Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2005-01-3543
SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES
M. Kamel Salaani
Transportation Research Center, Inc. (TRC)
Paul A. Grygier
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
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.
SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax: 724-772-3036
Tel: 724-772-4028
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
2005-01-3543
M. Kamel Salaani
Transportation Research Center, Inc. (TRC)
Paul A. Grygier
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
ABSTRACT
*
Craig Derian now works for Stackpole Engineering Services.
Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018
1000
500
Fz = 1544 lb
Fz = 3088 lb
-500
Fz = 4631 lb
Fz = 6175 lb
Fz = 7719 lb
Fz = 9263 lb
-1000
Fz = 12350 lb
Figure 2. UMTRI Mobile Truck Tire Dynamometer
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Slip Angle (deg)
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].
-120
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
-160
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
MZ
0.65
KK1 = FY (6)
0.6 FZ
y = 1.644e-009x 2 -4.806e-005x + 0.6418
0.55
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
0.3 -2
0.25
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Vertical Load (lb) -2.5
KK1
Figure 7. Load-Dependent Lateral Force Decay
-3
FY vs. SA @ 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%, 150%, 200% of Ra te d Loa d inertia), separate suspension, steering, brake and tire
8000
Data models. Each of these built-in models can be modified
Model or circumvented so that changes in system modeling
6000
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)
2000
NADS tire model.
0
-2000
The tire model is programmed as a Matlab S-function.
-4000 The model must be run in series with TruckSim, allowing
-6000
it to be executed at each time step for each truck tire.
Running both programs in series requires applying them
-8000
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
LATERAL SLIP ANGLE (deg)
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
1500
longitudinal force, lateral force and aligning torque
Data calculated values that are sent back to TruckSim where
Model
1000 FZ = 12350 lb the process repeats for each time step.
FZ = 9263 lb
FZ = 7719 lb
FZ = 6175 lb SIMULATION AND TEST COMPARISON – For
Aligning Moment (ft-lb)
500 FZ = 4631 lb
FZ = 3088 lb verification, the NADS tire model was applied to
FZ = 1544 lb
0
TruckSim and compared to a simulation using previously
accepted tire data in TruckSim. The simulation was
-500
executed with a J-turn steering input with an initial speed
of 31.1 mph (50.0 kph). Steering data originates from a
-1000
real-world J-turn test performed by VRTC. Resulting
lateral tire loads of the accepted TruckSim lookup tire
-1500
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).
Data
8000
Model By plotting the tire lateral forces for the J-Turn simulation
6000 (Figure 12), we see how well the analytical model
4000
matches the TruckSim lookup table model. The front
two tires have the highest lateral grip because they have
Lateral Force (lb)
2000
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
-4000
implementation and quality of the analytical model.
-6000
-8000
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
LATERAL SLIP ANGLE (deg)
0 0
-2000 -2000
FY (lbf)
AXLE -4000
Table (Original Model)
-4000
#1 Analytical Model
-6000 -6000
-8000
-8000 0 2 4 6
0 2 4 6
0 0 0 0
AXLE
#2 -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000
0 0 0 0
AXLE
#3 -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000
0 5 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 5
0 0 0 0
AXLE
#4 -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000
0 5 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 5
0 0 0 0
AXLE
-2000 -2000 -2000 -2000
#5
-3000 -3000 -3000 -3000
0 5 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 5
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
LEFT OUTSIDE LEFT INSIDE RIGHT INSIDE RIGHT OUTSIDE
1000
30 mph
60 mph
0
FZ = 720 N
Longitudinal Force (N)
-1000
FZ = 1440 N
FZ = 2160 N
-2000
FZ = 2880 N
-3000
FZ = 4200 N
Figure 14. Longitudinal Peak Force at 30 and 60 mph
-4000
-5000
-80 -60 -40 -20 0
2nd
Slip Ratio (%) order
Figure 13. Light Truck Tire Longitudinal Force
versus Slip Ratio
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.
development.
-1000
FZ = 1440 N
on only two test speeds.
FZ = 2160 N
-2000
FZ = 2880 N REFERENCES
-3000
FZ = 4200 N
1. Allen, R.W. et al., “Tire Modeling Requirements for
Vehicle Dynamics Simulation,” SAE Paper 950312,
-4000
Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA,
1995.
-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
APPENDIX Fz Fz t
a po =
NADS Tire Model Formulation [4]: TwT p
σ= + 2 2 A1 2
8Fz µ py
2
µ px 1 − κ Ks = A0 + A1 Fz − Fz + K x (CSFZ ) κ
a 2po A2
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
A4
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
Ka
Force
Coefficient for Cornering Stiffness Change with
Kx
Longitudinal Force
Coefficient for Friction Coefficient Decay Due to Slip
Kµy
Increase
Proportion for Friction Coefficient Decay Due to Slip
Kµx
Increase
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