Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

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



Advancements in Tire Modeling

Through Implementation of Load and
Speed Dependent Coefficients
Craig G. Derian, Gary J. Heydinger and Dennis A. Guenther
The Ohio State University

M. Kamel Salaani
Transportation Research Center, Inc. (TRC)

Paul A. Grygier
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Commercial Vehicle Engineering

Congress and Exhibition
Chicago, Illinois
November 1-3, 2005

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

By mandate of the Engineering Meetings Board, this paper has been approved for SAE publication upon
completion of a peer review process by a minimum of three (3) industry experts under the supervision of
the session organizer.

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
Fax: 724-772-3036
Tel: 724-772-4028

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-1615
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2005 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

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


Advancements in Tire Modeling Through Implementation

of Load and Speed Dependent Coefficients
Craig G. Derian*, Gary J. Heydinger and Dennis A. Guenther
The Ohio State University

M. Kamel Salaani
Transportation Research Center, Inc. (TRC)

Paul A. Grygier
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Copyright © 2005 SAE International


An existing tire model was investigated for additional

normal load-dependent characteristics to improve the
large truck simulations developed by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for the
National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS). Of the
existing tire model coefficients, plysteer, lateral friction
decay, aligning torque stiffness and normalized
longitudinal stiffness were investigated. The findings of
the investigation led to improvements in the tire model.
The improved model was then applied to TruckSim to
compare with the TruckSim table lookup tire model and
test data. Additionally, speed-dependent properties for
the NADS tire model were investigated (using data from Figure 1. Large Truck Fatality Statistics
a light truck tire).
NHTSA has led the development of the NADS. It is the
INTRODUCTION most advanced driving simulator system in the world and
has been designed to fully immerse the test subject
MOTIVATION – Fatal large truck accidents account for (driver) into the driving scenario. The NADS provides a
about 13 percent of all fatal roadway accidents as safe, efficient tool for driver impairment studies, for
reported by federal agencies for the period between driver workload adaptation studies, and can be used to
1975 and 2000 [6,7,11] (Figure 1). Analysis of this data support development of automotive safety regulations.
shows most of the fatal crashes result when the driver NADS fidelity is very important to NHTSA and the test
loses control after being forced into an evasive results can be used to further the understanding of
maneuver by encroaching oncoming traffic [5]. To human-vehicle interactions only if the system is accurate
effectively combat this situation through warning [3].
systems, active skid control or even improved
infrastructure, we must understand human performance The tire is the performance-limiting factor in vehicle
and limitations while driving heavy trucks on the road. maneuvers and arguably one of the most important
safety components of any vehicle. Capturing its
behavior is vital to vehicle modeling accuracy. This
research focuses on the force generation capabilities of
large truck tires. Based upon the Systems Technology
Inc. (STI) tire model [1], originally developed in the mid
1980’s, and further developed by NHTSA’s Vehicle

Craig Derian now works for Stackpole Engineering Services.
Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Research and Test Center (VRTC) for use with NADS

[10], the model developed here expands upon the Fz = 1544 lb
previous work and the original tire coefficients. The Fz = 3088 lb
Fz = 4631 lb
Appendix in this paper lists the equations used in the 6000
Fz = 6175 lb
NADS tire model. 4000 Fz = 7719 lb
Fz = 9263 lb

Lateral Force (lb)

2000 Fz = 12350 lb
TIRE DATA – Data used for this study was acquired
from a Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 0

Cooperative Research Program investigation [9]. Data -2000

was collected using the University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) Mobile Truck
Tire Dynamometer (Figure 2). This tire-testing vehicle is -6000
capable of testing lateral (steer), longitudinal (brake) and
combined (simultaneous brake and steering) maneuvers
for heavy truck tires [12]. Data sets were collected for -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Slip Angle (deg)
two different tires, but only the data from a tire typically
used on the steer axle is used in this paper. Figure 3. Measured Lateral Force Versus Slip Angle



Aligning Moment (ft-lb)


Fz = 1544 lb
Fz = 3088 lb
Fz = 4631 lb
Fz = 6175 lb
Fz = 7719 lb
Fz = 9263 lb
Fz = 12350 lb
Figure 2. UMTRI Mobile Truck Tire Dynamometer
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Slip Angle (deg)

