You are on page 1of 13

Georg Rill

Vehicle Modeling by Subsystems


Georg Rill
GeorgRill@aol.com FH Regensburg, University of Applied Sciences Galgenbergstr. 30 D-93053 Regensburg, Germany

Computer simulations have become very popular in the automotive industry. In order to achieve a good conformity with field test, sophisticated vehicle models are needed. A real vehicle incorporates many complex dynamic systems, such as the drive train, the steering system and the wheel/axle suspension. On closer inspection some force elements such as shock absorbers and hydro-mounts turn out to be dynamic systems too. Modern vehicle models consist of different subsystems. Then, each subsystem may be modeled differently and can be tested independently. If some subsystems are available as a set of nested models of different complexity it will be even possible to generate overall vehicle models which are well tailored to particular applications. But, the numerical solution of coupled subsystems is not straight forward. This paper shows that the overall vehicle model can be solved very effectively by suitable interfaces and an implicit integration algorithm. The presented concept is realized in the product ve-DYNA, applied worldwide by automotive companies and suppliers. Keywords: Vehicle dynamics, vehicle model, axle modeling, drive train, multibody systems

Modeling Concept
For dynamic simulation the vehicles are usually modeled by multi body systems (MBS), van der Jagt (2000). Typically, the overall vehicle model is separated into different subsystems, Rauh (2003). Fig. 1 shows the components of a passenger car model which can be used to investigate handling and ride properties. The vehicle model consists of the vehicle framework and subsystems for the steering system and the drive train. 1 The vehicle framework represents the kernel of the model. It at least includes the module chassis and modules for the wheel/axle suspension systems. The vehicle framework is supplemented by modules for the load, an elastically suspended engine, and passenger/seat models. A simple load module just takes the mass and inertia properties of the load into account. To describe the sloshing effects of liquid loads dynamic load models are needed, Rill and Rauh (1992). The subsystems elastically suspended engine, passenger/seat, and in heavy truck models a suspended drivers cabin can all be handled by the presented generic free body model. For standard vehicle dynamics analysis the chassis can be modeled by one rigid body. For applications where the chassis flexibility has to be taken into account a suitable flexible frame model is presented. Most wheel/axle suspension systems can be described by typical multi body system elements such as rigid bodies, links, joints and force elements, Rill (1994). Using a modified implicit Euler algorithm for solving the dynamic equations, axle suspensions with compliancies and dry friction in the damper element can be handled without any problems, Rill (2004). Due to their robustness leaf springs are still a popular choice for solid axles. They combine guidance and suspension properties which causes many problems in modeling, Fickers and Richter (1994). A leaf spring model is presented in this paper which overcomes these problems. The steering system at least consists of the steering wheel, a flexible steering shaft, and the steering box which may also be power-assisted. Neureder (2002) has developed a very sophisticated model of the steering system which includes compliancies, dry friction, and clearance.

Figure 1. Vehicle model structure.

Presented at XI DINAME International Symposium on Dynamic Problems of Mechanics, February 28th - March 4th, 2005, Ouro Preto. MG. Brazil. Paper accepted: June, 2005. Technical Editors: J.R.F. Arruda and D.A. Rade.

Tire forces and torques have a dominant influence on vehicle dynamics. The semi-empirical tire model TMeasy has mainly been developed to meet both the requirements of user-friendliness and sufficient model accuracy, Hirschberg et. al. (2002). Complex tire models such as the FTire Model provided by Gipser (1998) can be used for special applications. The module tire also includes the wheel rotation which acts as input for the drive train model. The presented drive train model is generic. It takes lockable differentials into account, and it combines front wheel, rear wheel and all wheel drive. The drive train is supplemented by a module describing the engine torque. It may be modeled quite simply by a first order differential equation or by the enhanced engine torque module enDYNA developed by TESIS. Road irregularities and variations in the coefficient of friction present significant impacts on the vehicle. A road model generating a two-dimensional reproducible random profile was provided by Rill (1990). This modeling concept is realized with a MATLAB/Simulink interface in the product ve-DYNA which also includes suitable models for the driver, TESIS.

430 / Vol. XXVIII, No. 4, October-December 2006

ABCM

Vehicle Modeling by Subsystems

Module Flexible Frame


Multi Body Approach to First Eigenmodes The chassis eigenmodes of most passenger cars start at f >20Hz. Hence, for standard vehicle dynamic analysis the chassis can be modeled as one rigid body. The lower chassis stiffness of trucks and pickups results in eigenmodes starting at f 10 Hz , Fig. 2.

Modal Coordinates

The motions of the front and rear body relative to the center body are small compared to the free body motions of the center part. Hence, the linearized rotation matrices
1 ACF = CF CF CF 1

CF

CF CF , 1

1 ACR = CR CR

CR 1

CR

CR CR , (3) 1

and the position vectors


x + y z
CF CF CF

rCF ,C = r

K CF , C

rCR , C = r

K CR , C

x + y z

CR CR CR

(4)

Figure 2. Chassis eigenmode of a pickup at f=11.2 Hz.

are used to describe the orientation and position of the front and rear K K body relative to the center part. The vectors rCF , C and rCR , C denote the initial position of the front and rear body. The generalized coordinates
yF yR = =

The first eigenmodes consist of torsion and bending of the chassis. These modes can be approximated by a multi body chassis model where the chassis is divided into three parts, Fig. 3.

