tire model.
parameters are determined 250 Hz, can Describes the tire The parameters are
Road-Noise Model The results match the
from virtual tests, no extra be easily properties in detail. determined based on
(Belluzzo et al., 2002) experimental data well.
experimental tests are extended to Around 8000 virtual tests.
needed to for parameter 400 Hz degrees of
identification. freedom.
Disadvantage: The results
do not consider the cavity
resonance components.
2D analytical tire Advantages: Can be used Both handling tests and Can be A complete The parameters are
model (Kim et al., for both handling and ride cleat tests are applied for analytical model determined from
2008) comfort situations. conducted, and the both experiments.
Disadvantage: Only valid simulation results handling and
for low frequency satisfy the ride comfort
experimental results situations at
low
 frequency

Advantages: 1) This model

is used to examine the
properties of four shock Can be used
absorbers; 2) can be used to analyze
Quarter and half The simulation results
for both vehicle handling the vehicle The parameters are
vehicle model don’t match the Two dimensional
and ride comfort analysis. handling and determined from
(Hegazy and Sandu, experimental data in vehicle models
Disadvantages: Lack ride comfort experiments.
2009) some cases.
enough DOF to accurately at the same
describe the coupled rigid- time.
body motions of the sprung
mass.

Advantages: 1) This model

Used to
is used for predict the The stiffness, The parameters are
model the
wheel rotation vibration viscous damping determined based on
vehicle
Rack Model (Digio, generated by the wheel and friction measurements in the
Accurate and robust behavior
2009) unbalance or asymmetric properties are operational range of
under tire
obstacle; 2) can be detailed described the wheel unbalance
unbalance
implemented in complex in this model. excitation.
excitation
multi-body models easily.

Tire models for Road Loads Analysis

In this section, various tire models suitable for road load analysis are reviewed and the comparison is given in Table 3. The
road loads analysis tire models are mainly used to predict the durability loads as discussed before. The basic requirement
for this type of tire models is that they can accurately predict the longitudinal, lateral and vertical forces at various road
conditions. These forces are the sources of loads to vehicle body and are the basis for the damage calculation and durability
analysis (Reinalter et al., 2007). Currently, many road loads tire models only focus on 2D (in-plane) dynamics, in which case
only longitudinal and vertical forces are predicted. However, the 2D road loads analysis tire models are only applicable when
an obstacle is perpendicular to the wheel travel direction. When the oriented direction of the obstacle is uncertain, we have
to consider the 3D (out-of-plane) road loads tire modeling (Kao, 1997).

In Table 3, eleven tire models used for road load analysis are summarized. The tire models with relatively short simulation time include
Mousseau’s model (Mousseau and Hilbert, 1996), Kao’s BAT tire model (Kao, 2000), MF-SWIFT tire model (Lugner and Pacejka,
2005), FTire (Gipser, 2005), and ABAQUS-based surrogate tire model (Ardeh, 2011). The tire models which are accurate up to 100 Hz
include the RMOD-K tire model (Oertel and Fandre, 1999), FTire (Gisper, 2005), and CD-tire (Gallrein and Backer, 2007). The tire
models used for 3D road load analysis include the RMOD-K tire model (Oertel and Fandre, 1999), Kao’s BAT tire model (Kao, 2000),
MF-SWIFT (Lugner and Pacejka, 2005), FTire (Gipser, 2005), and CD tire (Gallrein and Backer, 2007). Yang and Xu ( Yang and Xu,
2011) discuss the validation process from tire model parameterization to full vehicle model simulation, present the tire load correlation
between prediction with CDTire model and measurement.

Table 3: Comparison among various tire models used primarily for road loads analysis
Parameter
Tire Models Advantages/Disadvantages Accuracy Capability Complexity
Identifications

Advantages: 1) Can be used for

both ride comfort and durability
analysis; 2) don’t require detailed The softening
Ring on Elastic
preliminary information for model beam
Foundation Valid at 2D REF model The parameters are
construction 3) only needs a few foundation
Model quasi-state contained beam identified based on
DOF to predict the tire behavior. model matches
(Mousseau and case finite elements the experiments
Disadvantages: 1) Only valid at the measured
Clark, 1994)
2D quasi-state case; 2) limited data
application in industry; 3) won’t be
accurate when no softening is in
the foundation.
An extension of
REF model, the
Advantages: Can predict the The parameters are
Mousseau’s tread is modeled by
spindle load easily and accurately Could be determined by
Model beam element and
for large obstacle; accurate extended to matching the
(Mousseau and the sidewall is
Disadvantages: 1) Only apply to the 3D case simulation results to
Hilbert, 1996) approximate by
2D case 2) only valid for low experimental results
circular membrane;
velocity easy to construct.

