Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

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

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2006-01-0559

Measurement and Modeling of Tire Forces on a


Low Coefficient Surface
M. Kamel Salaani
Transportation Research Center, Inc.

Gary J. Heydinger
The Ohio State University

Paul A. Grygier
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reprinted From: Vehicle Dynamics and Simulation 2006


(SP-2018)

2006 SAE World Congress


Detroit, Michigan
April 3-6, 2006

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

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel : 724-772-4028
Fax : 724-776-3036

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service


Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191

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 through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract to Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

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

2006-01-0559

Measurement and Modeling of Tire Forces on a Low


Coefficient Surface
M. Kamel Salaani
Transportation Research Center, Inc.

Gary J. Heydinger
The Ohio State University

Paul A. Grygier
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Abstract The data set from these tests was used to create a tire model
for a dynamic simulation. The paper concludes by displaying
There exists a fairly extensive set of tire force measurements the model’s longitudinal and lateral forces versus loading
performed on dry pavement. But in order to develop a low- condition and tire slip angle.
coefficient of friction tire model, a set of tire force
measurements made on wet pavement is required. Using Introduction
formulations and parameters obtained on dry roads, and then
reducing friction level to that of a wet road is not sufficient to The purpose of this research was to develop a low coefficient
model tire forces in a high fidelity simulation. This paper of friction tire model. The model was used on the National
describes the process of more accurately modeling low Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS) for a study to
coefficient tire forces on the National Advanced Driving investigate the safety benefits of Electronic Stability and
Simulator (NADS). It is believed that the tire model Control (ESC) systems. The research was not to develop ESC
improvements will be useful in many types of NADS systems, but rather to use an existing ESC system to study
simulations, including ESC and other advanced vehicle drivers’ performances from a human factors perspective. The
technology studies. low coefficient of friction tire model was needed to increase
the incidences of ESC activation as test subjects drove
In order to produce results that would come from a road through the various NADS scenarios. The vehicle modeled
surface that would be sufficiently slippery, a set of tires were was a 2002 Oldsmobile Intrigue with Goodyear Eagle RSA
shaved to 4/32 inches and sent to a tire-testing lab for P225/60R16 tires. To make the NADS study realistic and
measurement. Shaving a tire does not produce the same useful, the vehicle dynamics model must be of high fidelity;
effects that would come about by allowing a tire to wear down that is, the physics predicted through the simulation should be
to 4/32 inches through normal use. However, for this study, very close to real-world experiences.
only the coefficient of friction needed to be reduced. The
aging effects of rubber are ignored. Tire forces were NADS vehicle dynamics have been validated with various
measured on a tire test machine, using a water-coated surface vehicles (1994 Ford Taurus, 1998 Chevrolet Malibu, 1997
to approximate the frictional properties of wet pavement. Jeep Cherokee, and 1991 GM-Volvo heavy truck with 1992
These tests, which included cornering, braking, and driving, Fruehauf trailer), but not with cases involving low coefficients
were performed at five loading conditions. They showed a of friction, like driving on wet roads and ice. In order to
decrease in tire effective lateral stiffness as well as a drop in properly model the low coefficient surface, tire tests were
longitudinal force as the tire speed increased. performed under low friction conditions. Modeling tire
mechanics for vehicle dynamics relies heavily on tire testing,
and most models are dominated by empirical formulations.

1
Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Using formulations and parameters obtained on dry roads, and shows peak longitudinal coefficient of friction data from the
then simply scaling the friction level and associated forces and 4/32” tread depth tire. The curves in Figure 2 bound our
moments to that of a lower coefficient road, is not sufficient to target peak friction value of about 0.5 at 50 mph. We selected
accurately replicate tire forces, particularly when the vehicle is a water depth of 0.05” for our tests, with the expectation that
operating at highway speeds. Therefore, this research we would get similar peak longitudinal force values from our
involved measuring tire forces at different speeds on a low tests, suiting the needs of our driving simulator research. A
friction, wet test surface, and to developing a tire model with tread depth of 4/32” represents a moderately well worn tire.
speed dependency. The tire model based on these NHTSA studies have indicated that the average tread depth
measurements provides realistic forces in the linear and for in-service tires, based on measurements made on 11,530
nonlinear range, and the peak friction is at a level where ESC vehicles, to be 7/32” [2]. Shaving a tire does not produce the
engages during driving tasks specified by the NADS ESC same effects that would come about by allowing a tire to wear
study testing protocol. down to 4/32 inches through normal use. However, for this
study, only the coefficient of friction needed to be reduced.
For the NADS ESC study, the goal was to have the peak tire
coefficient of friction be less than 0.6 to ensure ESC From SAE Paper 2002-01-0553
1.2
activation. This condition can be produced in the “tire-
laboratory” with a shaved tire running on a wet test surface.
Variations of tread depth, water depth, tire pressure, tire
1
construction, surface texture, and tread patterns were not