[ [

xCF , xCR ,

yCF , zCF , CF , CF , CF yCR , zCR , CF

CR , CR

], T ]
T

(5)

describe the motions of the front and rear body relative to the center body. These motions are approximated by nM eigenmodes e1 , e2 , ... , enM now
= eF 1 , e F 2 , ...eFnM Ef m 1 m2 m nM m1 m2 mnM

Figure 3. Flexible frame model.

yF

Free Body Motions The position and orientation of the reference frame xC , yC , zC which is fixed to the center body with respect to the inertial frame x0 , y0 , z0 is given by the rotation matrix
y F = eF 1 , e R 2 , ...eRnM ER

(6)

cos 0C A 0C = sin 0C 0

-sin 0C cos 0C 0

0 cos 0C 0 0 1 -sin 0C 0 1

0 sin 0C 1 0 0 cos 0C 0 -sin cos


0C 0C

where m1 , m2 , ..., mnM are modal coordinates, and EF and ER represent 6nM matrices containing the eigenmodes. (1)
Generalized Coordinates

0 cos 0C sin 0C

The flexible chassis is modeled by 3 rigid bodies here. The orientation and the position of the bodies are described by free body motions and modal coordinates yC = [x0C Z0C 0C 0C 0C m1 m2 mnM ]T

and the position vector


x = y z
0C 0C 0C

(7)

r0C , 0

(2)

where the 6 free body motions and the nM modal coordinates are collected in the vector yC . The dimension of yC depends on the number nM of modal coordinates, n y = 6 + nM .
Equations of Motion

where the comma separated subscript 0 indicates that the coordinates of the vector from 0 to C are expressed in the inertial frame. The generalized coordinates roll, pitch, and yaw angle 0C ,

0C , 0C as well as the coordinates x0C , y0C , z0C of the vector


r0C , 0 describe the free body motion of the vehicle.
J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng.

To generate the equations of motion Jordains Principle with generalized speeds is used. For a multi body system consisting of
October-December 2006, Vol. XXVIII, No. 4 / 431

Copyright 2006 by ABCM

Georg Rill

m rigid bodies it results in a set of two first order differential equations

Within Jordains Principle the compliance forces and torques are reduced to generalized forces which are calculated by
F

= z, Ky = q. Mz

(8)
cmp T = EF qF cCF E

m1 m2
m

The kinematic matrix K follows from the definition of the generalized speeds. The elements of the mass matrix M are given by
m v v k 0k , M ij = mk 0 k + z j zi z j k =1 zi T 0k T 0k

nF

cmp T = ER and qR cCR E

m1 m2
m

nF

(15)

where

(9)
T EF cCF EF =

cF1 0 0 cF 2 0

where mk is the mass and k the inertia tensor of body k . Finally, the components of the generalized forces and torques are defined by
qi = T T v0 0 R R k k FAk mk a0 k + TAk k 0 k 0 k k0 k , (10) z zi k =1 i n

0 0 c

FnM

T and ER cCR ER =

cR1 0 0 cR2 0

0 0 c

RnM

(16)

are nM nM stiffness matrices. which are defined by the modal stiffnesses cF 1 , cF 2 , ... cFnM and cR1 , cR 2 , ... cRnM . Thus, to describe the motions of a flexible chassis only some eigenmodes and modal stiffnesses have to be provided.
Results

where FAk , TAk denote the forces and torques applied to body k
R R and a0 k , 0 k are remaining parts of the accelerations which do not depend on the derivatives of the generalized speeds.

Applied Forces and Torques

The forces and torques applied to the bodies can be written as


FC FF FR
cmp cmp = FCext + FCF + FCR , ext cmp = FF FCF , cmp = FRext FCR

Depending on the vehicle layout, a flexible frame has a significant influence on the driving behavior, Fig 4. The rear axle of the considered bus is guided by four links. Here, the arrangement of the links generates a steering effect which depends on the roll angle of the rear part of the chassis and, therefore, also on the torsional stiffness of the chassis.

(11)

and
TC TF TR
cmp cmp = TCext + TCF + TCR , ext cmp = TF TCF , cmp = , TRext TCR

(12)

where the superscripts ext and cmp denote external and compliance forces and torques. Applying Jordains Principle, one part within the equations of motion describes the whole chassis motion. The compliance forces and torques are internal forces for the whole chassis and, therefore, do not show up in the corresponding parts of the generalized force vector. If we assume that the compliance forces and torques are proportional to the motions of the front and rear body then, we will get
cmp FCF = c CF y F cmp TCF

and

cmp FCR =c CR y R , cmp TCR

(13)

where cCF and cCR mark 66 stiffness matrices. The modal coordinate approximation Eq. 6 results in
F

cmp CF cmp CF

= cCF E

m1 m2 m

nF

and

cmp CR cmp CR

= cCR E

m1 m2 m

nF

(14)

Figure 4. Step input on bus with rigid and flexible Frame.

432 / Vol. XXVIII, No. 4, October-December 2006

ABCM

Vehicle Modeling by Subsystems

Module Leaf Spring


Modeling Aspects

Poor leaf spring models approximate guidance and suspension properties of the leaf spring by rigid links and separate force elements, Matschinsky (1998). The deformation of the leaf springs must be taken into account for realistic ride and handling simulations. Within ADAMS leaf springs can be modeled with sophisticated beam-element models, ADAMS/Chassis 12.0. But, according to Fickers (1994) it is not easy to take the spring pretension into account. To model the effects of a beam, ADAMS/Solver uses a linear 6 -dimensional action-reaction force (3 translational and 3 rotational) between two markers. In order to provide adequate representation for the nonlinear cross section, usually 20 elements are used to model one leaf spring. A subsystem consisting of a solid axle and two beam-element leaf spring models would have f = 6 + 2 (20 6) = 246 degrees of freedom. In addition, the beamelement leaf spring model results in extremely stiff differential equations. These and the large number of degrees of freedom slow down the computing time significantly. For real time applications the leaf springs must be modeled by a simple, but still accurate model. Fig. 5 shows a model of a solid axle with leaf spring suspension, which is typical for light truck rear axle suspension systems. There are no additional links. Hence, only the forces and torques generated by leaf spring deflections guide and suspend the axle.
3 1
zL yL xL