Zegelaar’s Tire Advantages: 1) Three types of For longitudinal Used for in- For low velocity The parameters are
Model (Rigid unevenness are specified in this force: accurate plane tire simulation, the identified through
 up to 50 Hz and
ring model and paper, including the cleat, positive reasonable at paper uses flexible
flexible ring step and negative step; 2) Rigid 50-100Hz; dynamics; ring model; for high
model) ring model is used to analyze the various road velocity simulation, experiments
(Zegelaar and tire behavior over a cleat at high unevenness the paper uses
For vertical
Pacejka, 1996) velocity. rigid ring model.
load accurate
Disadvantages: Valid only for 2D
up to 100 Hz
case

Can be
applied from
Advantages: Wide ranges of the steady The parameters are
RMOD-K Tire application, different complexity of state case to Provide a detailed determined through
Model (Oertel tire models are available Valid up to 100 the complex description of the direct
and Fandre, according to different situation. Hz 3D high tire structure by measurements,
1999) Disadvantage: 1) High frequency using FEM. experiments and
computational loads; 2) not short other papers
suitable for analyze the change of wavelength
the performance parameters case

The lateral Can be used

Kao’s BAT Tire force, at 3D case,
Model (Kao, Advantages: 1) Extended the overturning applicable in Parameters are
2000) model into 3D tire behavior; 2) moment and MBD program, Use 6 DOF to determined from
can be used for both ride comfort self-aligning can be represent the tire actual experiment
and durability load analysis. torque do not fit developed dynamics. and numerical
(Bushing-
Disadvantages: Some predict the further for experiment
Analogy Tire
data doesn’t fit the experimental experimental more complex
Model)
data well. data well situations

Advantages: 1) Two effective

enveloping models were
developed to describe the road Can be used
surface; 2) can be used to The tire behavior is
Schmeitz’s to describe
simulate for multiple obstacles simulated The parameters are
model Valid up to the tire
case. combining the rigid determined through
(Schmeitz and 50~100 Hz behavior for
Disadvantages: 1) Only valid at ring model and the experiments
Jansen, 2004) successive
2D road surface; 2) not able to enveloping model.
obstacles
handle large number of
combination steps; 3) the
computation load for linear radial-
interradial spring model is high.
Belt is described by
rigid ring, nonlinear
A powerful tire
brush model is
modeling tool
used to describe
Advantages: 1) Relatively simple that can be
the contact patch
with high accuracy; 2) wide range used from the
Valid up to 80 behavior, the road
MF-SWIFT of application; 3) still undergoing simple quasi-
Hz, wavelength roughness is The parameters are
(Lugner and development. steady case to
no less than described by the identified by MF-tool
Pacejka, 2005) Disadvantage: Not suitable to the complex
10cm effective road plane
analyze the influence of the 3D shortwave
model and the tire
parameter change. and high
forces and
frequency
moments are
case
described by MF
formula.
Advantages: 1) Wide range of
application, can be used for 3D The belt is
Can be used
case; 2) valid for arbitrary sharp represented by a
for steady
edged road conditions; 3) a Valid up to 200 large number of The parameters can
Flexible-ring tire state handling
thermal model is given for Hz, wavelength ‘belt elements’ be identified by cleat
model (FTire) analysis, ride
examine the friction and inflation no less than which is attached tests or by FETire
(Gipser, 2005) comfort
pressure changes. 5~15cm to their neighbors calculations
analysis and
by stiff spring and
road load test
bending stiffness.

Advantages: 1) Can be used for

CD-Tire ride comfort analysis and Parameters are
Accurate up to Wide range of Based on RMOD-K
(Gallrein and durability analysis at both 2D and identified by the tool
150 Hz application Tire Model.
Backer, 2007) 3D cases; 2) includes different tire named CDTirePI
models for different applications.

Baecker’s Tire Advantages: 1) improvement of The simulation Can be used Based on CD Tire New dynamic test rig
Model (Baecker CD Tire, valid for low aspect ratio results match to do the model, extend the can be used for
 nonlinearity of the
tires; 2) new LBF test rig are belt and the side
the
developed for modeling and wall model so as to parameter
et al., 2010) experimental simulations at
parameter identification. accurately describe identification
data well.
Disadvantage: Only 2D simulation the large tire
results are given deformation.

Two phase
optimization -based
1) Can be
algorithm is
extended to
Advantages: 1100 times faster employed in this
ABAQUS-Based 3D case
than ABAQUS simulation while Arbitrary model; the first The parameters are
Surrogate Tire 2) Can be
retaining satisfactory accuracy. accuracy can phase is used to identified based on
Model (Ardeh, used for the
Disadvantages: Only valid at 2D be achieved estimate the virtual tests.
2011) control of
case. spindle force and
mechatronic
the second phase
systems
is used to ensure
the accuracy.

Tire Model Parameterizations

Tire parameters include tire geometry parameters, tire structure parameters, and tire ground parameters (Oertel and Fandre, 1999).
Tire geometry parameters can be obtained directly from the tire design. For the other two types of parameters, several approaches can
be applied to determine their values. The first approach, which is fairly easy, is to compute these parameters from the known geometry
parameter based on geometrical methods. The second approach is to acquire these parameters from various standard experimental
tests including the lab tests and road tests. Wheel force transducers (WFT) are commonly used to measure the forces and moments
between spindle and tire for vehicle road test simulation ( Xu etal, 2005, 2006, and 2008), tire model parameterizations, and road load
analysis ( Yang and Xu, 2011). Because this approach is time consuming and expensive, the goal is to reduce experimental tests in
the future. The final approach is based on the virtual simulations of Finite Element Tire (FET) models.

