Study of The Effects of Caster Offset and Kingpin Offset On Kinematics and Lateral Dynamics of Long Wheelbase Solid Axle Bus

1
STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF CASTER OFFSET AND KINGPIN OFFSET ON

KINEMATICS AND LATERAL DYNAMICS OF LONG WHEELBASE SOLID AXLE BUS
Sagar Jambukara and Sujatha Cb
a
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India, jambukarsagar5@gmail.com
b
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India, sujatha@iitm.ac.in
Abstract
Wheel alignment parameters play a vital role in the handling behaviour of commercial vehicles. Thus, considering the
future possibilities of active control of wheel alignment parameters, it is necessary to understand the effective range of
use and limitations of the parameters mentioned on kinematics and dynamics of these vehicles. The objective of this
work was to understand the effects of varying caster offset and kingpin offset on a long wheelbase bus and therefore an
open loop study was conducted for the same. Handling response metrics were evaluated for three different manoeuvres,
namely straight path driving, steady state circles and double lane change. The handling response metrics analysed
include diameter of turn, tyre side-slip angles, body slip angle, yaw angle, yaw rate, chassis roll and forces at tyre road
contact. A 2-variable (caster offset and kingpin offset) and 5-level design of experiments (DOE) was carried out using
the full factorial matrix to determine the effects of the parameters on the above-mentioned handling metrics. The results
show that both caster offset and kingpin offset have noteworthy influence on the kinematics and dynamics of the bus
and hence their real-time control could be possibly considered for further improvement of handling performance.
Keywords: Wheel alignment parameters, Caster offset, Kingpin offset, Kinematics, Lateral dynamics
1. Introduction
Vehicle dynamics, which plays an important role in vehicle design, is the study of the response (ride and handling)
of the vehicle to driver’s input as well as various external factors. Different steering and suspension parameters like
suspension damping and stiffness, roll centre height, location of centre of gravity (C.G), wheel alignment parameters,
etc. determine the behaviour of the vehicle. In recent years, the focus of vehicle dynamic researchers has shifted towards
understanding wheel alignment parameters, in addition to suspension parameters, to improve kinematic and dynamic
capabilities of vehicles; it was projected that there was significant scope for improvement of dynamics of vehicles using
wheel geometry parameters which are yet to be employed to their full potential as suggested in papers by Gillespie
(1992), Jazar (2006), Rajavardhan et al. (2012) and Yoshino (2014). Presently, majority of vehicles on road have fixed
configuration of these wheel geometry parameters. Furthermore, exhaustive literature on vehicle dynamic studies of
cars is available which is not the case for buses. In comparison, the literature available for buses essentially varies from
that of car due the presence of independent and dependent suspension systems respectively. Studies on long wheelbase
vehicles, specifically buses which are meant to commute on highways as well as city roads need to be designed to adapt
to both conditions. Thus, there is a need for contribution to the literature of dynamics of buses.
The effect of kingpin inclination angle and wheel offset on ground on various performance metrics, such as steering
effort, vehicle handling and steering system vibration, on a medium-duty truck has been discussed by Ledesma and Shih
The authors are solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical presentation does not necessarily reflect
the official position of the International Society for Terrain Vehicle Systems (ISTVS), and its printing and distribution does not constitute
an endorsement of views which may be expressed. Technical presentations are not subject to the formal peer review process by ISTVS
editorial committees; therefore, they are not to be presented as refereed publications. Citation of this work should state that it is from an
ISTVS meeting paper. EXAMPLE: Author's Last Name, Initials. 2014. Title of Presentation. The 19th International and 14th European-
African Regional ISTVS Conference, Budapest, Hungary. For information about securing permission to reprint or reproduce a technical
presentation, please contact ISTVS at 603-646-4405 (72 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755-1290 USA)
Proceedings of the 19th International and 14th European-African Regional Conference of the ISTVS, Budapest, September 25–27, 2017
2
(2001) in their work. Wheel alignment parameters have a crucial role to play when it comes to directional stability. In
addition, the selection of the design values of the parameters under consideration also has effects on aligning torque,
steering effort and self-entering capabilities as discussed by Karnopp (2004). A Honda CR-V multi body model of SUV
was built in ADAMS/CAR software by Rajavardhan et al. (2009) in order to understand the effect of wheel geometry
parameters on vehicle steering. This model was utilised to study the steering wheel returnability, steering effort and
handling behaviour for Single Lane Change (SLC) manoeuvre. An electronic camber suspension mechanism with
suspension geometry control, rather than brake and driving torque control to improve cornering performance has been
proposed by Park and Sohn (2011). The effect of adding a caster steered auxiliary axle and its comparison with a
steerable axle that positively controls steer angle and thereby generates a lateral force has been evaluated by Williams
and Nhila (2013). Yoshino and Nozaki (2014) in their work focused on a method of ground negative camber angle
control that is proportional to steering angle, as a technique to improve maneuverability and stability to support the new
era of electric vehicles and the effectiveness thereof; it is an established fact that caster angle and lean angle affect
instantaneous camber values during a turn. A comparison between effects of caster angle and kingpin inclination angle
in generating variable camber has been discussed by Vo et al. (2015) in their publication. This was done to create smart
camber by variable caster or lean angle. Vo et al. (2016) in their work have proposed a novel kinematic model of a
steerable tyre for examining kingpin moment during low speed and large steering angle cornering. The authors state that
as long as a tyre steers about a tilted kingpin pivot, the point coming in contact with the road moves along its perimeter.
This movement affects the determination of kingpin moments caused by the tyre forces, especially for large steering
angles. Thus, the suspension-wheel geometry (also known as wheel alignment) parameters are critical for optimum
vehicle performance as evaluated by Ledesma and Shih (2001), Rajavardhan et al. (2009) and Yoshino and Nozaki
(2014) and Patel et al. (2016).
In this paper the authors have carried out a study to evaluate the effects of the wheel alignment parameters on the
handling characteristics of a long wheelbase bus. However, the scope of this paper is limited to the study of the effects
of caster offset and kingpin offset on kinematics and dynamics of a bus. Thus, the effects of other wheel geometry
parameters like kingpin inclination, caster angle, toe and camber angle have not been discussed. TruckSim, a widely-
used simulation tool, has been used to understand the effects of caster offset and kingpin offset. Thus, a comprehensive
study of the independent and interactive effects of caster offset and kingpin offset at wheel centre has been done.
1.1 Wheel alignment parameters
The wheel alignment parameters include kingpin inclination angle, caster angle, caster offset, camber angle and toe
angle. Figure 1 shows all parameters but toe angle which is not necessary in the present context. The study herein
focuses on understanding the effects of two parameters viz. caster offset and kingpin offset on the kinematics and lateral
dynamics of a vehicle. The angle made by this kingpin axis (made by joining kingpin pivot points), with respect to the
vertical, when viewed in the side and front planes are known as caster angle and kingpin inclination (or steering axis
inclination) angle respectively.
Fig.1: Schematic of kingpin geometry