Similar to Fickers (1994) each leaf spring is modeled by five rigid bodies which are connected to each other by spherical joints, Fig. 5. Each leaf spring is connected to the frame via the front leaf eye X . Furthermore each leaf spring is attached to the shackle at Y , and again to the frame at Z . In C the center part of each leaf spring is rigidly connected to the axle. The front eye bushings are modeled by spring/damper elements in x -, y -, and z -direction. The shackles are modeled by radial and a lateral spring/damper elements. Within each leaf spring the angles 1 , 1 , and 2 , 2 describe the motions of part P - Q and part R - S relative to the center part. The outer parts Q - X and P - Y perform their rotations, 3 , 3 , and 4 , 4 , relative to part P - Q and part R S . As each leaf spring element is considered as a rigid rod, the roll motions can be neglected. The angles are collected in 4 1 position vectors
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) y1F = 1 , 1 , 3 , 3 ; y1R = 2 , 2 , 4 , 4 ; T T

(18)

(2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) y2 F = 1 , 1 , 3 , 3 ; y2 R = 2 , 2 , 4 , 4 ; (19)

X Q

3 1

front leaf eye bushing

2
sh ack le

4
Z S

2
X1

where y1F , y2 F and y1R , y2 R describe the momentary shape of the front and the rear part of the left (1) and the right (2) leaf spring. A fully dynamic description of a solid axle with two five link leaf spring models would result in f = 6 + 2 8 = 22 degrees of freedom. Compared to the beam-element model this is a really significant reduction. But a dynamic description of the five link leaf spring model still includes some high frequent modes which will cause problems in the numerical solution of the equations of motion. As mass and inertia properties of the leaf spring model parts are small compared to the solid axle, a quasi static solution of the internal leaf spring deflection should be accurate enough within the overall vehicle model. A quasi static solution provides the position vectors of the leaf spring parts as functions of the axle position vector, y1F = y1F ( y A ) , y1R = y1R ( y A ) , y2 F = y2 F ( y A ) , y2 R = y2 R ( y A ) . Hence,

the subsystem solid axle with two leaf springs has only f = 6 degrees of freedom.
X2

yA Z1 Y1 yB B zB xB Y2 C1 CA

zA A xA C2

Initial Shape and Pretension

x, y, z , ,
Z2

Figure 5. Axle model with leaf spring suspension.

The position of the axle center A and the orientation of an axle fixed reference frame x A , y A , z A are described relative to a chassis fixed frame xB , yB , z B by the displacements , , and the rotation angles , , which are collected in the 61 axle position vector yA = [ , , , , ,

At first it is assumed that the leaf spring is located in the xz plane of the leaf spring fixed frame xL , yL , z L and its shape in the design position can be approximated by a circle which is fixed by the points X , C and Y . By dividing the arc X - Y into 5 parts of equal length the position of the links P , R , S , Q and the initial values of the angles 01 , 01 , 02 , 02 , 03 , 03 , 04 , 04 can be calculated very easily. In design position each leaf spring is only preloaded by a vertical load which results in zero pretension forces in the yL direction, F0yB = 0 , F0yS = 0 and zero pretension torques around the
zl -axis, T0zP = 0 , T0zQ = 0 , T0zR = 0 , T0zS = 0 . In addition the torques

around the xl -axis vanish, T0xP = 0 , T0xQ = 0 , T0xR = 0 , T0xS = 0 . To transfer the vertical preload F0 to the front eye bushing and the shackle, the joints P , Q , R , S must provide torques around

(17)

J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng.

Copyright 2006 by ABCM

October-December 2006, Vol. XXVIII, No. 4 / 433

Georg Rill

the yL -axis, Fig. 6. The pretension forces in the front eye bushing
F , F and in the shackle F0 S , can easily be calculated from the equilibrium conditions of the five link leaf spring model,
x 0B z 0B

The deflection w and the force F are related to each other via the stiffness c
F = cw.

(22)

F + F0 S u z F + F0 + F0 S uYZ x z x x z rXC F0 + rXY F0 S uYZ rXY F0 S uYZ


x 0B x YZ z 0B

= 0, = 0, = 0,

(20)

If we transfer the beam model to the five link leaf spring model and look at the front half, Fig. 4, one will get
w = a 1 + a (1 + 3 ) ,

(23)

where a defines the length of one link, and small deflections in the xL , z L plane were assumed. The torques around the yL -axis in the joints P and Q are proportional to the deflection angles 1 and 3 TPy = c1 1 and TQy = c3 3 . The equilibrium condition results in (24)

TPy = 2 a

F 2

and TQy = a

F :. 2

(25)

The leaf spring bending mode due to a single force can be approximated very well by a circular arc. Hence, the relative angle between connected links is equal, 1=3= and Eq. 23 can be w simplified to w=3a or or = . From Eqs. 24 and 25 follows 3a
Figure 6. Pretension forces and torques.

c1

w F = 2a 3a 2

and c3

w F =a . 3a 2

(26)

where uYZ refers to the unit vector in the direction of the shackle,
x z and rXY , rXY are the x and z components of the vector from

Using Eq. 22, one finally obtains


c1 = 3 a 2 cV 3 and c3 = a 2 cV , 2

pointing from X to Y . The pretension torques in the leaf spring y y joints around the yL -axis, T0yP , T0y Q , T0 R , T0 S follow from
z x T0yP + rPX F0xB rPX F0zB = 0 z x x T0y Q + rQX F0 B rQX F0 Bz = 0 z x x z rRY =0 T0yR + rRY F0 S uYZ F0 S uYZ z x x z rSY =0 T0yS + rSY F0 S uYZ F0 S uYZ

(27)

where the beam stiffness c was replaced by the vertical leaf spring stiffness cV . Assuming symmetry, the stiffnesses in the rear joints
(21)

are given by c2 = c1 and c4 = c3 . The stiffnesses around the vertical axis c1 , c 2 , c 3 and c 4 can be calculated in a similar way. The torsional stiffness of the leaf spring is neglected in this approach.
Actual Shape

where rij , i = P, Q, R, S , j = X , Y are vectors pointing from i to


j.