Laboratory Test

In this section, we summarize various parameters identification method based on laboratory tests. Kallenbach (1987) conducted a
survey on the parameter identification methods for vehicle models. In his paper, various parameter identification methods, including the
model adjustment techniques, least square and related explicit methods, transformation of the measured signals, transformation of the
model and the covariance methods, were discussed in detail. He also showed an example to identify the parameters of a passenger car
by using covariance methods. For Mousseau and Clark (1994) REF tire model, the circumferential tread stiffness was obtained by
cutting a specimen out of the tire and the tread shear stiffness was obtained by measuring the flat surface and knife edge stiffness for
different inflation pressures. Bruni et al. (1997) identified the parameters of the rigid ring tire model by minimizing the difference
between the experimental natural frequencies and damping factors. Hirschberg et al. (2002) acquired the parameters for their TMeasy
model by conducting the lab experiments. Vanture et al. (2003) estimated the dynamic parameters of a car based on weighted least
squares method. Ortiz et al. (2005) obtained the parameters for Gim and Nikravesh’s analytical tire model from IMMa tire test bench. In
Table 4, we have collected all raw data for tire model parameter identifications from the literature.

Table 4: Various raw data for tire model identifications based on lab tests
Tire/Vehicle Raw Data
Models
Vertical Total mass of car=1830 kg; Mass of front wheel=23 kg; Mass of rear wheel=23 kg;
dynamics of Equiv. mass or rear axle=67.9 kg; Equiv. mass of motor=120 kg; Roll inertial moment of the car=208 kg∙m 2
a passenger Yaw inertial moment of the car=2551kg∙m2; Inertia moment of motor block with respect to roll axis=4.8 kg∙m2
car Front suspension stiffness=34300 N/m; Rear suspension stiffness=24270 N/m; Rear suspension stabilizer= 1150
(Kallenbach, N/m;
1987) Front tire elasticity= 175200 N/m; Rear tire elasticity= 262000N/m; Motor suspension elasticity=277900 N/m;
Coefficients of front shock absorbers=[625 N/(m/s) 12 N 450 N/(m/s)]; Motor suspension damping=926 N/(m/s);
Coefficients of front shock absorbers=[820 N/(m/s) 15 N 704 N/(m/s)]

REF Tire REF Model Parameters Inflated REF Model Parameters

Model Inner radius: 210.5mm Outer radius: 335mm Inner radius: 210.5mm
(Mousseau Tire width: 137mm Outer radius: 335mm
and Clark, Tread bending stiffness: 3.29×106 N/mm2 Tire width: 137mm
1994) Tread thickness: 14mm Tread bending stiffness: 1.17×106 N/mm2
Tread axial stiffness: 1.31×105 N Tread thickness: 14mm
Tread shear stiffness(GAs): 1658 N Tread axial stiffness: 1.31×105 N
Friction coefficient: 0.4 Tread shear stiffness(GAs): 1658 N
Foundation modulus: 1.83MPa Friction coefficient: 0.4
Poisson’s ratio: 0.05 Foundation modulus: 1.41MPa
 Poisson’s ratio: 0.05
Rigid Ring Rigid ring mass mb=4.24kg Torsional stiffness cbt=110660 Nm/rad Vertical result arm f=0.002 m
2
Model Rigid ring inertial moment Jb=0.33 kg∙m Torsional damping rbt=20.1 Nm/rad
(Bruni et al, Rim inertial moment Jr=0.41 kg∙m2 Creep stiffness ckx=19470 N
1997; for tire Torsional stiffness R=0.279 m Radial stiffness cb=1351200.0 N/m
195/60 R15) Vertical damping rcz=123.5 Nm/rad
Rigid Residual longitudinal stiffness ccx=449700 N/m Torsional damping rct=41.5 Nm/rad
Residual vertical stiffness ccz=192900.0 N/m
Residual torsional stiffness cct=23870.0 Nm/rad Half contact length a=0.05 m
TMeasy When vertical tyre force Fz=3.2 kN When Fz=6.4 kN
Model Longitudinal stiffness dFx0=90 kN Longitudinal stiffness dFx0=160 kN
(Hirschberg Longitudinal slip when Fx is maximum sxM=0.090 Longitudinal slip when Fx is maximum sxM=0.110
et al., ,2002; Maximum longitudinal force FxM=3.30 kN Maximum longitudinal force FxM=6.50 kN
for tire Longitudinal slip when full sliding starts sxG=0.400 Longitudinal slip when full sliding starts sxG=0.500
Radial Full sliding longitudinal force FxG=3.20 kN Full sliding longitudinal force FxG=6.00 kN
315/80 Lateral stiffness dFy0=70 kN Lateral stiffness dFy0=100 kN
M
R22.5 and Lateral slip when Fy is maximum sy =0.180 Lateral slip when Fy is maximum syM=0.200 Maximum
tire Radial Maximum lateral force FyM=3.10 kN lateral force FyM=5.40 kN
205/50 R15) Lateral slip when full sliding starts SyG=0.600 Lateral slip when full sliding starts syG=0.800
Full sliding lateral force FyG=3.10 kN Full sliding lateral force FyG=5.30 kN

