You are on page 1of 9


Virtual Motorsports as a Vehicle Dynamics Teaching Tool

R. Rieveley, B. Minaker
University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada

c 2008 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.


The paper describes a virtual motorsports event developed by the University of Windsor Vehicle Dynamics and
Control Research Group. The event was a competitive
project-based component of a Vehicle Dynamics course
offered by the Universitys Department of Mechanical, Automotive, & Materials Engineering. The simulated race
was developed to provide fourth year automotive engineering students with design and race experience, similar
R but within
to that found in Formula SAE or
SAE Baja ,
the confines of a single academic semester. The project,
named Formula463, was conducted entirely within a virtual environment, and encompassed design, testing, and
racing of hi-fidelity virtual vehicle models. The efficacy of
the Formula463 program to provide students with a design experience using model based simulation tools and
methods has been shown over the past two years. All
of the software has been released under a General Public License and is freely available on the authors website. While the software has been developed primarily as
a teaching tool, it is expected that future applications include general motor vehicle design, analysis, and performance evaluation.
Studies have shown that many typical undergraduate
engineering curricula emphasize mathematics and engineering science, while the underlying need to acquaint
mechanical or automotive engineering students with design experience is in many cases being ignored [1]. In
an effort to combat this trend, the Mechanical, Automotive & Materials Engineering program at the University of
Windsor offers several courses that emphasize the design
aspect of engineering through project-based learning.

At the outset of this project, there were already existing

examples of project-based course elements in the undergraduate curriculum. For the past several years, the second year dynamics class has challenged students with
a group project requiring the design, analysis, construction, testing, and demonstration of a small scale Popsicle Stick Trebuchet. Construction materials have typically
been very limited, and various design constraints are enforced to challenge the student design teams and inspire
innovation. One important feature of the project is that the
scoring is based on objective, measurable results, using
a relative scale based on demonstration performance [2].
With the success of this project, the project-based format
has recently been incorporated into the senior level Deformation and Fracture class within the Engineering Materials curriculum.
At a higher level of complexity, the Society of Engineers
offers an excellent series of annual competitive collegiate
R SAE Baja ,
events, namely the Formula SAE ,
Supermileage , and others. In the current curriculum
these projects typically form a part of a two semester final year Capstone Design course, where the objective
is to provide students with a real-world engineering design experience. The Capstone course completes the
undergraduate curriculum, where students should use all
their previous experience to develop a solution to a design problem within a team environment. Project-based
courses have been shown to reinforce the direct link between course knowledge and application, while providing
an opportunity for immediate response and objective evaluation, and relative comparisons to the results of peers.
The project described in this paper is associated with a
required senior level Vehicle Dynamics course within the
Automotive Option in Mechanical Engineering at the university. Topics covered in the course include tire behaviour
and modeling, longitudinal dynamics, lateral dynamics,

effects of trailers, suspension analysis and ride dynamics, with an emphasis on vehicle modeling and analysis
using numerical techniques. Various required and suggested texts have been utilized for this course including
the works of Dixon [4], Gillespie [5], and Reimpell and
Stoll [6], Genta [7] and Milliken [8]. The project, termed
Formula463, has been developed to provide students in
this course with a semester-long virtual design experience
using model based simulation tools and methods, to reinforce the topics discussed within the course syllabus. This
project has also afforded graduate level students with an
opportunity to research and develop advanced simulation
techniques and analysis tools. This paper details the development of the necessary computer based tools, and
evaluates the efficacy of the Formula463 virtual grand prix
project to aid in student learning within an undergraduate
course environment.
The initial goal of the Formula463 project was to economically provide the students with a competitive and iterative design project, allowing senior students to apply theoretical knowledge. Within this project, race teams of two
students were to design, evaluate and race virtual vehicles against their peers. The students were provided with
some advanced analysis tools developed by the Vehicle
Dynamics and Control Research Group (VDCRG), and
were expected to develop additional model based simulation and evaluation tools throughout the term using Matlab, Simulink, MathCAD or similar software. The races
were to be conducted within a high-fidelity simulation environment and provide students with opportunities for practice and testing. After each event, students were given
performance data as feedback to allow design improvements over the duration of the project.
To ensure that all student teams were competing on an
equal level, a number of the basic vehicle dimensions
were pre-determined and not allowed to be modified by
the design team. These included mass, center of mass
height, choice of drive axle, tire choice, wheelbase, and
track width. The fixed specifications from the 2008 calendar year are shown in Table 2. However, a number
of the vehicle parameters were adjustable, including the
front/rear weight distribution, choice of engine, transmission and final drive ratios, suspension kinematics, spring
rates, roll stiffness, and damping rates.
The teams were required to choose between two engines
with approximately equivalent performance, but slightly
different characteristics as shown in Figure 11. The teams
were restricted to a five speed transmission, but with an
unlimited choice of drive ratios in all five ranges, and a
choice of three final ratios. The teams were free to define
spring rates, but were limited in the selection of damping
rates. The corner weight of the vehicle was determined
by the location of the center of mass and the static compression of the spring was determined by the spring rate
as the ride height was fixed. It was the responsibility of