NORMAL-LOAD-DEPENDENT COEFFICIENTS Figure 4. Measured Aligning Torque Vs. Slip Angle

Figure 3 shows the measured lateral force and Figure 4 PLYSTEER – Tire construction is never entirely
the measured aligning torque for the heavy truck steer symmetric. Asymmetries are quantified by two
axle tire. These figures contain data from tests done at variables: plysteer and conicity. Plysteer results from
seven normal loads (1544, 3088, 4631, 6175, 7719, nonsymmetric arrangement of ply or materials in the tire
9263 and 12350 lb). carcass. This causes the tire to generate lateral forces
at zero slip angle. Plysteer is therefore known as
“pseudo side-slip” because the resulting lateral force
changes direction with a reversal in wheel rotation.
Conicity results from asymmetry to the tire’s longitudinal
profile and is known as “pseudo camber” because lateral
forces generated by conicity do not change direction
with a reversal in wheel rotation. Combining plysteer
and conicity effects causes both a horizontal and vertical
offset intersection point of forward and backward data of
a lateral force versus slip angle curve [8].

It is impossible to completely separate plysteer and

conicity without both forward and backward rolling lateral
force data. This data was not available for this research;
so this investigation will not deal with these effects
separately. Effects that may result from conicity are
dealt with by the plysteer variable.
Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

A goal of this effort was to model the lateral force

plysteer, and we have done so by adding a load-
dependent lateral force to the symmetric lateral force Plystee r Force De pe nde ncy
computed by the existing tire model. The curve fit
parameters used to describe the peak lateral forces are 400
based on the average peak lateral forces for negative
and positive slip angle directions. Adding the load- 300
dependent lateral force plysteer results in an asymmetric

Plysteer Force (lb)

model that better fits the measured tire data. 200

In order to determine the load-dependent lateral force 100

plysteer, the linear region of the lateral force versus slip

angle curve was fit, at each normal force, with a linear
best fit line for slip angle values where |SA| ≤ 1.0
degree. This region was decided upon because its
y = -2.981e-006x 2 + 0.09831x -280.4
intercept values of plysteer force most closely -200
corresponded with the actual data. The intercepts of 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Normal Force (lb)
these lines plotted against tire normal load results in the
second-order dependency seen in Figure 5. Equation 1 Figure 5. Load-Dependent Lateral Force Plysteer
shows the three coefficients of the curve fit used to
Plyste er Mome nt De pe nde ncy
define the load-dependent lateral force plysteer. This 0
representation of lateral force plysteer replaces the
previous representation that assumed a constant -20

plysteer for all normal loads (for additional discussion,

see [2]). Mz Plysteer Moment (ft-lb)
Plysteer ( Fz ) = Plysteer2 × Fz + -80
Plysteer1 × Fz + Plysteer0 (1)

We have extended the concept of adding a load- y = -0.01268x + 3.622
dependent term to model lateral force plysteer to the -140
model of aligning torque. The idea here is to better
represent the aligning torque, particularly at low slip 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
angles. Figure 6 shows the measured aligning torque Normal Force (lb)

(based on a linear curve fit of the aligning torque data Figure 6. Load-Dependent Aligning Torque Plysteer
between ±1 degree of slip angle) and a first-order
(linear) curve through these points. Using the equation LATERAL FRICTION DECAY – Quantitatively, DecayFy
representing the curve fit we are able to model the is the percent decay in lateral force from its peak value,
aligning torque offset, which we refer to as aligning FyPEAK, to its value at high slip angles, SAMAX (90° in this
torque plysteer, MzPlysteer. The equation and case). For the heavy truck tire data under study, the
coefficients are given as Equation (2). peak measured lateral forces occur at ±15° of slip angle
(see Figure 3), which is significantly higher than the slip
MzPlysteer ( Fz ) = MzPly1 × Fz + MzPly0 (2) angle for peak lateral force for most passenger vehicle
tires. (In general these peaks would not all occur at the
The load-dependent aligning torque plysteer is added to same slip angle for all normal loads, but the concept
the symmetric aligning torque computed by the existing presented here is still applicable to general tire data.)
tire model.
Figure 7 shows the measured lateral force decay for the
seven load conditions tested. Also shown is a second-
order curve fit through the individual decay values.
Equation 3 is used to represent the load-dependent
decay in lateral force.
Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