Identification Parameters for 406 Peugeot car

of the Suspensions stiffness Suspension damper coefficient Anti-roll bar stiffness Vertical stiffness of the tires
dynamic Rear left=20479.26 N/m Rear left=4145.70 N/(m/s) Rear=24076.59 N/m Rear left=216502.50 N/m
parameters Rear right=20479.26 N/m Rear right=4463.18 N/(m/s) Front=18455.36 N/m Rear right=217816.21 N/m
of a car Front left=27483.52 N/m Front left=3164.52 N/(m/s) Front left=63.91 kg/m 2
(Venture et Front right=25957.54 N/m Front right=3881.03 N/(m/s) Front right=65.81 kg/m 2
al., 2003)

IMMa tyre Radial stiffness cz, longitudinal stiffness cs, lateral stiffness cα and camber stiffness cγ under different vertical load
test bench (Inlation pressure p=2.2 bar, for tyre INSA TURBO 185/60 R 14)
(Ortiz et al., cz (N/m) cs (N/m) cα (N/rad) cγ (N/deg)
2005; for
Gim and 110860 (Fz=1.1 kN) 42859 (Fz=1.1 kN) 40247 (Fz=1.65kN) 12.3833 (Fz=1.7kN)
Nikravesh 134310 (Fz=1.65kN) 47900 (Fz=1.65kN) 47319 (Fz=2.1kN) 27.9547 (Fz=2.3kN)
tire model) 147330 (Fz=2 kN) 48369 (Fz=2kN) 51962(Fz=2.5kN) 39.6499 (Fz=2.6kN)

Field Test

In this section, various raw data for tire model parameter identifications based on field tests are presented. Gim et al. (1991) obtained
the parameters for their analytical tire model from the experiments. Moreover, he also provided the friction parameters for different
terrains. Ammon (1992) formulated a more general surface model and also identified the model’s parameters based on the extended
unevenness model. Zegelaar and Pacejka (1996) conducted modal analysis experiments on the road for their rigid ring tire model
parameters identification. Russo et al. (2000) employed extended nonlinear Kalman filter method to identify the parameters of a classic
quadricycle tire model. Fan and Guan (2003) obtained the tire modal parameters from single point excitation experiments. Muller et al.
(2009) presented a system identification method for tire model parameters identification, and verified their method by applying it on a 7-
DOF model of a host vehicle. In Table 5, we have collected various raw data for tire model parameter identifications.

