1 vues

Transféré par Steven Sullivan

© All Rights Reserved

- The late July, 2010 edition of Warren County Report.
- Komatsu 930E_4SE - Copia
- Tyres OTR Product Book October 2011
- Vespa GTS125 Owners Guide Manual
- Dyno jet
- TPMS - A Learning Guide
- GEORGE CONSTANTINESCO TORQUE CONVERTER ANALYSIS BY SIMULINK.pdf
- DUCATI MonsterS4 2002
- 2014 REGIONAL - Lotus Challenge (NR23) 158841
- SARANA FASILITAS LAB BPPT
- Beverly 300ie MY2010 User Manual.pdf
- DILIP ST1
- Tyre Advices
- 12 MTS Tire Veh Handling
- Halifax Transit Snow Tires
- IC engine
- Fender and Marine Equipment from Fendercare.pdf
- Reclaim Rubber
- Ama
- Ama

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

2005-01-3543

SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES

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)

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.

SAE Permissions

400 Commonwealth Drive

Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA

Email: permissions@sae.org

Fax: 724-772-3036

Tel: 724-772-4028

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

2005-01-3543

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)

ABSTRACT

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

[10], the model developed here expands upon the Fz = 1544 lb

8000

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

2000 Fz = 12350 lb

TIRE DATA – Data used for this study was acquired

from a Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 0

was collected using the University of Michigan

-4000

Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) Mobile Truck

Tire Dynamometer (Figure 2). This tire-testing vehicle is -6000

capable of testing lateral (steer), longitudinal (brake) and

-8000

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

1000

500

0

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].

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

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

500

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

model that better fits the measured tire data. 200

0

angle curve was fit, at each normal force, with a linear

best fit line for slip angle values where |SA| ≤ 1.0

-100

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

-40

see [2]). Mz Plysteer Moment (ft-lb)

-60

2

Plysteer ( Fz ) = Plysteer2 × Fz + -80

Plysteer1 × Fz + Plysteer0 (1)

-100

-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

0.45 when applied to the NADS tire model.

0.4

-5

x 10

-1.5

0.35

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

-3.5

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)

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

If SA > SAPEAK Fy

curve fit.

SA − SAPEAK (4)

Fy = Fy PEAK 1 − Fy

Decay Fy ( Fz ) IMPROVED TIRE MODEL RESULTS

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.

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

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)

Model

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)

-4000

#1 Analytical Model

-6000 -6000

-8000

-8000 0 2 4 6

0 2 4 6

0 0 0 0

FY (lbf)

AXLE

#2 -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000

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

0 0 0 0

FY (lbf)

AXLE

#3 -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000

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

0 0 0 0

FY (lbf)

AXLE

#4 -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000

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

0 0 0 0

FY (lbf)

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

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

(8)

Decay Fx,30 0

NADS TIRE MODEL APPLICATION – Smithers

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.

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

quantified by the normalized longitudinal stiffness

coefficient, CSFZ. The CSFZ values for each speed are 1st

order

similar, so no speed or load dependency for CSFZ is

included in the model.

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.

development.

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)

-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

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 )

CONTACT

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

APPENDIX Fz Fz t

a po =

NADS Tire Model Formulation [4]: TwT p

Lateral Stiffness Coefficient:

π ap2 K s2 tan 2 (α ) K c2 κ

2

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

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

A4

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 ]

K m a tan(α ) K s

2

κ SN 0

Mz =

p

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

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

- The late July, 2010 edition of Warren County Report.Transféré parDan McDermott
- Komatsu 930E_4SE - CopiaTransféré parCarlos Chavez
- Tyres OTR Product Book October 2011Transféré parGANESH
- Vespa GTS125 Owners Guide ManualTransféré parjl101
- Dyno jetTransféré parArūnas Talvaševičius
- TPMS - A Learning GuideTransféré parOrangeElectronicUsa
- GEORGE CONSTANTINESCO TORQUE CONVERTER ANALYSIS BY SIMULINK.pdfTransféré parslysoft.20009951
- DUCATI MonsterS4 2002Transféré parวิรัตน์ อัครอภิโภคี
- 2014 REGIONAL - Lotus Challenge (NR23) 158841Transféré parGarrethwr
- SARANA FASILITAS LAB BPPTTransféré parNovirita Aryani Anshori
- Beverly 300ie MY2010 User Manual.pdfTransféré parAnonymous opDIEk
- DILIP ST1Transféré parDilip Jha
- Tyre AdvicesTransféré parshafreejhidayath
- 12 MTS Tire Veh HandlingTransféré parFrancisco Ruiz
- Halifax Transit Snow TiresTransféré parDarren Krause
- IC engineTransféré parMohan Kumar S
- Fender and Marine Equipment from Fendercare.pdfTransféré parAnonymous
- Reclaim RubberTransféré parssjrubber1215
- AmaTransféré parSatishReddy
- AmaTransféré parPritamjit Rout
- catalog_2005_2006_webTransféré parRicky Martin Martin
- Transportation Statistics: table 02 22Transféré parBTS
- Rule: Final Theft Data: Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention StandardTransféré parJustia.com
- sazaTransféré parPAVIN ENGG
- M96SC04Transféré parsrijithbpillai
- IRJET-A Review of Testing of Multi Cylinder S.I. Petrol EngineTransféré parIRJET Journal
- Crescor H-138-1834CLTransféré parwsfc-ebay
- Presentation Solar Car1Transféré parCek Gu Den
- flc_tpms_brochure_en.pdfTransféré parCTN2010
- DiscoveryTransféré parHenter Tamás