the design teams to ensure the the available travel of the

spring was appropriate to accommodate the static spring
compression, while leaving sufficient allowance for suspension compression and rebound. All teams were also
required to design a double A-arm type suspension for the
front and rear of the vehicle by defining the locations of
the upper and lower ball joints, the inner and outer tie rod
ends, and two points defining the chassis mounting points
of each of the upper and lower A-arms. As a design constraint the suspension was to accommodate a minimum
suspension travel of ten centimeters in each of compression and rebound, measured at the tire.
In the past offerings of the course, the students were required to submit four reports, based on the material covered in class. Each report entailed preparing a numerical
simulation using Matlab or some similar software, detailing the findings of the simulation, and answering a set of
posted questions regarding the model. The Formula463
project was designed to encompass these reports, while
providing a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness of vehicle system design. However, the subject matter for the final report was expanded to include the design
process conducted over the entire semester. Additional
preliminary data sets associated with elements of each
of the first three reports were assigned to allow evaluation of individual sub-systems. The following is the list of
deliverables, with some description of each item.
Report #1: Drag Strip Simulation: Model based simulation
and analysis using a one degree of freedom longitudinal
dynamics model in the time domain, as given in Equation 1 [7]. The powertrain model included a no slip clutch,
wide open throttle, and simple stick-slip tire model. Students are free to choose parameters to model a vehicle
of their choice, as well as increase the complexity of the
simulation if they desired.
Data set #1: Students were required to provide an engine
choice from a predefined list, and transmission ratios for
evaluation in a simulated drag strip test run of the benchmark race vehicle.

Fd +

Fr = max


Report #2: Handling Dynamics Simulation: Model based

simulation and analysis using a yaw-plane bicycle model
with two degrees of freedom as shown in Equation 2 and
3 [7, 9]. This model incorporated a linear tire model and
was to be utilized for analysis in both the frequency and
time domains. Students were free to choose parameters
to model a vehicle of their choice, as well as increase
the complexity of the simulation if they desired. This report explored understeer/oversteer characteristics, as well
as, steady-state and transient vehicle response including
eigen analysis to determine characteristic speeds.
Data set #2: Students were required to provide refined engine and transmission data, as well as a center of gravity
location and roll-stiffnesses for a simulated skid-pad type

test run of the prototype race vehicle, with both longitudinal and lateral acceleration tested.



a11 =
a21 =


(Cf +Cr )


a12 =

(lf Cf lr Cr)
Iz U

b1 =





(lf2 Cf +lr2 Cr)

Iz U

b2 =

g1 = 0


(lf Cf lr Cr)

a22 =



lf Cf

g2 =


Figure 1: KINS Suspension Diagram

Report #3: Ride Dynamics Analysis: Model based analysis of vehicle ride behaviour using a four degree of freedom bounce-pitch model described using Equations 4
and 5, in the frequency domain [7]. Students were free
to choose parameters to model a vehicle of their choice,
as well as increase the complexity of the simulation if they
Data Set #3: Expanded the previous requirements to include engine and driveline data, center of mass data, and
full suspension spring and damping data. This was used
in a simulation of the prototype race vehicle with fixed
suspension kinematics where the ride performance was
stressed, combining lateral and longitudinal acceleration
on a track with a sinusoidal elevation profile.