Table 5: Various raw data for tire model identifications based on field tests
Tire/Vehicle Raw Data
Models
Analytical Longitudinal stiffness and Lateral stiffness and friction Radial and camber stiffness, Friction parameters for
Tire Model friction parameters parameters according to friction parameters different terrains
(Gim et al., according to different different vertical loads: according to different vertical Terrain µp µ0 µ1
1991) vertical loads: FZ Cα µ0 µ1 loads: (ss=0.2) (ss=0) (ss=1)
FZ Cs µ0 µ1 (kg) (kg/slip) (ss=0) (ss=1) FZ Cz µ0 µ1 Dry
(kg) (kg/slip) (ss=0) (ss=1) 100 2150 1.307 1.210 (lb) (kg/slip) (ss=0) (ss=1) asphalt 0.9 0.938 0.75
100 1900 1.342 1.037 200 4010 1.190 1.105 100 2150 1.307 1.210 Wet
200 4079 1.241 0.982 300 6150 1.175 1.047 200 4010 1.190 1.105 asphalt 0.7 0.725 0.6
300 6121 1.189 0.964 400 7250 1.126 1.053 300 6150 1.175 1.047 Gravel 0.6 0.613 0.55
400 9000 1.159 0.945 500 8100 1.101 1.042 400 7250 1.126 1.053 Hard-packed
500 12000 1.119 0.926 600 8850 1.084 1.035 500 8100 1.101 1.042 Snow 0.2 0.213 0.15
600 14500 1.102 0.922 600 8850 1.084 1.035 Ice 0.1 0.108 0.07
Parameters Road Type Field Country Country Federal Federal roads
related to tracks roads roads roads
road Designation F1 L1 L2 B1 B2
surface Track width ρ 0.50 0.88 0.45 0.45 0.47
modeling Spatial frequency Ωp 0.99 3.30 1.53 0.73 0.96
(Ammon, Parameter α 0.94 0.97 0.56 0.60 0.96
1992) Cycle frequency at which the coherence for ρ=1 just 1.71 3.58 2.69 1.34 1.29
 assumes 0.5 Ω0.5|1m
Gradient of the curve on the logarithmic scale γ'o.5 -0.86 -1.24 -0.94 -0.88 -0.88
Rigid Ring Tire ring mass mb=7.18 kg; Moment of inertia tire ring Ib=0.636 kg∙m2; Moment of inertia rim Ir=0.492 kg∙m2
Tire Model Transitional tire sidewall stiffness cb=1.6×106 N/m; Rotational tire sidewall stiffness cθ=1.0×105 N∙m/rad
(Zegelaar Transitional tire sidewall damping kb=320 N∙s/m; Rotational tire sidewall damping kθ=50 N∙m∙s/rad
and Longitudinal tread stiffness cpx=10.7×106 N/m2
Pacejka,
1996)
Car Center of mass height=0.55m Front roll centre height=0.035m Rear roll centre height=0.0096m
Parameters Front roll stiffness=29240Nm/rad Rear roll centre height=10500Nm/rad Front roll damping=2290Nm/rad
Identificatio Rear roll damping=2823Nm/rad Relaxation length=0.09m Front toe angle due to rebound=-0.22rad/m
n (Russo et Rear toe angle due to rebound=0.10rad/m Front toe angle due to lateral force=-0.000011rad/N
al., 2000) Rear toe angle due to lateral force=-0.00000047rad/N Front camber angle due to rebound=25.0deg/m
Rear camber angle due to rebound=1.0deg/m
Vertical Static vertical tire stiffness Normal tire stiffness with different adhesion coefficients
Properties Normal Flat Road Drum (2.5m) Vertical load(kN)
Using load Deflection Stiffness Deflection Stiffness 2.0 4.0 7.0 10.0
Experiment Fz(kN) (mm) (N/m) (mm) (N/m) Flat µ=0.8 214361 244337 288915 324394
al Modal 0 0.00 0.00 road If sliding No No No No
Parameters 1 6.00 190150 6.40 178864 stiff. µ=0.3 214361 244337 297583 343858
(Fan and (N/m)
2 11.30 214361 12.17 195671 If sliding No No Yes Yes
Guan, 2003; 3 16.00 228580 17.00 204225 Drum µ=0.8 195671 216675 250959 293188
for tire 4 20.10 244337 21.77 216675 stiff. If sliding No No No No
195/60 R14) 5.7 25.00 263167 27.96 232713 (N/m) µ=0.3 195671 216675 260920 307846
7 31.70 288915 34.98 250959 If sliding No No Yes Yes
Identifying Parameters Identification for 7-DOF vehicle model (Chul and Ro)
Vehicle Total vehicle mass m=2750 kg; Sprung mass ms=2472 kg;
Model Unsprung mass of each wheel assembly mus=69.57 kg;
Parameters Front suspension stiffness ksf=50104 N/m; Rear suspension stiffness ksr=54528 N/m;
Using Tire stiffness kt=615320N/m;
Measured Front suspension damping coefficient cf=3520 N/(m/s); Rear suspension damping coefficient cr=3677 N/(m/s);
Terrain Distance from front axle to center of mass a=1.85m; Distance from rear axle to center of mass b=1.03;
Excitations Front axle track width tf=1.55m; Rear track width tr=1.57m; Pitch inertial Ip=1239 kg-m2;
(Muller et Roll inertial Ir= 1178 kg-m2
al., 2009)
FEA Method
Finite element analysis is a powerful tool for tire parameter
identification because it provides a detailed description of tire
behavior over actual operation conditions. The factors
described by FEA method include the tire geometry, material
properties, the dynamic properties and structure components
properties, etc. Many researches have been conducted related
to the FET modeling as well as parameter identifications based
on virtual tests of FET models.
Gong (1993) provided a comprehensive analysis of the in-
plane tire behavior based on FEM. He first built the ring model
of a tire. Then he studied the tire on-road rolling and the off-
road vibration transmission based on the ring model. Finally,
he validated the model by experimental modal analysis. Kao
and Muthurishnan (1997) employed an explicit FE program
denoted as LS-DYNA3D to predict the transient tire behavior.
The FE model was constructed based on the tire design data.
A strain energy function was used to describe the carcass