KK1 = FY (6)
0.6 FZ
y = 1.644e-009x 2 -4.806e-005x + 0.6418
Plotting KK1 values against normal force shows a strong
0.5 correlation to a second-order curve fit (Figure 8). It too
Decay in Fy/Fz

shows strong correlation to test data and works well

0.45 when applied to the NADS tire model.
x 10

0.3 -2

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Vertical Load (lb) -2.5

Figure 7. Load-Dependent Lateral Force Decay

y = -2.489e-013*FZ2 + 5.137e-009*FZ + -4.615e-005

DecayFy ( Fz ) = DecayFy 2 × Fz 2 + Data
KK1 Avg
(3) KK1 Fit
DecayFy1 × Fz + DecayFy 0 -4
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Normal Force (lb)

Figure 8. Aligning Torque Stiffness Normal Load

The decay is applied in the tire model for slip angles that Dependency
are greater than the angles where peak lateral forces
occur, SAPEAKFy. Equation 4 shows the general model KK1 = KK12 × FZ 2 + KK11 × FZ + KK10 (7)
implementation of load-dependent decay in lateral force
for positive slip angles. Here, the constant KK1 value is replaced with KK10,
KK11 and KK12 coefficients to define the second-order
curve fit.
  SA − SAPEAK (4)
Fy = Fy PEAK 1 −  Fy
  SAMAX − SAPEAK Fy 
Figures 9 and 10 show the results of the improved tire
The decay in lateral force was modeled using a single model for lateral force and aligning torque. Figure 9
decay slope for all normal loads in the previously shows that peak lateral forces and the decays in lateral
existing tire model (for additional discussion see [2]). forces are modeled quite well for all seven normal loads.
Future model development will include applying this Figure 11 is a blow-up of Figures 9, over a smaller range
formulation of load-dependent decay to tire longitudinal of slip angles, showing that the model does a good job
forces. of fitting the cornering stiffness. These figures show that
the lateral force and aligning torque plysteer models
ALIGNING TORQUE STIFFNESS – Tire aligning torque capture the load-dependent trends at small slip angles.
is basically due to the resultant tire side force not acting Also, this model with load-dependent aligning torque
along the center of the wheel. It can be approximated stiffness results in a better fit to the aligning torque data
by multiplying the lateral force, FY, by the pneumatic trail than the previous model with constant stiffness.
(moment arm through which the lateral force acts), t:
The updated model has better correlation with the
MZ = FY × t (5) measured tire data. These improvements will allow the
model to be directly applied to TruckSim and future
Concerning the steered wheels, it is an important factor NADS-based research.
in determining on-center feel and therefore important in
how realistic the simulator feels to the driver.

The aligning torque stiffness coefficient is defined as the

normalized slope of the aligning torque versus lateral
force for the linear region near the origin:
Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

FY vs. SA @ 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%, 150%, 200% of Ra te d Loa d inertia), separate suspension, steering, brake and tire
Data models. Each of these built-in models can be modified
Model or circumvented so that changes in system modeling
can be applied to study the effects of the new models.
4000 That is what has been done with the truck tire model to
validate the normal load-dependent updates to the
Lateral Force (lb)

NADS tire model.

The tire model is programmed as a Matlab S-function.
-4000 The model must be run in series with TruckSim, allowing
it to be executed at each time step for each truck tire.
Running both programs in series requires applying them
to Simulink. In a Simulink program, TruckSim outputs
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 slip angle, wheel speed, vehicle speed, camber angle
and normal force of each tire. That data is then
Figure 9. Improved Lateral Force Model processed to calculate slip ratio and it is used in the
NADS tire model S-function. The S-function outputs the
longitudinal force, lateral force and aligning torque
Data calculated values that are sent back to TruckSim where
1000 FZ = 12350 lb the process repeats for each time step.
FZ = 9263 lb
FZ = 7719 lb
Aligning Moment (ft-lb)