lab. The final report involved selection of suspension geometry, and required simulations that have been shown
to generally be outside the capability of undergraduate
students to reliably prepare on their own. In order to accommodate this, a suspension analysis package (KINS),
has been developed and made available to the students.
Within this code, the suspension kinematics problem was
defined using a series of points and parameter values as
shown in Figure 1 and solved by casting the problem as a
set of differential equations as in Equation 6.
~q = [A(~q)]~g (w, p)


~q = [xG , yG , zG , , , ]
~q =

~q =

M 1 K



M 1 C



~q +






Report #4: Suspension Kinematics and Formula463

Event: Primarily focused on the design and analysis of
suspension kinematics, and selection of spring and damping rates for a double A-arm suspension configuration
(i.e., the Cartesian coordinates of the ball joints, tie rods,
spring endpoints, etc.). Students were free to model suspension designs on their own or use a provided suspension kinematics solver. The defined race vehicle was
tested in this configuration over a single time-trial lap of
a full racecourse. The report emphasized the design
choices made in the suspension, but included the overall design of the vehicle. It was submitted after the final
series of simulations, in order to allow the students to discuss the feedback from the race event.
Data Set #4: Submitted on two separate occasions, once
for an optional practice event, and again for the race
event. Only the race results were graded, but results data
was made available after the practice event for evaluation
and design changes prior to the race event.
In the first three reports, the students were expected to
generate their own simulation code, typically using Mat-

In this form, the linear and angular speed of the suspension components (~q)
depends on their location and orientation (~q), given a fixed vehicle bounce or roll speed (w, p).
The advantage of using this rate based approach was that
the equations were linear when expressed in this form, as
opposed to the nonlinear algebraic equations that result
when forming the equations in terms of positions. The
differential equations were then solved to an acceptable
level of accuracy in a very short time using the 4th /5th order ode45 integrator in Matlab. The output from the simulation includes not only the typical suspension curves,
e.g., camber vs. jounce, toe change vs. roll, etc., but also
includes data regarding the suspension loads. The tire
normal force, spring force, and motion ratio are found as
part of the simulation. Animation of the motions are produced using the ISO standard graphics format X3D [10].
Because the code was entirely open source, the students
were encouraged to investigate the numerical methods
used, and experiment with the solver as they wished.
Both the provided and student developed analysis software was complimented with a user interface (F463pre),
which is a plug-in based simulation and evaluation package. The students were encouraged to convert their simulation code into the defined plug-in format, allowing for the
quick modification of vehicle parameters over several design iterations. This package also checked for errors and
prepared the data sets for submission, to minimize the

Student Level

Design Software

Student Simulators

Post Processors

Administrator Level


Race Utility

Vehicle Simulator

Post Processor

External Models
Driver Controls

Figure 2: Formula463 Software Flow Chart

possibility of simulation errors during batch operations. In

addition, a number of online simulators were made available to the students on the course website for evaluation
and correlation purposes [12]. Upon deadlines, students
were required to upload their data sets via File Transfer
Protocol (FTP) to the course web server.
The complexity of a vehicle model used within a simulation must be determined based on the projected use of
the model. To provide a realistic simulation experience,
a multi-degree of freedom non-linear vehicle model from
Carsim was used to simulate the dynamics of the race vehicles. This model included provisions for all of the parameters that were defined individually by the student teams,
plus some that were common for all teams. The vehicle model utilized was composed of 21 bodies and has
14 degrees of freedom, and a non-linear tire model [14].
The Carsim code allows for batch operations and cosimulation and model expansion with external packages
such as Altair Hyperworks and Matlab/Simulink, as shown
in Figure 2. The parametrized Carsim model used for the
Formula463 project was developed using a method similar to those outlined and validated in [16] and [17].