Normalized Longitudinal Peak Force


addressed. These properties were fixed for this study, and
speed was the only parameter affecting tire-force generation 0.8
capabilities that was varied. Wet tire testing was performed at
the CALSPAN Tire Research Facility (TIRF). The tire test
0.05" Water
conditions specified were selected to provide a peak tire 0.6 8/32" Tread
coefficient of friction of about 0.5 at 50 mph, with decreasing 0.05" Water
friction as speed increases. The tire model was developed 6/32" Tread
0.05" Water
based on TIRF data with speed-dependent properties like peak 0.4
4/32" Tread
coefficient of friction and effective lateral and longitudinal 0.10" Water
8/32" Tread
stiffnesses.
0.2 0.10" Water
6/32" Tread
The tire data presented were obtained on a flatbed test 0.10" Water
4/32" Tread
machine, so variations in roadway micro and macro textures,
0
which are a significant factor in real world tire performance
20 40 60 80
on wet roads, were not accounted for in this study. Open road Speed (mph)
macro-texture facilitates gross drainage and micro-harshness
Figure 1. Peak Longitudinal Coefficient of Friction
produces sharp points that can penetrate the remaining water
film. Nonetheless, the tire measurements made were quite
From SAE Paper 2002-01-0553
useful for the purpose of developing the low friction tire 1.2

model.

The tire model developed in this research was used with the 1

existing Oldsmobile Intrigue model for the NADS ESC study.


The low friction model simulation predictions were compared
Normalized Longitudinal Peak Force

and validated with vehicle field experiments on the wet 0.8

Jennite surface with ASTM-measured peak and sliding


friction values of 40-45 and 15-20 respectively, at the
0.6
Transportation Research Center, Inc. (TRC). Likewise,
simulation predictions using the normal tire model were
validated using vehicle field tests on the dry asphalt surfaces 0.05" Water
0.4
at TRC. For the case of the wet Jennite, slight adjustments of 4/32" Tread
the peak coefficient of friction were made to narrow the 0.10" Water
4/32" Tread
differences between simulation predictions and field
0.2
measurements. The validation procedures and results will be
documented separately.
0
Figure 1 was generated from data compiled by Blythe and 20 40 60 80
Spe e d (mph)
Day [1] from wet tire testing that was performed at the
CALSPAN Tire Research Facility (TIRF). We used the Figure 2. Peak Longitudinal Coefficient of Friction
graph in Figure 1 to select the tread depth (4/32”). Figure 2
2
Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Quasi-Static Steering / Cornering