Compliance

The leaf spring compliance is defined in the design position by the vertical and the lateral stiffness,

The energy of a flexible system achieves a minimum value, E Min , in an equilibrium position. The energy of the five link leaf spring model is given by 1 T 1 1 1 1 wX cB wX + c1 12 + c1 12 + c3 32 + c 3 32 + 2 2 2 2 2 (28) 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 + c2 2 + c 2 2 + c4 4 + c 4 4 + cSR wSR + cSL wSL , 2 2 2 2 2 2 E= where wX is the 31 displacement vector and cB is the 33 stiffness matrix of the front eye bushing, wSR , wSL are the radial and lateral shackle displacements, and cSR , cSL corresponding stiffnesses. denote the

cV

and

cL . In Fig. 7a the leaf

spring is approximated by a beam which is supported on both ends and is loaded in the center by the force F .

Figure 7. Leaf spring stiffness.

434 / Vol. XXVIII, No. 4, October-December 2006

ABCM

Vehicle Modeling by Subsystems

According to Eqs. 18 and 19, the actual shape of the leaf spring is determined by the position vectors y1 = [ 1, 1, 3 , 3 ]
T T

and

orientation of the solid axle. Similarly to Eq. 32 the displacement velocities are given by
SR = u

y2 = [ 2 , 2 , 4 , 4 ] . If the leaf spring energy becomes a minimum, the following equations will hold

uSR u and u . y SL = SL y y A A y A A

(34)

E E E E = 0, = 0, = 0, = 0. 1 1 4 4

(29)

Finally, the shackle force reads as


FS = FSR uSR + FSL uSL .

(35)

As the shackle displacements wSR , wSL do not depend on y1 and the front bushing displacement vector wX does not depend on
y2 the conditions in Eq. 29 form two independent sets of nonlinear

Forces Applied to the Axle

equations f1 ( y1, y A ) = 0 and f 2 ( y2 , y A ) = 0 , where y A denotes the dependency of the actual position and orientation of the solid axle. These equations are solved iteratively by the Newton-Algorithm. 0 Starting with initial guesses y10 , y2 one gets an improvement by solving the linear equations

The leaf springs act like generalized force elements in this approach, Fig. 8. Guidance and suspension of the solid axle is done by the resulting force
F = FB1 + FB 2 + FS 1 + FS 2

(36)

and the resulting torque


T = rAB1FB1 + rAB 2FB 2 + rAS 1FS 1 + rAS 2FS 2 ,

f1 k +1 y1k = f1 ( y1 y A ) y1 y1 f 2 k +1 k y2 y2 = f 2 ( y2 y A ) y2 Here, the Jacobians


f1 y1 f 2 y2

(37)

k = 0,1, 2,...

(30)

where rAB1 = rAB1 ( y A ) , ... rAS 2 ( y A ) describe the momentary position of the front eye bushings and the shackles relative to the axle center.

can be calculated analytically.

Leaf Spring Reaction Forces

The actual forces in the front leaf eye bushing are given by
FB = F0 B + cB wX + d B u X ,

(31)

where F0 B denotes the pretension force and

cB ,

d B are 33

matrices, characterizing the stiffness and damping properties of the front leaf eye bushing. The displacement vector wX in the front leaf eye bushing depend on the generalized coordinates y1 and y A which describe the actual shape of the front leaf spring part and the actual position and orientation of the solid axle. By solving Eq. 30, y1 is given as a function of y A . Hence, wx only depends on y A and its derivative can be determined by w , X = X y u y A A (32)

Figure 8. Forces applied to the axle.

As the forces in the front eye bushings FB1 , FB 2 and the


A only, the shackle forces FS1 , FS 2 depend on the axle state y A , y

A describes the velocity state of the solid axle. where y The radial and lateral components of the shackle forces can be calculated from
T T FSR = uSR F0 S + cSR wSR + d SR w SR and FSL = uSL F0 S + cSL wSL + d SL w SL , (33)

resulting force F and the resulting torque T are also functions of the axle state only. Since, hereby each leaf spring acts as a generalized force element, it can easily be integrated into the vehicle framework. By suppressing high frequent leaf spring eigenmodes, it is perfectly adopted to real-time application.
Bending Modes

where F0 S represents the pretension force, uSR , uSL are unit vectors in the radial and lateral shackle direction, and cSR , cSL , d SR , d SL are constants characterizing the stiffness and damping properties of the shackle. The shackle displacements wSR and wSL depend on the generalized coordinates y2 R and y A which describe the actual shape of the rear leaf spring part and the actual position and

The quasi-static approach reproduces all significant bending modes of the leaf spring, Fig.9. A leaf spring is stiffer in the lateral direction than in the vertical direction. Hence, a displacement in the front eye bushing is noticeable only on lateral leaf spring deflections.

J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng.

Copyright 2006 by ABCM

October-December 2006, Vol. XXVIII, No. 4 / 435

Georg Rill

good conformity to measurements, Fig. 10. The nonlinearity in the spring characteristics is caused by an additional bump stop and by the change of the shackle position during jounce and rebound. Obviously, the five link model is accurate enough.