The track model was considered an essential component

of the simulations as it was to challenge the students design and analysis skills, as well as provide all relevant information to the driver model. As outlined by Kiencke [18],
the road and path model must provide a detailed reproduction of the road surface and environmental influences,
and be connected to the driver model in a meaningful
manner. The desired path to navigate a given road profile was defined as a set of straight lines and circular arcs
defining the location and orientation of the vehicle over the
length of the course. The desired path of the road vehicle
was also set to exhibit continuity of path and curvature and
was differentiable as outlined in [19]. The latter condition
indicating that the path should not have any sharp corners
with infinitely large curvature that would be unachievable
by the given vehicle plant, as this could cause problems
with the development a robust path following driver model.
A quickly reconfigurable method of road and path definition was desired during development. A number of road
profiles were previously defined within the Carsim environment; however, these profiles were found to be difficult to alter and were available to a select number of students associated with the SAE project groups. To limit any
unfair advantage these students had, a completely new
model was desired. To achieve these design goals and
required path characteristics, a simplistic approach using
scalar vector graphics (SVG) [20] and a purpose developed SVG to Carsim translator were utilized to model both
the road surface and desired path. Scalar Vector Graphics is a language for describing two-dimensional graphics
and graphical applications using extensible markup language (XML) [21]. This standard allowed for the desired
path and planar and elevation road profiles to be defined
by a set of bezier curves that can be quickly modified visually with a SVG editor such as Inkscape [11]. The course
utilized for the 2008 event can be seen in Figure 3.

Numerical integration was performed using the embedded

second order Runge-Kutta (RK2) algorithm, where the future value of a state is calculated using Equations 7 and
8. The RK2 method has been shown to work efficiently
with tabular models that may not be continuously differentiable, stiff systems, and where real-time output data is
necessary. The embedded Carsim tire model was used
to model tire behaviour accounting for longitudinal, lateral
and vertical force, as well as, aligning, overturning and
rolling resistance moments as detailed in [14].

q(t + t) = q(t) + t qm

Figure 3: 2008 Track Geometry


= q(t) + f (q, t)


Within the simulation environment the driver model was
critical to obtaining robust closed-loop and realistic responses of the various vehicle configurations defined
by the student teams. The definition of these models
has depended largely on descriptions of driver behaviour
within longitudinal, lateral and combined control situations. A number of approaches can be found in literature, and are generally characterized as classical linear,
non-linear, fuzzy, neuro-network and hybrid control methods [18, 22, 23]. Each of these approaches has inherent
benefits and limitations when attempting to emulate human response, as outlined in detail by Plochil [24]. As
indicated by MacAdam [22], human drivers have physical limitations leading to non-linear response to visual,
vestibular and auditory input. These limitations include
sensing limits, processing times, transmission times, cognitive requirements, and perceptions due to experience
and learning. Within the study, a ranking of sensory inputs indicated that humans control vehicles using mainly
visual cues that account for 90% of human response, and
this number is reduced with higher vestibular inputs.
It has been believed that the human driver has the ability
to predict the future behaviour of the vehicle with an internalized vehicle model, thus leading to the development
of driver models to account for these predictive elements.
To eliminate this difficulty, model identification techniques
such as regression or neural networks have been shown
to be reasonably successful in approximating driver behaviour from sample data. Bengtsson showed that the dynamic longitudinal brake and throttle behaviour of a driver
during highway travel can be effectively estimated by using linear regression, subspace-based and GARCH methods [23]. Neural network techniques have been successfully applied to a wide variety of problems and have been
shown to predict driver control behaviour with great accuracy [25, 26, 27]. In particular, Lin inferred the abilities
of radial basis function networks to model human driver
control, with the added benefits of low training time, high
accuracy and relative error tolerance [26]. However, the
lack of realistic training data present for the development
of this project limited the use of fuzzy and neural techniques.
The use of optimal preview control methods for lateral
control developed by MacAdam and later by Ungoren attempted to emulate the driver by including a predictive
vehicle model element in the determination of the control law [22, 28]. The control is found by minimizing a
cost function over a given preview period using the predictive vehicle model. These models have shown to be
very effective in producing realistic and robust steering
controls. Kiencke developed a significantly more suitable
hybrid driver model for both lateral and longitudinal control
based on a cognitive queuing system, finite state machine
and separate General Predictive Controls (GPC) for the
lateral and longitudinal dynamics that can be modulated
based on the driver skill parameter [18]. Within the GPC,