Tire Testing Inclination angle: 0q
Slip angle sweep: 0 to -20 to +20 to 0q at a rate of 3 deg/sec
The testing included wet and dry cambering, cornering, and Normal loads: 40, 80, 120, 160 and 200% of reference load.
braking/driving test procedures. The wet and dry test Wet test speeds: 30, 45, 60 and 75 mph (4 tests)
programs included four test procedures: two free rolling test Dry test speed: 30 mph (1 test)
procedures (one cambering and one steering) and two
braking/driving test procedures (one straight-line and one Quasi-Static Braking / Driving
combined with steering). The tires used were all shaved to a Inclination angle: 0q
tread depth of 4/32”, and all had the same DOT number as Slip ratio sweep: 0 to -50% to +50% to 0
indicated on Table 1. A constant water depth of 0.050” and Ramp time (0 to 50%) of 1.5 sec
regulated test inflation pressure of 34 psi were used Normal loads: 40, 80, 120, 160 and 200% of reference load.
throughout the test program. Each wet test was performed at
four velocity conditions of 30, 45, 60 and 75 mph. All of the Wet test speeds: 30, 45, 60 and 75 mph (4 tests)
dry tests were performed at a single velocity of 30 mph. A Dry test speed: 30 mph (1 test)
reference load of 1150 lbs was used for the entire test
program. The maximum test load was 200% of the reference, Quasi-Static Combined Steering / Braking / Driving
or 2300 lbs. Figure 3 shows a test in progress. Inclination angle: 0q
Normal loads: 100% of reference load.
Table 1. Tires For CALSPAN Testing Steady state slip angles: -6, -4, -2, 0, 2, 4, and 6q
Slip ratio sweep: 0 to -50% to +50% to 0
Goodyear Eagle RSA P225/60R16 Ramp time (0 to 50%) of 1.5 sec
All Tires Shaved to 4/32” Tread Depth Wet test speeds: 30, 45, 60 and 75 mph (4 tests)
All Tire Pressures at 34 psi Dry test speed: 30 mph (1 test)
Tire No. Reference Description
1 GY1381-DOT4304 Fundamental Mechanical Tire Properties
2 GY1382-DOT4304
Testing
3 GY1383-DOT4304 The tire model used in this research is a modified version of
4 GY1384-DOT4304 the Systems Technology, Inc. tire model [3, 4]. The tire
5 GY1380-DOT2404 Reserve model parameters are obtained at four different speeds: 30, 45,
60, and 75 mph. Linear interpolation of basic tire properties
was performed to generate values between these speeds.
Using linear interpolation of the peak coefficient of friction
and effective stiffnesses will be shown to give good
approximations and be a valid approach. The tire stiffness on
wet roads at different speeds is basically the effective
stiffness, and decreases as speed increases on wet roads due to
hydroplaning effects, and it is not due to tire rubber/carcass
structure.

At low speed, the presence of water affects the boundary


conditions of the tire contact surface. This is a boundary layer
lubricated frictional contact that produces a lower coefficient
of friction when compared to dry contact. Yet the frictional
force is fairly large, and the differences between dry and wet
tire forces are not large. As speed increases, the front edge of
the tire starts to ride on a film of fluid. This film is formed
due to inertia and viscosity-induced retardation of water
Figure 3. Tire Test at CALSPAN displacement. With a further increase in speed, the fluid film
extends backward into the contact area, as shown in Figure 4.
The testing included 16 wet runs and 4 dry runs as follows: This phenomenon is very similar to elastohydrodynamic
lubrication, a terminology used in tribology science to refer to
Discrete Cambering At Zero Slip Angle rolling bodies in contact. At a particular speed, the fluid film
Inclination angles: -10, -8, -6, -4, -2, 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10q extends to cover the entire contact area, and the tire
Normal loads: 40, 80, 120, 160 and 200% of reference load. consequently makes no direct contact with the surface, and the
Wet test speeds: 30, 45, 60 and 75 mph (4 tests) normal force is totally born by fluid pressure. The tangential
Dry test speed: 30 mph (1 test) shear force from water film is small. Fluids like water do not
sustain shear forces comparable to direct tire contact and tire

3
Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

asperity deformation. Their viscous nature is not strong


1.5
enough.
30 mph Dry

The loss of shear force capabilities at high speed on flooded Speed Increases

roads is referred in vehicle dynamics as tire hydroplaning. It


is a process where water acts like a bearing between the road 1

and the tire contact area. Tread pattern and surface macro and

Peak (Fy/Fz)
micro texture are very important in wet surface contact. The 30 mph Wet

surface used for this project at CALSPAN is coated with 3M


80-grit-polycut sandpaper. This surface texture is different 0.5
45 mph Wet
from road surfaces and the concrete surface used at TRC.
Therefore, adjustments and caution should be used when
using CALSPAN data to validate field dynamic tests, in 60 mph Wet

particular when tire forces are close to saturation, or in sliding 75 mph Wet
0
mode. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Fz (lbs)

Figure 5. Lateral Peak Coefficient of Friction


For the longitudinal data measured at CALSPAN we
encountered the following drawbacks:

At the higher test speeds, longitudinal forces increase as


slip ratio increases up to a maximum force at full sliding.
Current research and tire/wet road testing do not indicate
this phenomenon. This might be due the surface texture
of the surface used on the CALSPAN TIRF.