Free Body Module


Position and Orientation

To describe the momentary state of the body E the frame xE


yE , z E located in the center of gravity is used. In addition, sensor

points S monitor position, velocity, and acceleration at specific body points, Fig. 11.

Figure 9. Bending modes.

Model Performance

The five link leaf spring model was integrated into a ve-DYNA Ford Transit vehicle model.

Figure 11. Elastically suspended body.

The frame B is fixed to the vehicle. The suspension of body E on the vehicle, frame B may consist of force elements and/or rubber mounts. The road-fixed frame 0 is considered as an inertial frame. The position of frame B with respect to the road-fixed inertial frame 0 is given by the position vector x r0 B, 0 = y . z
B B B

(38)

The orientation of the frame axes is described by a rotation matrix. Three elementary rotations are put together. The sequence

A0 B

A B

A B

A B

yaw pitch roll results in


A0 B = [cos B cos B ]

(39)

A0 B
Figure 10. Comparison to measurements.

cos B cos B - cosBsin B sinB sin B sin B sin B sin sin cos cos sin cos + + B B B B B B (40) cos B cos B - sin B cos B = + cos B sin B cos B cos B cos B + sin B sin B cos B - sin sin B cos B cos B cos B B

Using this model at the rear axle instead of a poor kinematic approach means only 85% more computer run time. Hence, real time applications are still possible. The simulation results are in
436 / Vol. XXVIII, No. 4, October-December 2006 ABCM

Vehicle Modeling by Subsystems

Hence, position and orientation of the vehicle-fixed reference frame are described by 6 generalized coordinates xB , y B , z B and

B, B, B . The position and orientation of the elastically suspended body with respect to the reference frame B is defined by
x = y . z
E E E

1 0 0 cos B 0 sin B

sin B B 0 Bx sin B cos B B = 0 By , cos B cos B 0 Bz B

(48)

where the solution of Eq. 48 is given by

rBE , B

(41)

B = (0 Bz cos B + 0 By sin B ) / cos B , = 0 Bz sin B + 0 By cos B , B = 0 Bx + B cos B . B

(49)

and
1 ABE = 0 0

0 cos E sin E

0 cos E 0 sin E

0 1 0

cos E

sin E 0 cos E 0 0 . 1

The momentary state of the reference frame B is fully characterized by 6 generalized coordinates xB , y B , z B , B , B , B and 6 generalized speeds v0 Bx , v0 By , v0 Bz , 0 Bx , 0 By , 0 Bz . The velocity and the angular velocity of the elastically suspended body with respect to the inertial frame 0 is given by

sin E

cos E sin E 0

sin E cos E 0

(42)

0 E , B

v0 E , B

= v0 B, B + 0 B , B rBE , B + r BE , B , = 0 B, B + BE , B ,

(50)

Generalized Speeds

The velocity of the reference frame B with respect to the inertial frame 0 is given by
x B B v0 B, 0 = r 0 B,0 = y z B

where the derivative of the position vector and the angular velocity of the elastically suspended body follow from the Eqs. 41 and 42. They read as
x E = y BE , B E r E z

(51)

(43)
and

The velocity denoted in the inertial frame can be transformed to the reference frame
T v0 B, B = A0 0 B,0 . B r

BE , B

(44)

1 0 = 0 cos E 0 sin E

sin E E . sin E cos E E E cos E cos E

(52)

By using the components of the velocity

By this, the orthogonality of the rotation matrix


T 1 = A0 AB 0 = A0B B

(45)

v0 E , B = v0 Ex

v0 E y

v0 Ez

(53)

was already taken into consideration. The angular velocity of the reference frame B with respect to the inertial frame 0 may be expressed directly in reference frame B
1 0 = 0 cos B 0 sin B

and the angular velocity

0 E , B = 0 E

0 E

0 E

T z

(54)

0 B , B

sin B B sin B cos B B . cos B cos B B

as generalized speeds, Eq. 50 can be written as a set of kinematical differential equations

(46)

The 6 components of v0 B, B and 0 B, B will be chosen as generalized speeds now. First order kinematical differential equations connect this speeds with the derivatives of the
B x v0 Bx = A 0 B v0 By yB v B z 0 Bz

x E v0 Ex v0 Bx 0 Ex xE = v v y E y E 0 E y 0 By 0 Ey z v v zE E 0 Ez 0 Bz 0 Ez

(55)

and

(47)

1 0 0 cos E 0 sin E

sin E E 0 Ex 0 Bx sin E cos E 0 E y 0 By . E = cos E cos E E 0 E 0 B z z

(56)

and

Where as the 6 generalized coordinates xE , yE , z E , E , E , E describe the position and orientation of frame E relative to frame

J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng.

Copyright 2006 by ABCM

October-December 2006, Vol. XXVIII, No. 4 / 437

Georg Rill

B , the 6 generalized speeds v0 Ex , v0 Ey , v0 Ez , 0 Ex , 0 Ey , 0 Ez are the

T vij = eij + BE , B rej , B , ,B r BE , B

(66)

components of the absolute velocity and angular velocity of body E.