properties and the Mooney constitutive law was used to
describe the rubber properties. They concluded that the FET
model is reasonable to predict the transient tire behavior by
comparing the simulation results with actual experimental
results. Olatunbosun and Burke (2002) presented a detailed
description regarding to the techniques and strategies for FET
modeling. They discussed several modeling issues: non-linear
effects during tire inflation, hub loading, tire-road contact, and
solutions of tire equation of motion. The problems of the
tire/ground contact modeling were solved by slide-line contact
analysis. The effectiveness of the strategies was verified by
cleat tests. Negrus et al. (1997) investigated the natural
frequencies and mode shapes of a non-rotating tire by using
finite element analysis and experimental analysis. The FET
model consists of 210 carcass shell elements, 90 treadband
shell elements, and 270 rubber solid elements. The results
showed that the natural frequencies derived from FET model
match the experimental ones well. Alasty and Ramezani
(2002) employed genetic algorithm to identify the seven
parameters of his ride comfort tire model. The virtual tests
were conducted on ADAMS/CAR tire model with 104 DOFs.
Then the parameters were obtained by minimizing the error
between the predicted results and the virtual simulation results
with the same inputs. In particular, they tested the robustness
of the identification method by adding different noise levels to
the ADAMS output signals. Belluzzo (2002) applied virtual
tests on FETviso model to identify the physical tire model’s
parameters. The tire model from the frequency domain was
first converted to the time domain, and then the parameters
were identified through the virtual test results. Note that the
method can speed up the optimization procedure of tire design
since no experimental tests are involved for parameter
identifications; Gipser (2005) presented a detailed description
about the FTire model. He further pointed out that the rigid-ring
tire model (RTire), FTire and FETire model build up the whole
tire model group. Especially, all the key FTire model
parameters are identified through the virtual tests on FETire
model. Mantaras (2013) developed a method to obtain the tire-
road coefficients based on multibody dynamic simulation and
genetic algorithm. The virtual simulations were performed by
multibody simulation ADAMS. The tire property file and the tire-
road property file were utilized to properly simulate the vehicle
dynamic performance. The method can be applied for different
vehicles and maneuvers.
It is obvious that one of the most important aspects for
parameter identification based on virtual tests is to have
reliable simulation tire models. ADAMS is one of the most
popular tools to conduct the virtual simulation. It is a program
that contains various tire models for different applications
including the handling and stability analysis, ride and comfort
analysis and chassis-control analysis (Oosten, 2007). Other
important programs for virtual tests include DADS and
SIMPACK (Lugner and Plochl, 2005). Recently, virtual
simulation has gained more attention compared to the
experimental tests for two reasons: firstly, it saves the cost and
time; secondly, it can avoid the overdesign problem which
often occurs during the lab tests case.
Summary
A comparison of various tire models, their applications, and
parameterization are presented in this paper. According to the
different applications of the tire models, we divide them into
three groups: tire models for handling analysis, tire models for
ride comfort analysis and tire models for durability analysis.
Accuracy and efficiency are two important factors for tire
models. Based on the discussion in this paper, the accuracy of
tire models for road load analysis, ride and handling
performance predictions still needs to improve. Accordingly, a
more efficient and practical viable method to identify tire model
parameters is highly needed for applications.
References
1. Abe, M., Vehicle handling dynamics, Butterworth-
Heinemann, 1994.
2. Alasty, A., Ramezani, A., “Genetic algorithm based
parameter identification of a nonlinear full vechicle ride
model,” SAE Tech. Pap., 2009.
3. Ammon, D., “Problems in road surface modelling,” Veh.
Syst. Dyn., 20, 28–41, 1992.
4. Ardeh, H., “An expeditious high fidelity ABAQUS-based
surrogate tire model for full vehicle durability analysis in
ADAMS,” SAE Int. J. Mater. Manuf., 4(1), 263–277, 2011.
5. Baecker, M., Gallrein, A., and Haga, H., “A tire model for
very large tire deformations and its application in very
severe events,” SAE Int. J. Mater. Manuf., 3(1), 142–151,
2010.
6. Bandel, P., and Monguzzi, C., “Simulation model of the
dynamic behavior of a tire running over an obstacle,” Tire
Sci. Technol., 16(2), 62–77, 1988.
7. Belluzzo, D., Mancosu, F., Sangalli, R., Cheli, F., and
Bruni, S., “New predictive model for the study of vertical
forces (up to 250 Hz) Induced on the Tire Hub by Road