- Strategic Plan 2020Transféré parSteven Sullivan
- 2010-01-1757.pdfTransféré parSteven Sullivan
- 2006-01-0559.pdfTransféré parSteven Sullivan
- 710446.pdfTransféré parSteven Sullivan
- BOEING ETHICS INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: RUDMANTransféré parASIMOV51
- GMO Myths and TruthsTransféré parChildren Of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance
- AIR5800.pdfTransféré parSteven Sullivan
- 2003-01-0092.pdfTransféré parSteven Sullivan
- 2006-01-1277.pdfTransféré parSteven Sullivan
- 2006-01-0499Transféré parSteven Sullivan
- 2008-01-2860.pdfTransféré parSteven Sullivan
- 2006-01-0516.pdfTransféré parSteven Sullivan
- Magazine Final007Transféré parSteven Sullivan
- Document 1Transféré parSteven Sullivan
- DARPA White Paper LatestTransféré parSteven Sullivan
- A3 Problem Solving StepsTransféré parSteven Sullivan
- Political.thinking Political.cultureTransféré parSteven Sullivan
- 8 Brakes TyresIssue3Transféré parSteven Sullivan
- 3614162 US Army Weapon SystemsTransféré parSteven Sullivan
- Water Cooled Axial Flux Motor High TorqueTransféré parSteven Sullivan
- Murdoch on the Sovereignty of Good 9Transféré parSteven Sullivan
- Murdoch on the Sovereignty of Good 12Transféré parSteven Sullivan
- Murdoch on the Sovereignty of Good 13Transféré parSteven Sullivan
- Murdoch on the Sovereignty of GoodTransféré parSteven Sullivan
- Murdoch on the Sovereignty of Good 15Transféré parSteven Sullivan
- Murdoch on the Sovereignty of Good 17Transféré parSteven Sullivan
- Murdoch on the Sovereignty of Good 14Transféré parSteven Sullivan
- Murdoch on the Sovereignty of Good 11Transféré parSteven Sullivan

- Fine Hardwood Toys catalog made by John Michael LinckTransféré partoymakerjohn
- Tpw3ch GoodTransféré parcthlah01
- Balance External Development Works AnantnagTransféré parapi-19745405
- Report Jec Europe 2013 WebTransféré parJavier Zamora
- Apollo Cycles 2009 CatalogueTransféré parLogans Cycles
- KI-04 Bridge Engineer Ricardo Dizon OKTransféré parJamshed
- T8 B17 FAA Trips 1 of 3 Fdr- Statement of Redacted to Redacted- SCRAMBLE McGUIRE (Located in File on Top of Brief Synopsis of Events Regarding AA 11- UA 175- Pg 1 Only in This Section- Signed Michael McCormickTransféré par9/11 Document Archive
- Specimen Proposal ready.docxTransféré parNaures Wajokh
- National Association of Corrosion Engineers C-28-2015Transféré parSen Hu
- Mini Rails Rules ENG-0615Transféré parVictor Andrade
- boq-ipsTransféré parasingh400
- AspectTransféré parijderi
- Philippine Collegian Tomo 91 Issue 8Transféré parPhilippine Collegian
- Laser Air Hybrid UltrasonicTransféré parPDDELUCA
- Condor 38AG OMP No. 92323Transféré parJose Luis Huerta
- CP_109 Mothballing Pipelines.pdfTransféré parMohd Khairul
- Ozgur Bedenler Arac DonanimlariTransféré parkamekaze61
- Site Engineer Job - Huationg Contractor Pte Ltd - 5337669 _ JobStreetTransféré parBan YT
- Registro de Vehiculos Blindados en Museos de USA.pdfTransféré parHERODOTOGT
- valentine tinaj 20Transféré parapi-350070637
- c-wp6(2014)10-finalTransféré parmpales7
- Alstom Group Presentation SG 2 Dec 2011Transféré parscribd-dude
- Sm Sakai Sv505-1Transféré parLU YO
- 1-s2.0-S2468013315300127-mainTransféré partomo1973
- Pmkm10010-Ok Kap8 586036 Motor SpareParts Serp4132-33 CdmasterTransféré parPercy Chero
- IJETAE_0413_1Transféré parTameka Bennett
- ErectionTransféré parAjay Sastry
- CCC-battery-cost_-Element-Energy-report_March2012_Public.pdfTransféré parjuanpazago
- Council Meeting 7 18 16 RevisedTransféré parRobin Oda
- Pa News Heli Tech Mili Pol 07Transféré parMark Yates