Similarly, the horizontal distance between the kingpin axis and the vertical axis of the wheel, at wheel centre, when
measured in the side and front planes are known as caster offset and kingpin offset respectively (Refer Figure 1). When
3
the wheel is steered about the kingpin axis, the point of contact of the wheel vertical axis rotates as an arc about the
point of intersection of kingpin axis with the ground. In the case of wheel straight ahead position, the horizontal
distances between these two points on the ground when seen in the side and front planes are termed as caster offset and
kingpin offset at the ground (Refer Figure 1). Further, the inclination made by the wheel with the vertical axis on the
ground is known as camber angle (Gillespie, 1992). Camber angles are mainly distinguished in two kinds’ viz., static
camber angle and dynamic camber angle. When the wheel is in straight ahead condition or un-steered state, the
prevailing camber angle is known as static camber angle. On the contrary, the camber angle made by the wheel when it
is steered is known as dynamic camber angle. Dynamic camber angle is introduced because of the effect created by the
geometry of kingpin axis, i.e., by the virtue of caster angle and kingpin inclination angle. All the above-mentioned
parameters are together known as wheel alignment parameters or even suspension/wheel geometry parameters.
1.2 Bus Model
The template of a long wheel bus model, as shown in Figure 2, required for the study was obtained from TruckSim
which is a widely used and commercially available simulation software tool and is used to simulate the effects of wheel
geometry parameters viz. caster offset and kingpin offset on the kinematics and dynamics of the vehicle. An 8.5 tonne
and 6.45 m wheelbase school bus model has been considered for the study. The specifications of the bus model have
been mentioned in Appendix 1.
Fig. 2. Long wheelbase school bus image from Trucksim software
2. Methodology
2.1 DOE for Kinematic and Dynamic Analysis
DOE technique was considered for the analysis. The approach was considered as it was useful in carrying out
sensitivity analysis and effect of interaction of caster offset and kingpin offset on various vehicle performance metrics.
Five levels each of caster offset (at wheel centre) and kingpin offset (at wheel centre) values were considered as shown
in Table 1. The values (levels) of the parameters considered for the study were in accordance with design values of the
concerned kingpin geometry parameters. These design values of kingpin geometry parameters can be found in
Appendix 1. A full factorial matrix used for simulation purpose is as shown in Table 2. 25 iterations for each manoeuvre
were carried out to evaluate the effects of input variables on the output performance metrics which have been discussed
in detail in the following sections. In total 200 simulations were carried out considering all the manoeuvres. Kinematic
and dynamic analysis was done to understand the effect of the parameters under study on the handling performance of
long wheel base bus.
Table 1. Design of experiments parameters