Accelerations

where r BE , B and BE , B are given by the Eqs. 51 and 52. The forces

Fij , B , F ji , B and the torques Tij , B , T ji , B applied to body and chassis


are determined by
Fij , B = f uij , vij eij , B ,

The accelerations of body E with respect to the inertia frame 0 can be expressed in reference frame B . They read as
a0 E , B 0E,B = v 0 E , B + 0 B, B v0 E , B , = 0 E , B + 0 B , B 0 E , B ,

F ji , B = Fij , B ,

(67)

(57)

and

Tij , B = rEj , B Fij , B ,

T ji , B = rBi , K F ji , B ,

(68)

where

0 E , B = 0 Ex v v
and
0E,B = 0E

0 Ey v

0 Ez v

where f describes an arbitrary spring/damper characteristic. (58)


Equations of Motion
T

0E

0E
z

(59)

Applying liner and angular momentum to the elastically suspended body, one obtains
mE v + 0 B, B v0 E , B g 0 E , B = FE , B mE ,B

(69)

follow from the Eqs. 53 and 54. and


Force Elements

If a force element is attached to the chassis at point i and to the body at point j , the momentary position of force element ij will be defined by
rij , B = rBE , B + rEj , B rBi , K , rBj , B

E , B 0 B , B 0 E , B , (70) 0 E , B = TE , B 0 E , B E , B0 E , B E , B

where mE , E , B denote mass and inertia tensor of the free body,

(60)

FE , B , TE , B are the resulting forces and torques applied to the free


body, and g, B is the vector of gravity expressed in the body fixed reference frame. These equations are coupled with the chassis equations of motion only by the applied forces and torques. Due to the particular choice of generalized speeds, no mass or inertia coupling terms appear. By using this modeling technique, Seibert and Rill (1998) showed that the comfort of a passenger car is significantly influenced by the engine suspension system. The free body model can also be used to model an elastically suspended drivers cab, Rill (1993).

where
rEj , B = ABE rEj , K ,

(61)

rBi , K , rEj , K are given by data, and rBE , B follows from Eq. 41. The
actual length can be calculated from
a = rijT uij , B rij , B ,

(62)

Subsystem Drive Train


Generic Model Structure

and the unit vector

eij , B =

rij , B
a uij

(63)

0 describes the momentary direction of the force element. If uij

The subsystem drive train, Fig. 12, interacts on one hand with the engine and on the other hand with the wheels. Hence, the angular velocities of the wheels 1 , , 4 and the engine or the gear output angular velocity 0 respectively are input quantities. For this reason, the calculation of the engine torque and the dynamics of the wheel rotation are performed in other subsystems. Via the tire forces and torques, the drive train is coupled with the steering system and the vehicle frame work.

denotes the initial length of the force element, the displacement of the force element will be formed by
0 a uij = uij uij .

(64)

The displacement velocity follows from


T vij = eij ,B

d rij , B . dt

(65)

Using Eq. 60, Eq. 61, and r Bi , K = 0 one gets

438 / Vol. XXVIII, No. 4, October-December 2006

ABCM

Vehicle Modeling by Subsystems

Equation of Motion

The equation of motion for the drive train is derived from Jordains Principle, which reads as

(
i

ti ) i = 0 ,

(75)

where i is the inertia of body i , i denotes the time derivative of the angular velocity, ti is the torque applied to each body, and i describe the variation of the angular velocity. Applying Eq. 75 for the different parts of the drive train model results in front drive shaft left : front drive shaft right : front differential housing : front differential input shaft :

S 1 tS 1 tLF ) S1 = 0 , ( S1 ( S 2 S 2 t S 2 + t LF ) S 2 = 0 , HF ) HF = 0 , ( HF ( IF IF + t SF ) IF = 0 ,
SF tSF t LC ) SF = 0 , ( SF SR tSR + t LC ) SR = 0 , ( SR HC ) HC = 0 , ( HC ( IC IC + tS 0 ) IC = 0 , IR + tSR ) IR = 0 , ( IR HR ) HR = 0 , ( HR S 3 tS 3 tLR ) S 3 = 0 , ( S 3 S 4 tS 4 + t LR ) S 4 = 0 . ( S 4

(76)

front drive shaft : rear drive shaft : center differential housing : center differential input shaft : rear differential input shaft : rear differential housing : rear drive shaft left : rear drive shaft right :

(77)

Figure 12. Drive train model.

(78)

The drive train model includes three lockable differentials. The angular velocities of the drive shafts S1 : front left, S 2 : front right, SF : front, SR : rear, S 3 : rear left, S 4 : rear right are used as generalized coordinates. The torque distribution of the front and rear differential is 1:1. If rF and rR are the ratios of the front and rear differential, one will get

Using the Eqs. 71, 74, and 72 one gets:

( S1 S 1 t S1 t LF ) S1 = 0 , S 2 t S 2 + t LF ) S 2 = 0 , ( S 2
1 1 1 1 S 1 + S 2 = 0, S1 + S2 HF 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 IF rF rF S 1 + rF S 2 = 0 , S 1 + rF S 2 + t SF 2 2 2 2 SF tSF t LC ) SF = 0 , ( SF

HF IF

= =

1 1 S 1 + S 2 , 2 2 rF HF ;
1 1 S 3 + S 4 , 2 2 rR HR .

(71)

HR = IR
=

(72)

SR t SR + t LC ) SR = 0 , ( SR SF + (1 ) SR ) ) ( SF + (1 ) SR ) = 0 , ( HC ( + + tS 0 (1 ) r IC ( rC ) ( rC SF + (1 ) rC SR ) = 0 , SF SR C
1 1 1 1 IR rR rR S 3 + rR S 4 = 0 , S 3 + rR S 4 + t SR 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 S 3 + S 4 = 0, S3 + S4 HR 2 2 2 2 S 3 t S 3 t LR ) S 3 = 0 , ( S 3

(79)

The torque distribution of the center differential is formed by tF = , tR 1 (73)

S 4 tS 4 + t LR ) S 4 = 0 . ( S 4

where t F , t R denote the torques transmitted to the front and rear drive shaft, and is a dimensionless drive train parameter. A value of = 1 means front wheel drive, 0 < < 1 stands for all wheel drive, and = 0 is rear wheel drive. If the ratio of the center differential is given by rC then

Collecting all terms with S 1 , S 2 , SF , SR , S 3 ,


2 S 4 and using the abbreviations = 1 , HF = HF +rF IF ,

2 2 HC = HC +rC IC , and HR = HR +rR IR finally leads to three blocks of differential equations


1 1 S 1+ S 1 + HF S2 HF 4 4

HC IC
holds.