Irregularities,” Tire Sci. Technol., 30(1), 2–18, 2002.
8. Bessekink. I., Schmeitz A., Pacejka H., “An improved
magic formula/swift tyre model that can handle inflation
pressure changes,” Veh. Sys. Dyn., Supplement 1, 337-
352, 2010.
9. Bruni, S., Cheli, F., and Resta, F., “On the identification in
time domain of the parameters of a tyre model for the
study of in-plane dynamics,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., Supplement,
136–150, 1997.
10. Capone, G., Giordano, D., and Russo, M., “Ph. An. Ty.
MHA: a physical analytical tyre model for handling
analysis–the normal interaction,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 47(1),
15–27, 2009.
11. Digio, P., “A test based procedure for the identification of
rack and pinion steering system parameters for use in
CAE Ride-Comfort Simulations,” SAE Tech. Pap., 2009.
12. Eichler, M., “A ride comfort tyre model for vibration
analysis in full vehicle simulations,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 27,
109–122, 1997.
13. Fiala, E., Seitenkrafte am rollenden Luftreifen, VDI, Bd, Nr.
29, 11, Okt., 1954.
14. Gallrein, A., and Bäcker, M., “CDTire: a tire model for
comfort and durability applications,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 45,
66–77, 2007.
15. Gim, G., “An Analytical model of pneumatic yyres for
vehicle dynamic simulations. Part 1: pure slips.,” Int. J.
Veh. Des., 11(6), 589–618, 1990.
16. Gim, G., and Nikravesh, P., “An analytical model of
pneumatic tyres for vehicle dynamic simulations, part 3:
validation against experimental data,” Int. J. Veh. Des.,
12(2), 217–228, 1991.
17. Gim, G., Choi, Y., and Kim, S., “A semiphysical tyre model
for vehicle dynamics analysis of handling and braking,”
Veh. Syst. Dyn., 43, 267–280, 2005.
18. Gipser, M., “FTire: a physically based application-oriented
tyre model for use with detailed MBS and finite-element
suspension models,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., (August), 37–41,
2005.
19. Greco, P., and Barcellos, C. De., “A numerical model for
passenger car ride comfort studies,” SAE Tech. Pap.,
2001.
20. Fan, C., and Guan, D., “Tire modeling for vertical
properties including enveloping properties using
experimental modal parameters,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 40(6),
419–433, 2003.
21. Gwanghun, G., and Parviz, E., “An analytical model of
pneumatic tyres for vehicle dynamic simulations. Part 2:
comprehensive steps,” Int. J. Veh. Des., 19–39, 1991.
22. Hegazy, S., and Sandu, C., “Vehicle ride comfort and
stability performance evaluation,” SAE Tech. Pap., 2009.
23. Hegazy, S., and Sandu, C., “Evaluation of heavy truck ride
comfort and stability,” SAE Tech. Pap., 2010.
24. Hirschberg, W., Rill, G., and Weinfurter, H., “User-
appropriate tyre-modelling for vehicle dynamics in
standard and limit situations,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 38(2),
2002.
25. ISO 2631-1., “Mechanical vibration and shock- evaluation
of human exposure to whole-body vibration-part 1: general
requirements,” 1997.
26. Kallenbach, R., “Identification methods for vehicle system
dynamics,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 16(3), 107–127, 1987.
27. Kao, B. G., “A three‐dimensional dynamic tire model for
vehicle dynamic simulations,” Tire Sci. Technol., 28(2),
72–95, 2000.
28. Kao, B. G., and Muthukrishnan, M., “Tire transient analysis
with an explicit finite element program,” Tire Sci. Technol.,
25(4), 230–244, 1997.
29. Kim, S., Nikravesh, P., and Gim, G., “A two-dimensional
tire model on uneven roads for vehicle dynamic simulation
1,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 46(10), 913–930, 2008.
30. Kuiper, E., and Oosten, J. Van., “The PAC2002 advanced
handling tire model,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 45, 153–167, 2007.
31. Levin, M., “Investigation of features of tyre rolling at non-
small velocities on the basis of a simple tyre model with
distributed mass periphery,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 23(1), 441–
466, 1994.
32. Lugner, P., Pacejka, H., and Plöchl, M., “Recent advances
in tyre models and testing procedures,” Veh. Syst. Dyn.,
43(6-7), 413–426, 2005.
33. Lugner, P., Plochl, M., “Tyre model performance test: first
experiences and results,” Veh. Sys. Dyn., 43(S), 48-62,
2005.
34. Mántaras, D., Luque, P., and Nava, J., “Tyre–road grip
coefficient assessment. Part 1: off-line methodology using
multibody dynamic simulation and genetic algorithms,”
Vechicle Syst. Dyn., 51(10), 1603–1618, 2013
35. Mastinu, G., and Fainello, M., “Study of the pneumatic tyre
behaviour on dry and rigid road by finite element method,”
Veh. Syst. Dyn., 1992.
36. Mastinu, G., and Gaiazzi, S., “A semi-analytical tyre model
for steady-and transient-state simulations,” Veh. Syst.
Dyn., 21(3), 143–165, 1997.
37. Maurice, J., Berzeri, M., and Pacejka, H., “Pragmatic tyre
model for short wavelength side slip variations,” Veh. Syst.
Dyn., 31(2), 65–94, 1999.
38. Maurice, J., Berzeri, M., and Pacejka, H., “Pragmatic tyre