Figure 4: Finite State Machine

the vehicle powertrain and planar dynamics plants were

approximated as linear second order Autoregressive Moving Average (ARMA) transfer functions that were validated
with experimental data. This plant and test data was not
available during development as the vehicle plants were
allowed to vary widely with student designs.
Due to the expected variance in both the vehicles to be
simulated and track conditions, a robust control structure
was desired. To achieve this robustness a tunable hybrid
structure with cognitive, reference calculation and separate Proportional-Integral longitudinal and optimal preview lateral controls was chosen and developed within
Simulink. The cognitive block was developed to interpret
the road profile data using the current vehicle speed and
location data, determining the current and predict the future road curvature and elevation change based on the
current vehicle forward speed and preview time. This
data was then passed to the reference calculation block
that was based on a discrete event Finite State Machine
(FSM) that scheduled the desired speed and acceleration
states [18, 29]. The output of the FSM changes as the desired vehicle states to the given road curvatures, and can
be in one of five regimes including straight line, approaching a curve, braking, coasting, and in curve, as shown
in Figure 4. The FSM included curvature and speed
limit variables that were determined from a given driver
skill level allowing for simple variation in driver behaviour.
The reference speed and acceleration values were then
passed to the lateral and longitudinal controls to determine the throttle, brake and steering control values. The
longitudinal control was broken into separate throttle and
brake controls, with switching terms assuring that only one
control is active at a given time. Instantaneous corrections
in vehicle speed were also considered within the throttle
control, to maintain vehicle heading based on lateral acceleration and yaw rate. The lateral control was accomplished using a weighted optimal preview control, where
the future response of the vehicle to current states was
predicted by numerically integrating a two degree of free-

Camber Change vs. Heave

Camber Change [deg]




Heave [mm]



Figure 6: Camber Change Solution Comparison

Figure 5: Driver Model Preview Control

dom yaw-plane vehicle model (Equations 2 and 3) over
a preview time period with five intervals, as in Figure 9.
The cost function given in Equation 9 and the yaw-plane
model were used to develop the steering angle control law
given in Equation 10, with all weighting values set to unity.
1 T
{ytarget (t) y(t)} W (t)dt
T 0

u =

{ytargeti Ai x0 b2i u2 } b1i Wi



Figure 7: Generated 3D Suspension Model


The batch simulations were run using a purpose developed race utility (F463ru) that logged, processed and generated animations from the simulation data. This utility
generated each of the vehicle models at run time to assure that no locked vehicle data was altered by the student teams.
The developed design and analysis package has been
successfully used by 80 student teams over the past
two course offerings, with positive feedback and suggestions of possible improvements to the design software and
project structure. The student design and administrator
tools including the simulation engine have proven to be a
robust method of conducting such a competitive project
and teaching tool.
The developed suspension kinematic analysis program
was tested throughout development by comparing the
kinematic output curves for a test suspension with results obtained using Racing By the Numbers [13], an accepted algebraic solution method. The camber change
with heave comparison for the test suspension described
in Table 3 can be seen in Figure 6. The developed threedimensional model for this suspension can be seen in Figure 7, indicating the front and rear roll-centers and vertical
tire loads. This three-dimensional representation and animation has proven to be a valuable visualization tool for

the students during design and evaluation phases of the

Student design performance was provided through a set
of virtual test sessions including a drag-strip, steady-state
cornering and vehicle ride events. The drag-strip simulation was conducted over a quarter-mile, with the driver
model maintaining a straight ahead vehicle path and shifting at engine redline. Each drivetrain tested was defined
by the student race teams by a choice of engine, gear
ratios and a final drive ratio. The results of the 2008
quarter-mile drag race event are shown in Figure 8. The
the results show quater-mile times ranging from 14.774
to 17.184 seconds at 154.6 and 146.0 km/h respectively.
From these results it can be seen that a majority of the
submissions were competitive, and that some information
sharing may have been conducted by the teams.
The performance of the developed driver model has been
tested through various situations including drag strip, skid
pad and race circuits with multiple vehicle types and configurations. These simulations indicated that the developed driver model was capable of successfully navigating the prescribed courses with little user intervention and
minimal input data. The path tracking capabilities can be
seen in Figure 9, illustrating low tracking error through
both transient and steady-state cornering when tested
on the race track shown in Figure 3. However, reduced
tracking capability can be seen at approximately 80 and
110 seconds, corresponding to the hairpin corner and the

Quarter Mile Test Session

Velocity vs. Time
Steering Wheel Angle



Angle [deg]












Speed [km/h]

Longitudinal Velocity






Time [seconds]





Figure 8: Quarter-Mile Test Session Results

Driver Model Lateral Tracking

Acceleration [gs]


Lateral Distance From Road Centreline [m]