= SF + (1 ) SR rC HC =

(74)

1 = t S1 + t LF rF tSF , 2

1 1 1 HF S 2 + S1 + S 2 = tS 2 t LF rF tSF , HF 4 4 2

(80)

J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng.

Copyright 2006 by ABCM

October-December 2006, Vol. XXVIII, No. 4 / 439

Georg Rill
SF + 2 + HC SR = tSF + t LC rC tS 0 , HC SF HC 2 HC

Locking Torques

SF + SR +

SR

tSR t LC rC t S 0 ,

(81)

The differential locking torques are created by an enhanced dry friction model consisting of a static and a dynamic part t LF t LC t LR
S D = t LF + t LF , S D = t LC + t LC , S D = t LR + t LR .

1 1 1 S 3 + S 3 + HR S 4 = t S 3 + tLR rR tSR , HR 4 4 2

1 1 1 HR S 4 + S3 + S 4 = tS 4 t LR rR t SR , HR 4 4 2

(82)

(89)

which describe the dynamics of the drive train. Due to its simple structure, an extension to a 6x6 or 8x8 drive train will be straight forward.
Drive Shaft Torques

The dynamic parts are modeled by a torque proportional to the differential output angular velocities
D t LF D t LC D t LR

The torques in the drive shafts are given by


tS 1 tS 2 tSF tS 0 tSR tS 3 tS 4 = cS 1 S 1 , = cS 2 S 2 , = = = = cSF SF , cS 0 S 0 , cSR SR , cS 3 S 3 , where : where : where : where : where : where : where : S 1 S 2 SF S 0 SR S 3 S 4 = = = = = = =

= d LF ( S 2 S 1 ) , = d LC (SR SF ) , , = d LR (S 4 S 3 )

(90)

= cS 4 S 4 ,

1 S1 ; 2 S 2 ; IF SF ; IC 0 ; IR SR ; 3 S 3 ; 4 S 4 ;

(83)

where d LF , d LC , d LR are damping parameters which have to be chosen appropriately. In steady state operating conditions, the static S S S parts t LF , t LC , t LR will provide torques, even if the differential output angular velocities are equal. From the Eqs. 80, 81, and 82, one gets
D t LF

= = =

1 ( t S 2 tS 1 ) , 2 1 ( tSR tSF + (2 1) rC tS 0 ) , 2 1 ( tS 4 t S 3 ) . 2

D t LF

(91)

and cS 0 , cS 1 , cS 2 , cS 3 , cS 4 , cSF , cSR denote the stiffnesses of the drive shafts. The first order differential equations can be arranged in matrix form
= K + 0 ,

D t LR

(84)

By this locking torque model, the effect of dry friction inside the differentials can also be taken into account.
Numerical Solution

where

= S 2 , SF , SR , S 3 , S 4 S 1 ,
represents the vector of the angular velocities,

(85)

The equations of motion 80, 81, and 82 can be combined in a matrix differential equation
= q( , ) , M

(92)

= S 1, S 2 , SF , S 0 , SR , S 3 ,

S4

(86)

contains the torsional angles in the drive shafts, 0 = 2 , 0, 0 , 0, 3 , 4 1 , is the excitation vector, and
1 0 1 rF 2 K = 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 rF 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 rR 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 rR 2 0 1
T

where , are given by the Eqs. 85, 86, and the mass matrix M is built by three 2x2 submatrices MF M= 0 0

(87)

0 MC 0

0 0 , MR

(93)

where the elements of M F , M C , and M R follow from the Eqs. 80, 81, and 82. The vector of the generalized torques is written as
1 rF t SF 2 1 t t rF tSF 2 t +t rC tS 0 . q= t t (1 ) rC tS 0 S1 LF S2 LF SF LC SR LC S3 LR S4 LR

rC rC
0 0 0 1 0 0

t +t

(88)

(94)

forms a 7x6 distribution matrix.

1 t +t rR tSR 2 1 t t rR tSR 2

440 / Vol. XXVIII, No. 4, October-December 2006

ABCM

Vehicle Modeling by Subsystems

Because the model also includes the high frequent drive shaft vibrations the differential equations for the drive train are stiff. Hence, implicit integration algorithm should be used for the numerical solution. Vehicle dynamic equations can be solved very effectively by a modified implicit Euler algorithm, Rill (2004). The implicit Euler-formalism for Eq. 92 and Eq. 84 results in
k +1 M k +1 = M k + h q , k +1 ,

The change of q with respect to leads to a 6x7 matrix


S1

0 cS 2 0 0 0 0

(95) (96)

0 q = 0 0

1 rF cSF 2 1 rF cSF 2 cSF 0 0 0

0 0 rC cS 0 rC cS 0 0 0

0 0 0 cSR 1 rR cSR 2 1 rR cSR 2

0 0 0 0 cS 3 0

0 0 0

0 0 c

k +1 k +1 = k + h + 0 , K

where h is the integration step size, and the superscripts k and k + 1 indicate the states at t and t + h . Applying the Taylor k and k , one gets expansion to q at k +h
k +1 q , k +1

S3

. (102)

The term which is finally needed in Eq. 100 is symmetric and reads as

k k, k +h q

+ +

q k) k +1 ( k + h q k +1 k .