500 FZ = 4631 lb
FZ = 3088 lb verification, the NADS tire model was applied to
FZ = 1544 lb
TruckSim and compared to a simulation using previously
accepted tire data in TruckSim. The simulation was
executed with a J-turn steering input with an initial speed
of 31.1 mph (50.0 kph). Steering data originates from a
real-world J-turn test performed by VRTC. Resulting
lateral tire loads of the accepted TruckSim lookup tire
data are compared to the NADS tire model (Figure 12).
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Lateral Slip Angle (deg)
TruckSim allows tire data to be directly input via a
Figure 10. Improved Aligning Torque Model
lookup table. It requires that this data be for positive slip
angles and slip ratios. Because the experimental data
was not symmetric from left to right, the tire model used
FY vs. SA @ 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%, 150%, 200% of Ra te d Loa d
averaged data (which populated the lookup table).
Model By plotting the tire lateral forces for the J-Turn simulation
6000 (Figure 12), we see how well the analytical model
matches the TruckSim lookup table model. The front
two tires have the highest lateral grip because they have
Lateral Force (lb)

the greatest normal load. As weight transfers to the left-
0 side tires during the J-turn, the lateral forces increase in
-2000 response. The purpose of this exercise is to verify the
implementation and quality of the analytical model.


-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

Figure 11. Expanded View of Improved Lateral Force




heavy truck vehicle dynamics simulation program. It has
templates for many different large truck configurations
as well as physical parameters (including mass and
Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

0 0

-2000 -2000

FY (lbf)
AXLE -4000
Table (Original Model)
#1 Analytical Model
-6000 -6000
-8000 0 2 4 6
0 2 4 6

0 0 0 0

-1000 -1000 -1000 -1000

FY (lbf)

#2 -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000

-3000 -3000 -3000 -3000

0 5 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 5

0 0 0 0

-1000 -1000 -1000 -1000

FY (lbf)

#3 -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000

-3000 -3000 -3000 -3000

0 5 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 5

0 0 0 0

-1000 -1000 -1000 -1000

FY (lbf)

#4 -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000

-3000 -3000 -3000 -3000

0 5 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 5

0 0 0 0

-1000 -1000 -1000 -1000

FY (lbf)

-2000 -2000 -2000 -2000
-3000 -3000 -3000 -3000
0 5 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 5
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 12. TruckSim Tire Lateral Force Comparison

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

SPEED-DEPENDENT INVESTIGATION Decay Fx,30 ( Fz ) = DecayFx,30 2 Fz 2 + Decay Fx,301Fz + L

Decay Fx,30 0
Scientific Services Inc. tested a Continental ContiTrac
SUV P265/70R17 light truck tire. Longitudinal braking
tests for 30 and 60 mph (48 and 97 kph, respectively) DecayFx,60 ( Fz ) = DecayFx,60 2 Fz 2 + DecayFx,601Fz + L
conditions were conducted. The raw braking data (9)
curves for these tests are displayed in Figure 13. This DecayFx,60 0
figure reveals several patterns. First is the similar
slopes found in the increasing portion of the graphs
between 0 and 5 percent slip ratio. The decays in
longitudinal force as a function of slip ratio differ for the
two test speeds. Finally, notice how the 60 mph (97
kph) longitudinal forces increase at high normal force at
slip ratios greater than 40 percent.

30 mph
60 mph
FZ = 720 N
Longitudinal Force (N)

FZ = 1440 N

FZ = 2160 N
FZ = 2880 N

FZ = 4200 N
Figure 14. Longitudinal Peak Force at 30 and 60 mph

-80 -60 -40 -20 0
Slip Ratio (%) order
Figure 13. Light Truck Tire Longitudinal Force
versus Slip Ratio

The slopes of the normalized longitudinal force are

quantified by the normalized longitudinal stiffness
coefficient, CSFZ. The CSFZ values for each speed are 1st
similar, so no speed or load dependency for CSFZ is
included in the model.