model for short wavelength side slip variations,” Veh. Syst.
Dyn., 1999.
39. Miyashita, N., and Kabe, K., “A study of the cornering
force by use of the analytical tyre model,” Veh. Syst. Dyn.,
43(1), 123–134, 2005.
40. Mousseau, C., and Clark, S., “An analytical and
experimental study of a tire rolling over a stepped obstacle
at low velocity,” Tire Sci. Technol., 22(3), 162–181, 1994.
41. Mousseau, C., and Hulbert, G., “An efficient tire model for
the analysis of spindle forces produced by a tire impacting
large obstacles,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.,
135(1-2), 15–34, 1996.
42. Muller, T., Ferris, J., Detweiler, Z., and Smith, H.,
“Identifying vehicle model parameters using measured
terrain excitations,” SAE Tech. Pap., 2009.
43. Negrus, E., Anghelache, G., and Stanescu, A., “Finite
element analysis and experimental analysis of natural
frequencies and mode shapes for a non-rotating tyre,”
Veh. Syst. Dyn., Supplement, 221–224, 1997.
44. Oertel, C., “On Modeling contact and friction calculation of
tyre response on uneven roads,” Veh. Syst. Dyn.,
27(sup001), 289–302, 1997.
45. Oertel, C., and Fandre, A., “Ride comfort simulations and
steps towards life time calculations: RMOD-K and
ADAMS,” Int. ADAMS User Conf. Berlin, 1–17, 1999.
46. Olatunbosun, O. a., and Burke, a. M., “Finite element
modelling of rotating tires in the time domain,” Tire Sci.
Technol., 30(1), 19–33, 2002.
47. Oosten, J. J. M. Van, “TMPT tire modeling in ADAMS,”
Veh. Syst. Dyn., 45(S), 191-198, 2007.
48. Ortiz, A., Cabrera, J. A., Castillo, J., and Simon, A.,
“Analysis and evaluation of a tyre model through test data
obtained using the IMMa tyre test bench,” Veh. Syst. Dyn.
Int. J. Veh. Mech. Mobil., 43(S1), 241–252, 2005.
49. Pacejka, H., and Sharp, R., “Shear force development by
pneumatic tyres in steady state conditions: a review of
modelling aspects,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 20(3-4), 121–175,
1991.
50. Pacejka, H. B., Bakker, E., “The magic formula tyre
model,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 21(00423114), 1–18, 1992.
51. Pacejka, H., Tyre and vehicle dynamics, Delft University of
Technology, 2005.
52. Reinalter, W., Rauh, J. and Lutz, A., “TMPT-conclusions
and consequences for the industry from the industry,” Veh.
Syst. Dyn., 45(S), 217-225, 2007.
53. Russo, M., Russo, R., and Volpe, A., “Car parameters
identification by handling manoeuvres,” Veh. Syst. Dyn.,
34, 423–436, 2000.
54. Sakai, H., “Theoretical and experimental studies on the
dynamic properties of tyres: Part 3: calculations of the six
components of force and moments of a tyre,” Int. J. Veh.
Des., 2(3), 335–372, 1981.
55. Schmeitz, A., and Jansen, S., “Application of a semi-
empirical dynamic tyre model for rolling over arbitrary road
profiles,” Int. J. Veh. Des., 36(2/3), 194–215, 2004.
56. Sharp, R., and El-Nashar, M., “A generally applicable
digital computer based mathematical model for the
 generation of shear forces by pneumatic tyres,” Veh. Syst.
Dyn., 15(4), 187–209, 1986.
57. Schmeitz, A., Besselink I., Jansen S., “TNO MF-SWIFT, ”
Veh. Sys. Dyn., Supplement 1, 121-137, 2007.
58. Sunrong, G., “A study of in-plane dynamics of tires,” Delft
Univ. Technol. Netherlands. PhD, 1993.
59. Svendenius, J., and Gäfvert, M., “A semi-empirical
dynamic tire model for combined-slip forces,” Veh. Syst.
Dyn., 44(2), 189–208, 2006.
60. Takayama, M., and Yamagishi, K., “Simulation model of
tire vibration,” Tire Sci. Technol., 1983.
61. Velenis, E., and Tsiotras, P., “Dynamic tyre friction models
for combined longitudinal and lateral vehicle motion,” Veh.
Syst. Dyn., 43(1), 3–29, 2005.
62. Venture, G., Bodson, P., Gautier, M., and Khalil, W.,
“Identification of the dynamic parameters of a car,” SAE
Tech. Pap., 2003.
63. Wong, J., Theory of ground vehicles, John Wiley & Sons,
INC, 2001.
64. Xu, P., Wong, D., LeBlanc, P., Peticca, G., 2005, “Road
Test Simulation Technology in Light Vehicle Development
and Durability Evaluation”. SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-
0854
65. Xu, P., LeBlanc, P., Peticca, G., Wong, D., 2006, “Steering
Measurement, Analysis and Simulation on 6DOF Road
Test Simulator”. SAE Technical Paper, 2006-01-0733
66. Xu, P., Peticca, G., Wong, D., 2008, “A technique for
developing a high accuracy durability test for a Light Truck
on a Six Degree-of-Freedom Road Test Simulator”. Int. J.
Vehicle Design, Vol. 47, Nos. 1/2/3/4, pp. 290–304.
67. Yang, X., Xu, P., “Road Load Analysis Techniques in
Automotive Engineering”. In Yung-Li Lee, Mark E. Barkey,
Hong-Tae Kang, ‘Metal Fatigue Analysis Handbook:
Practical problem-solving techniques for computer-aided
engineering’, Chapter1, pp.1-60, Butterworth-Heinemann,
2011
68. Zegelaar, P., and Pacejka, H., “The in-plane dynamics of
tyres on uneven roads,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 25(1), 714–730,
1996.
69. Zhou, J., Wong, J., and Sharp, R. S., “A multi-dpoke, three
plane tyre model for simulation of transient behaviour,”
Veh. Syst. Dyn., 31(1), 35–45, 1999.