The test conditions are not precisely defined for different


vertical loads. The TIRF machine was controlled with a
longitudinal slip formulation that uses the ratio of wheel
spin velocity, based on the tire free-rolling radius
determined during the lightest vertical load, to belt speed.
The tire free-rolling radius was not updated for different
Figure 4. Hydroplaning of a Tire on a Flooded Surface [5] loads and as a result the longitudinal tire data has large
longitudinal slip offsets.
The goal of this research is not to simulate complete
hydroplaning of four tires, but to simulate conditions that vary The measured longitudinal stiffness values from all of the
from boundary wet friction to partial hydroplaning. The longitudinal tire testing were found to be considerably
partial hydroplaning should be enough to activate ESC, which higher than expected for these wet and dry tests using
will demonstrate its vital role in maintaining vehicle stability. shaved tires. Longitudinal stiffness values from the
current wet and dry shaved tire testing were found to be
Tire Coefficients about three times higher than longitudinal stiffness values
for unshaved Goodyear Eagle P255/60R16 tires measured
Figure 5 shows the measured peak lateral coefficient of on a dry surface at a different facility.
friction at different test speeds, and Figure 6 shows the
measured peak longitudinal coefficient of friction (A problem
related to the quality of the TIRF belt control occurred during
the 45-mph longitudinal test, so data from this test was not
used.) The symbols on the graphs indicate the measured data
points, while the curves represent the tire model based on
curve fits of the test data. The longitudinal peak coefficient of
friction values shown in Figure 5 compare well with the
targeted range shown in Figure 2.

4
Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

1.5
Speed Increases
30 mph Dry -4
x 10
30 mph Dry
3
30 mph Wet

KLT (linear) (ft/lb)


30 mph Wet 45 mph Wet
2
1 60 mph Wet
75 mph Wet
Peak abs(Fx/Fz)

0 Mx=(KLT0+KLT1*Fz+KLT2*Fz 2)*Fy

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
0.5 Fz (lbs)
-4
x 10
60 mph Wet

KLT (high FY) (ft/lb)


0
75 mph Wet
-2
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Fz (lbs) -4

Figure 6. Longitudinal Peak Coefficient of Friction 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Fz (lbs)

The effective tire lateral stiffness at different speeds is shown Figure 9. Effective Overturning Moment Stiffness
in Figure 7, the effective aligning moment stiffness in Figure
8, and the effective overturning moment stiffness in Figure 9.
Figures 10-11 show the lateral force and overturning moment
35
inclination angle stiffnesses at all test speeds and vertical
loads. 30 Speed Increases

25
400

20
CJ (lbs/deg)

350
30 mph Dry
15
300
10
Cornering Stiffness (lbs/deg)

250 5
30 mph Dry
0 30 mph Wet
200 30 mph Wet 45 mph Wet
-5 60 mph Wet
150 75 mph Wet
30 mph Dry -10
30 mph Wet 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
100 45 mph Wet
45 mph Wet Fz (lbs)
60 mph Wet
50 60 mph Wet 75 mph Wet Figure 10. Lateral Force-Inclination Angle Stiffness
75 mph Wet

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Fz (lbs) 0.01

Figure 7. Effective Lateral Stiffness 0.009


30 mph Dry
0.008 30 mph Wet
-4 Mx=-KLTG*Fy*Fz 45 mph Wet
x 10
-0.8 0.007 60 mph Wet
75 mph Wet
0.006
KLTG (ft/lbs)

-1
0.005

-1.2 0.004

0.003
-1.4
KK1 (ft/lb)

0.002
Mz=KK1*Fy*Fz
-1.6
0.001
30 mph Dry
30 mph Wet 0
-1.8 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
45 mph Wet
60 mph Wet Fz (lbs)