The change in peak decay rates as a function of normal

force (see Equations 8 and 9 and Figure 14) is already
accounted for in the NADS tire model for one speed, but 0
it is not currently able to handle the change in decay rate
over several speeds. The effect of speed change is
consistent for this particular tire. More measurements Figure 15. Coefficient Change for Peak Force Fits
for different tires should be done to see if this versus Test Speed
phenomenon is repeatable for all tires. One way of
modeling this effect is by linearizing the change between ANALYSIS USING SPEED DIFFERENCE – Slip ratio is
the second, first and zero-order coefficients respectively defined as
for 30 and 60 mph (48 and 97 kph, respectively). We
can create a set of coefficients that will alter the peak Vwheel
longitudinal decay depending on the tire test speed. SR = 1 − (10)
Figure 15 uses the DecayFx,30 and DecayFx,60 coefficient Vroad
sets as the end points for linear interpolation.
Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Rearranging (10) gives Applying the modified NADS tire model to a TruckSim J-
Turn maneuver via a Simulink S-function proved an
SR × Vroad = Vroad − Vwheel = ∆V (11) effective way to validate the new model against
previously accepted lookup tire data.
We can see from Equation 11 that if the slip ratio
In addition to being vertical load dependent, the decay in
doubles and the road speed (Vroad) halves, the difference
longitudinal force at high slip ratios was shown to be
in speed is still the same. It is approximately at this
speed dependent for a light truck tire. A method for
point, where V is the same for both speed tests but the
including this speed dependency into existing tire
slip ratio of the 30 mph (48 kph) test is half of the 60
models was proposed in the paper. Also, an alternative
mph (97 kph) test, where we see the increase in
method for looking at longitudinal tire forces using
longitudinal grip for the 60 mph (97 kph) condition. By
difference in speed, as opposed to slip ratio, was
separating the plots out (see Figure 16), the correlation
introduced and has potential for future model
becomes easily visible.

1000 Applying speed dependency to the current NADS tire

30 mph model would greatly benefit from tire testing done at
60 mph
0 additional test speeds. Test data collected at 45 mph
FZ = 720 N (72 kph) would corroborate or disprove the linear decay
with speed assumption we are currently making based
Longitudinal Force (N)

FZ = 1440 N
on only two test speeds.
FZ = 2160 N
FZ = 4200 N
1. Allen, R.W. et al., “Tire Modeling Requirements for
Vehicle Dynamics Simulation,” SAE Paper 950312,
Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA,
-5000 2. Derian, Craig G., “Development of Load and Speed
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10
Difference in Speed (mph) Dependent Coefficients for Application to Tire
Figure 16. Longitudinal Force versus Difference in Models Used for Vehicle Dynamics Simulations,”
Speed Master’s Thesis, The Ohio State University, 2004.
3. “NADS, National Advanced Driving Simulator, The
This new dependency on difference in speed allows us Most Sophisticated Research Driving Simulator in
to see some additional characteristics of the plot not the World”, Brochure, USDOT / NHTSA and the
previously noticeable. We see in Figure 16 that the University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 1992.
trends in the decay of the longitudinal force at 30 mph 4. NADS Vehicle Dynamics Software, Tire Force
(48 kph) and 60 mph (97 kph) are similar up to a speed Software Specification, Software Release 4.0,
difference of 25 mph (40 kph). However, for the higher “Chapter 2, Tire Model Formulation,” Center for
normal loads at 60 mph, the longitudinal force increases Computer Aided Design, The University of Iowa,
slightly as the speed difference increases. For the Iowa City, IA.
smaller vertical loads, the 60 mph data shows little 5. NHTSA, “An Analysis of Fatal Large Truck Crashes”,
decay above a speed difference of 25 mph DOT HS 809 569, National Center for Statistics and
Analysis, Springfield, VA, 2003.
This difference-in-speed dependence should be 6. NHTSA, “Traffic Safety Facts 2002: Compilation of
investigated further. Speed effects on lateral and Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis
aligning torque data and the resulting formulation could Reporting System [FARS] and the General
result in improved model correlation. Further testing at Estimates System [GES]”, DOT HS 809 620,
different speeds might demonstrate a pattern of behavior Washington, DC, 2004.
that can provide a better model. 7. NHTSA, “Traffic Safety Facts 2002: Large Trucks,”
DOT HS 809 608, Washington, DC, 2004
CONCLUSION 8. Pacejka, Hans B., Tire and Vehicle Dynamics, SAE
International, Warrendale, PA, 2002.
The formulas for two coefficients, lateral coefficient of 9. SAE Cooperative Research Program, “Truck Tire
friction decay and aligning torque stiffness, were Characterization,” CRP-11, Warrendale, PA, 1995.
successfully changed in the NADS tire model to improve 10. Salaani, M.K., Guenther, D.A., and Heydinger, G.J.,
the accuracy of the model. Updating the physical “Vehicle Dynamics Modeling for the National
coefficients’ previous average values to second-order Advanced Driving Simulator of a 1997 Jeep
curves improved the model. Cherokee,” SAE Paper 990121, 1999.
Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