Velocity [km/h]








Lateral Acceleration




Time [seconds]





Figure 10: Driver Model Comparison


Desired Lateral Position

Actual Lateral Position




Time [s]




Figure 9: Driver Model Lateral Tracking Performance

high-speed final straight. The poor tracking in these locations is attributable to a vehicle configuration that exhibited a distinctly understeering characteristic. Regardless
of these areas of lower path tracking capability, the driver
model successfully navigated all student designed vehicles through the course in the 2008 competition.
The proposed driver model and simulation environment
have also been tested using racing lap data acquired by
the university FSAE team. This test data was from a single average lap at the FSAE test facility and was conducted with a driver with previous karting and FSAE driving experience. A comparison between the simulated and
experimental lap data can be seen in Figure 10. It can be
seen that the experimental and simulated lap times were
30.5 seconds and 30.8 seconds respectively. However,
slight differences between the measured and simulated
steer angle were observed that may be attributed to the
small variances in the racing line and non-uniform correcting behavior of the driver. The determined velocity
profile was shown to closely resemble that of the human
driver. These results indicate that the developed driver
model can be used to accurately replicate human driver
control inputs giving realistic response and performance
data and experience to the student design teams.
While formal objective project evaluation metrics have yet
to be developed, the efficacy of the project can be judged

on a number of factors. Student participation in the optional events, such as the practice simulations, indicate a
high initial interest with 43 of 45 and as many as 20 of 35
teams participating in the 2007 qualifying and 2008 practice events respectively. Student feedback and interest
in the main race event has been overwhelmingly positive.
Statistical results for the two race events run to date can
be found in Table 1. They show that the event has been
quite competitive, with very small standard deviations in
lap times and top speeds, relative to the averages.
Table 1: Statistical Competition Results
Lap Time () [s]
Top Speed () [km/h] 142.02(4.57) 136.27(6.15)

This paper has detailed the development of the Formula463 project that has provided both the undergraduate
and graduate students at the University of Windsor with
a design experience in vehicle dynamics and simulation.
For the past two course offerings, students have been
given direct objective evaluation of their engineering abilities to meet specified design goals. The developed virtual
race platform has been shown to be robust and create a
realistic competition environment. Due to popularity with
students in the automotive option, this development of an
extra-curricular version of Formula463 has begun and will
comprise of a number of major events per year, as well as
mini-competitions, development bounties for student submitted software and program elements. This program will
be opened to engineering students at all levels within the
program at the university and external institutions in the
near future.

[1] Rohrauer,G.,Minaker,B., Frise,P., (2004) Work in Progress
- Practical Know-How in Engineering: Dissection Labs
and Capstone Design, 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 2004
[2] 13 2006 UofW Engineering...
... students hurl themselves into stu.html, print date: Nov.
13,2006, accessed May 15th, 2008
[3] Dutson A.J, Todd R.H, Magleby S.P, Sorensen C.D, (2006)
A Review of Literature on Teaching Engineering Design
Through Project-Oriented Capstone Courses, J. Engineering Education, January 1997
[4] Dixon, J., (1996) Tires, Suspension and Handling, SAE
[5] Gillespie, T.D., (1992) Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics,
SAE Publishers
[6] Reimpell, J., Stoll, H., Betzler, J.W., (2001) The Automotive
Chassis, SAE Publishers
[7] Genta, G., (1997) Motor Vehicle Dynamics Modeling and
Simulation, World Scientific, Singapore
[8] Milliken, W.F., and Milliken, D.L., (1995) Race Car Vehicle
Dynamics, SAE Publishers
[9] Ellis, J.R., (1969) Vehicle Dynamics, London business
Books, London
[10] X3D Standard,
[11] Inkscape Scalar Vector Graphics,
[12] University of Windsor Vehicle Dynamics and Control Research Group,
[13] William C. Mitchell Software,
[14] Carsim User Manual, Mechanical Simulation Corporation,
[15] The MathWorks, Inc.,
[16] Nantais,N., Using Hyperstudy with Carsim, University of
Windsor Vehicle Dynamics and Control Research Group
Technical Reference,
[17] Liburdi,A.,Rieveley,R. (2007) A Statistical Approach to Hybrid Vehicle Dynamic Characterization, 2007 CANCAM
Conference Proceedings, Toronto
[18] Kiencke, U., Nielsen, L. (2000) Automotive Control Systems For Engine, Driveline and Vehicle, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA
[19] Kanayama, Y., Kimura, Y., Miyazaki, F., Nogutchi,T., (1982)
A stable tracking control for an autonomous mobile robot,
Proc. IEEE International conference on Robotics and Automation, pp384-389
[20] Scalar
[21] Harold, E., Means, W., (2001) XML In a Nutshell, A Desk Edition, OReilly, Sebastopol, CA
top Quick Reference, 2nd
[22] MacAdam, C., (2003) Understanding and Modeling the Human Driver, Vehicle System dynamics, 40:1, 101-134
[23] Bengtsson,J., Johansson,R., Sjogren, (2003) Nonlinear
and Hybrid Systems in Automotive Control, SAE
[24] Plochl, M., Edelmann, J., (2007) Driver models in automobile dynamics application, Vehicle System Dynamics,
[25] Mirhassani, M., Chen, X., Tahmasebi, A., Ahmadi, M.,
(2006) On Control of HCCI Combustion-Neural Network
Approach, IEEE Int. Conference on Control Applications