(97)

By using the Eqs. 84 and 96 the second term on the right side can be written as
q k) k +1( k +h

q K=

= = =

q k) ( k +1 k h q k +1 k + 0 h (h K K + 0 ) (98) q h K ( k +1 k ) .

cS 1

1 2 cSF rF 4
cS 2

1 rF2 cSF 4 1 rF cSF 2 0 0 0

1 rF cSF 2 1 rF cSF 2
cSF

0 0
2c rC S0 cSR

0 0 0 1 rF cSF 2 cS 3 1 2 cSR rR 4

1 rF cSF 2 0 0 0

rC2 cS 0 0 0

1 rR cSR 2 1 rR cSR 2

1 rc 2 1 rc 4 c

F SF 2 R SR S4

0 0

, (103)

where the abbreviations


cS 1 cSF

Now, the implicit algorithm in Eq. 95 can be approximated by


k k, k +h M k +1 = M k + h q +

S3

1 cS 1 + rF2 cSF , 4 = cSF + 2 rC2 cS 0 , 1 = cS 3 + rr2 cSR , 4 =

cS 2 cSR

S4

1 cS 2 + rF2 cSF , 4 = cSR + 2 rC2 cS 0 , 1 = cS 4 + rr2 cSR 4 =

(104)

q q k +1 k +h K+ ( ) , which finally results in

(99)

were used.
System Performance

k +1 = k + h M

q q k k, k , K q +h

(100)

Locking the differential improves the traction of a vehicle. In Fig. 13 the simulation results of a vehicle with rear wheel drive starting on a -split surface are shown.

where the partial derivatives q / and q / can be calculated quite easily.


Partial Derivatives
D D D , t LC and t LR depend on Only the dynamic locking torques t LF the angular velocities. Hence, one obtains

d LF d LF q 0 = 0 0 0

d LF dLF 0 0 0 0

0 0 d LC d LC 0 0

0 0 d LC d LC 0 0

0 0 0 0 d LR d LR

0 0 0 . 0 d LR d LR

(101)

Figure 13. Vehicle starting on - split.

J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng.

Copyright 2006 by ABCM

October-December 2006, Vol. XXVIII, No. 4 / 441

Georg Rill

At first all differentials are unlocked. The left rear wheel which is running on a low -plate immediately starts spinning. At t = 2.5 s the rear differential is locked. Now, the locking torque, which is generated by the drive train model forces both wheels to run with the same angular velocity.

Conclusion
Vehicle modeling by subsystems make a large variety of applications possible. The combination of simple subsystems and modules results in a vehicle model with a minimum number of data and a very good run time performance. Such light models can be used to develop enhanced control strategies for electronic safety devices. Depending on the focus of interest, more and more subsystems and modules may be replaced by enhanced ones. Then, sophisticated design studies or a comfort analysis are possible. If the modified implicit Euler algorithm is also applied to the critical subsystems drive train and steering system the numerical solution of the overall vehicle model still will not be time consuming.

References
[1] ADAMS/Chassis 12.0 Reference Guide. [2] Fickers, P.; Richter, B.: Incorporating FEA-Techniques into MSA illustrated by several Rear Suspension Concepts. In: 9th European ADAMS User Conference, Frankfurt, November 21st/22nd, 1994. [3] Gipser, M.: Reifenmodelle fr Komfortund Schlechtwegsimulationen. In: Tagungsband zum 7. Aachener Kolloquium Fahrzeug- und Motorentechnik. IKA, RWTH Aachen und VDI 1998.

[4] Hirschberg, W.; Rill, G.; Weinfurter, H.: User-Appropriate TyreModeling for Vehicle Dynamics in Standard and Limit Situations. Vehicle System Dynamics 2002, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 103-125. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. [5] van der Jagt, P.: The Road to Virtual Vehicle Prototyping; new CAE-models for accelerated vehicle dynamics development. PhD-Thesis, Tech. Univ. Eindhofen, Eindhofen 2000, ISBN 90-386-2552-9 NUGI 834. [6] Matschinsky, W.: Radfhrungen der Straenfahrzeuge. Springer, Berlin 1998. [7] Neureder, U.: Untersuchungen zur bertragung von Radlastschwankungen auf die Lenkung von Pkw mit Federbeinvorderachse und Zahnstangenlenkung. Fortschritt-Berichte VDI, Reihe 12, Nr. 518. Dsseldorf: VDI Verlag 2002. [8] Rauh, J.: Virtual Development of Ride and Handling Characteristics for Advanced Passenger Cars. Vehicle System Dynamics, 2003, Vol. 40, Nos. 1-3, pp. 135-155. [9] Rill, G.: Demands on Vehicle Modeling. In: The Dynamics of Vehicles on Road and on Tracks. Ed.: Anderson, R.J., Lisse: SwetsZeitlinger 1990. [10] Rill, G.; Rauh, J.: Simulation von Tankfahrzeugen. In: Berechnung im Automobilbau, VDI-Bericht 1007. Dsseldorf: VDI-Verlag 1992. [11] Rill, G.: Modeling and Dynamic Optimization of Heavy Agricultural Tractors. In: 26th International Symposium on Automotive Technology and Automation (ISATA). Croydon: Automotive Automation Limited 1993. [12] Rill, G.: Simulation von Kraftfahrzeugen. Vieweg, Braunschweig 1994. [13] Rill, G.: A Modified Implicit Euler Algorithm for Solving Vehicle Dynamics Equation. To Appear In: Multibody System Dynamics, 2004. [14] Seibert, Th.; Rill, G.: Fahrkomfortberechnungen unter Einbeziehung der Motorschwingungen. In: Berechnung und Simulation im Fahrzeugbau, VDI-Bericht 1411. Dsseldorf: VDI-Verlag 1998. [15] tesis: www.tesis.de.

442 / Vol. XXVIII, No. 4, October-December 2006

ABCM