11. Toth, Gary R. et al., “Large Truck Crash Causation

Study in the United States,” NHTSA, Paper Number
K c′ = K c + ( K s − K c ) sin 2 (α ) + κ 2 cos 2 (α )
252, 2003.
12. UMTRI, “The UMTRI Mobile Truck-Tire
Dynamometer,” http://www.umtri.umich.edu/
Longitudinal Coefficient of Friction:
( )
library/facilities/mobile.pdf, 2004,
µ x = µ px 1 − K µx sin 2 (α ) + κ 2 cos 2 (α )
Lateral Coefficient of Friction:
( )
For further information please contact:
µ y = µ py 1 − K µy sin 2 (α ) + κ 2 cos 2 (α )
Craig Derian
Stackpole Engineering Services
460 Eastwind Circle.
Contact Patch Length:
North Canton, OH 44720
cderian@stackpoleengineering.com  F 
derian.1@osu.edu a p = a po 1 − K a x 
 Fz 

a po =
NADS Tire Model Formulation [4]: TwT p

Composite Slip Function:

Lateral Stiffness Coefficient:
π ap2 K s2 tan 2 (α ) K c2  κ 

σ= + 2  2  A1 2 
8Fz µ py
µ px  1 − κ  Ks =  A0 + A1 Fz − Fz + K x (CSFZ ) κ 
a 2po  A2 

Force Saturation Function:

Longitudinal Stiffness Coefficient:
C1σ 3 + C 2σ 2 + C 5σ 2
f (σ ) = Kc = Fz (CSFZ )
C1σ 3 + C 3σ 2 + C 4σ + 1 a 2po

Lateral Force:
Camber Thrust Stiffness:
f (σ ) K s tan(α )
Fy = − µ y Fz + Yγ′γ A3 2
K s2 tan 2 (α ) + K c′ 2κ 2 Yγ = A3 F z − Fz

Longitudinal Force: Reduced Camber Thrust Stiffness from Force Saturation

f (σ ) K c′κ Function:
Fx = − µ x Fz
K s2 tan 2 (α ) + K c′ 2κ 2 [
Yγ′ = Yγ 1 − K γ f (σ ) 2 ]

Aligning Torque: Longitudinal Peak Coefficient of Friction:

K m a tan(α )  K s
κ SN 0
Mz =
2 2 
− G2 K c
 F
(2 + σ 2 ) + Yγ′γ (1 − f (σ )) x µ px = ( B1x Fz + B3 x + B4 x Fz2 )
(1 + G1σ )  2 κ −1  apKs SNT

K m = K1Fz
Lateral Peak Coefficient of Friction:
SN 0
µ py = ( B1 y Fz + B3 y + B4 y Fz2 )
Longitudinal to Lateral Transition: SNT
Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Parameter Description

Tw Tread Width
A0, A1, A2 Calspan Coefficients for Lateral Stiffness
A3, A4 Calspan Coefficients for Camber Effect
B1y, B3y, B4y Calspan Peak Lateral Friction Coefficients
B1x, B3x, B4x Calspan Peak Longitudinal Friction Coefficients
CSFZ Normalized Tire Longitudinal Stiffness
K1 Calspan Aligning Torque Coefficient
Coefficient for Tread Length Change with Lateral
Coefficient for Cornering Stiffness Change with
Longitudinal Force
Coefficient for Friction Coefficient Decay Due to Slip
Proportion for Friction Coefficient Decay Due to Slip
Tp Tire Pressure
SN0 Pavement Skid Number
SNT Test Skid Number
Fzt Rated Tire Design Load
C1,C2,C3,C4,C5 Saturation (Composite Slip) Function Coefficients
G1, G2 Shaping Factors for Aligning Torque
KLT Lateral Tire Spring Rate
RL Rolling Resistance Coefficient
κ Longitudinal Slip
λ Camber Angle
α Lateral Slip
µpy Peak Lateral Coefficient of Friction
µpx Peak Longitudinal Coefficient of Friction
ap Contact Patch Length
Ks Longitudinal Stiffness
Kc Lateral Stiffness