[26] Lin, Y., tang, P., Zhang, W.J. and Yu, Q. (2005) Artifical
neural network modelling of driver handling behaviour in a
driver-vehicle environment system, Int. J. Vehicle Design,
Vol. 37, No. 1, 24-45
[27] Kuriyagawa, Y., Im, H.E., Kageyama,I. and Onishi, S.,
(2002) A Research on Analytical Method of Driver-VehicleEnvironment System for Construction of Intelligent Driver
Support System, Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 37, No.5,
[28] Ungoren, A., Peng, H., (2005) An Adaptive lateral preview
driver model, Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 43, No. 4,
[29] Holzmann, G.J., (1991) Design and Validation of Computer
Protocols, Prentice Hall,p 162-185
[30] Mechanical
.../univofwindsor.php , October 2007

The authors would like to thank the University of Windsor and the AUTO21 Network Centres of Excellence for
the funding and research opportunities that seeded this
project, as well as the technical support of the staff at Mechanical Simulations Corporation during the development
of this project.

Table 2: Fixed Vehicle Parameters

Track Width
Height of the mass centre
Roll Inertia (Ixx)
606 kg-m2
Pitch Inertia (Iyy)
1853 kg-m2
Yaw Inertia (Izz)
1853 kg-m2
Suspension type
Double A-arm
Spring mounting
Lower A-arm
Drive arrangement
Front wheel drive
Tire Size
Frontal area
Drag Coefficient

Engine A torque
Engine A power
Engine B torque
Engine B power

Torque [N-m], Power [kW]


1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

Engine Speed [rpm]

Figure 11: Available Engines


Table 3: Benchmark Suspension Geometry

Location (x,y,z) [mm]
UCA Front
UCA Rear
Upper Ball Joint
LCA Front
LCA Rear
Lower Ball Joint
Tierod Inner
Tierod Outer
Spring-Damper Inner
Spring-Damper Outer


bj i




element jk of free response matrix for interval i

free response matrix for interval i
element j of forced response matrix for interval i
forced response matrix for interval i
system damping matrix
front tire cornering stiffness [N/rad]
rear tire cornering stiffness [N/rad]
steering wheel angle [rad]
driving forces at the tire [N ]
resistance forces at the tire [N ]
interval number
identity matrix
yaw moment of inertia [kg m2 ]
quadratic performance index
system stiffness matrix
rront axle to CG length [m]
rear axle to CG length [m]
vehicle mass [kg]
mass matrix
arbitrary state variable []
arbitrary intermediate state variable []
first derivative of qm
yaw rate (local)[rad/s]
time [seconds]
control steering wheel angle [rad]
longitudinal velocity (local)[m/s]
lateral velocity (local)[m/s]
arbitrary weighting function for interval i []
longitudinal distance in local frame [m]
global position variable [m]
lateral distance in local frame [m]
global position variable [m]
target lateral distance in local frame [m]
global position variable [m]
front axle elevation [m]
rear axle elevation [m]
sprung mass elevation [m]
heading angle [rad]
pitch angle
attitude angle [rad]
bank angle [rad]
standard deviation