-2 75 mph Wet
Figure 11. Overturning Moment-Inclination Angle Stiffness
-2.2
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 The experimental tire data is fitted with the empirical STI
Fz (lb)
saturation function given below, and the results for dry and
Figure 8. Effective Aligning Moment Stiffness wet conditions at 30 mph are shown in Figures 12 and 13.
5
Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

forces and linear range stiffnesses for all conditions, and a


2 2 decent job of modeling the forces when the tires reach high
§ Fx · § Fy · slip angles.
¨ ¸ ¨ ¸
© P x ¹ ¨© P y ¸¹
f V 30 MPH DRY
Fz 2500

2000

1.4 1500
Test
1000
Fitted
1.2

Lateral Force (lbs)


500

1 0

Fz = 457.9 lbs
-500
0.8
Fz = 919.8 lbs
-1000
f(V )

Fz = 1380 lbs
0.6 -1500
Fz = 1842 lbs
-2000
0.4 Fz = 2306 lbs
-2500
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
0.2 Slip Angle (deg)

0
Figure 14. Lateral Forces at 30 mph Dry
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
V
30 MPH WET
Figure 12. Saturation Function For Dry Tests (30 mph) 2500

2000

1.4 1500
Test
1000
Fitted
1.2
Lateral Force (lbs)

500

1 0
Fz = 456.1 lbs
-500
0.8 Fz = 919.3 lbs
-1000
f(V )

Fz = 1380 lbs
0.6 -1500 Fz = 1844 lbs

-2000 Fz = 2304 lbs


0.4
-2500
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
0.2 Slip Angle (deg)

0
Figure 15. Lateral Forces at 30 mph Wet
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
V
45 MPH WET
2000

Figure 13. Saturation Function For Wet Tests (30 mph) 1500

Wet peak and slide braking and cornering traction coefficients 1000

are reduced by increasing speed in an approximately linear


Lateral Force (lbs)

500
manner as reported by Veith [6]. Our testing confirms this
observation, and adds another dimension: that is; tire normal 0
load variations. Polynomial fits were done for vertical load Fz = 453.9 lbs

variations, and linear interpolation is used to account for speed -500 Fz = 917.3 lbs

variations. Fz = 1377 lbs


-1000
Fz = 1841 lbs
Tire Model Verifications -1500
Fz = 2301 lbs

-2000
Figures 14-18 show the measured and modeled lateral forces -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Slip Angle (deg)
versus slip angle for the dry test (30 mph) and four wet tests
done at different speeds (30, 45, 60, and 75 mph). (The 200% Figure 16. Lateral Forces at 45 mph Wet
rated load data was not used for the 60 mph wet test.)
Overall, the model does a good job of predicting the peak
6
Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

60 MPH WET (despite some difficulties with the test procedure in this
600
mode). One of the goals for the testing program was to find
400
the combination of tread depth and water depth which would
yield a high coefficient of friction at low speeds and a low
200
coefficient at high speeds. This goal was accomplished. It
should be noted that shaving a tire does not produce the same
Lateral Force (lbs)

Fz = 454.4 lbs
0 effects that would come about by allowing a tire to wear down
Fz = 917.3 lbs to 4/32 inches through normal use. The aging effects of
-200 rubber were ignored.
Fz = 1376 lbs

-400
Fz = 1838 lbs
The tire forces and moments were then used to generate the
tire parameters required by the STI tire model used by the
-600
NADS vehicle simulation dynamics. Some of these
parameters include coefficients for equations describing the
-800
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 lateral and longitudinal peak coefficient of friction for varying
Slip Angle (deg)
loads at different speeds, effective lateral stiffness, effective
Figure 17. Lateral Forces at 60 mph Wet aligning moment stiffness, several other stiffnesses, and the
tire saturation function.
75 MPH WET
1000
The STI model was then exercised with the generated
800 coefficients. Overall, the model did a good job of predicting
600 peak forces and linear range stiffnesses for all conditions, and
a decent job of modeling the forces when the tires reach high
400
slip angles.
Lateral Force (lbs)

200
Fz = 454.4 lbs
0
Fz = 917.3 lbs
-200
Fz = 1376 lbs References
-400
Fz = 1838 lbs
-600 1. Blythe, W. and Day, T.D., “Single Vehicle Wet Road
Fz = 2303 lbs
-800 Loss of Control; Effects of Tire Tread Depth and
Placement,” SAE Paper 2002-01-0553, 2002.
-1000
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Slip Angle (deg)
2. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Figure 18. Lateral Forces at 75 mph Wet Safety Administration, National Center for Statistical
Analysis, Tire Pressure Special Study - Tread Depth
Figure 19 shows measured and modeled results for Analysis, by K. Thiriez and R. Subramanian, Research
longitudinal, lateral, and combined forces at 30 mph for both Note DOT HS 809 359, Washington, D.C., www-
wet and dry conditions. The model does a good job of nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2001/809-
assimilating the measured results. At 30 mph the wet tire 359TreadDepth.pdf, 2001.
peak longitudinal and lateral forces are only slightly less than
the dry peak forces. 3. Salaani, M.K., “Powertrain and Brake Modeling of the
1994 Ford Taurus for the National Advanced Driving
At higher speeds, the measured results from the combined Simulator,” SAE 980221, 1998.
tests are not consistent due the previously mentioned lack of
quality in the higher speed longitudinal data measurements. 4. Allen, R.W., Rosenthal, T.J., and Chrstos, J.P.,”A Vehicle
Nonetheless, the model predictions for higher speed combined Dynamics Tire Model for Both Pavement and Off-Road
conditions based on peak lateral and longitudinal forces are Conditions,” SAE 970559, 1997.
reasonable.
5. Mechanics of Pneumatic Tires, edited by S.K. Clark,
Conclusions Monograph 122, National Bureau of Standards, 1971.

This paper presented the results from testing shaved passenger 6. Veith, A.G., “Tires – Roads –Rainfall – Vehicles: The
car tires on a low-coefficient test surface. Straight-line and Traction Connection,” Frictional Interaction of Tire and
cornering tests were performed, yielding data for both Pavement, ASTM STP 793. Edited by W. E. Meyer and
longitudinal and lateral forces and cornering moments. Five J. D. Walter, American Society for Testing and Materials,
loading conditions were used, yielding a good fit in the lateral 1983, pp. 3-40.
direction and a reasonable fit in the longitudinal direction

7
Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Lateral Slip Angle = +- 2 degrees @ 30 mph Dry Lateral Slip Angle = +- 2 degrees @ 30 mph Wet
1000 Test 1000 Test
Fx (lbs)

Fx (lbs)
0 Model 0 Model
Fz = 1147 lbs
-1000 Fz = 1147 lbs -1000
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Slip Ratio Slip Ratio

1000 1000
Fy (lbs)

Fy (lbs)
0 0

-1000 -1000
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Slip Ratio Slip Ratio

1000 1000
Fy (lbs)

Fy (lbs)
0 0

-1000 -1000
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
Fx (lbs) Fx (lbs)

Lateral Slip Angle = +- 4 degrees @ 30 mph Dry Lateral Slip Angle = +- 4 degrees @ 30 mph Wet
1000 Test 1000 Test
Fx (lbs)

Fx (lbs)
0 Model 0 Model
Fz = 1147 lbs
Fz = 1147 lbs
-1000 -1000
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Slip Ratio Slip Ratio

1000 1000
Fy (lbs)

0 Fy (lbs) 0

-1000 -1000
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Slip Ratio Slip Ratio

1000 1000
Fy (lbs)

Fy (lbs)

0 0

-1000 -1000
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
Fx (lbs) Fx (lbs)

Lateral Slip Angle = +- 6 degrees @ 30 mph Dry Lateral Slip Angle = +- 6 degrees @ 30 mph Wet
1000 Test 1000 Test
Fx (lbs)

Fx (lbs)

0 Model 0 Model
Fz = 1147 lbs
Fz = 1155 lbs
-1000 -1000
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Slip Ratio Slip Ratio

1000 1000
Fy (lbs)

Fy (lbs)

0 0

-1000 -1000
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Slip Ratio Slip Ratio

1000 1000
Fy (lbs)

Fy (lbs)

0 0

-1000 -1000
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 -1000 -500 0 500 1000
Fx (lbs) Fx (lbs)

Figure 19. Combined Longitudinal and Lateral Forces at 30 mph – Dry and Wet