Parameter levels
Levels Caster offset [mm] Kingpin offset [mm]
1 -50 50
2 -25 75
3 0 100
4 25 125
5 50 150
4
Table 2. Simulation matrix

Sr. Kingpin offset Caster offset
No. [mm] [mm]
1 50 -50
2 75 -50
3 100 -50
4 125 -50
5 150 -50
6 50 -25
7 75 -25
8 100 -25
9 125 -25
10 150 -25
11 50 0
12 75 0
13 100 0
14 125 0
15 150 0
16 50 25
17 75 25
18 100 25
19 125 25
20 150 25
21 50 50
22 75 50
23 100 50
24 125 50
25 150 50
2.2 Straight Path Driving

It is common that majority of driving happens on straight roads. Also, according to Lee (2015) about 62.2%
accidents occur on a straight road. Hence, stability of straight path driving is of great significance. Simulations were
carried out to see the effects of caster offset and kingpin offset on different performance metrics in straight line stability.
Simulations were carried out at two speeds of 30 kmph and 60 kmph for 25 different combinations of wheel geometry
parameters as shown in Table 2. The performance metrics evaluated for understanding the effects on straight path
driving include: a) Longitudinal tyre forces; b) Lateral tyre forces; c) Vertical tyre forces; d) Tyre Slip angles; e) Body
slip angle and f) Tyre camber angles with respect to road.
2.3 Steady State Circles
Steady state circle runs represent the cornering manoeuvres in real life situations. In steady state circle manoeuvres
the vehicles are made to perform constant radius turns. Simulations were carried out to evaluate the effects of caster
offset and kingpin offset on steady state circle manoeuvres. This test manoeuvre is used to determine the steady-state
directional control response of the vehicles by assessing steady state cornering behaviour. Herein the following
simulation conditions were considered for the study:
A) Steering hand wheel angle 300 degrees and speed as 30 kmph,
B) Steering hand wheel angle 300 degrees and speed as 10 kmph,
C) Steering hand wheel angle 600 degrees and speed as 30 kmph and
D) Steering hand wheel angle 600 degrees and speed as 10 kmph.
5
2.4 Double Lane Change
Due to the wide range of operational conditions to which a vehicle can be subjected, the results of steady state
testing alone do not provide a complete description of a vehicle's total dynamic behavior since the procedure does not
test the vehicle's response during transient manoeuvres. To fully assess a vehicle's total dynamic behaviour, it would be
necessary to conduct other test procedures to evaluate the vehicle's performance. Therefore, simulations were carried
out to evaluate the effects of caster offset and kingpin offset on double lane change manoeuvres. The ISO and VDA
lane-change test was used to evaluate the handling performance of the vehicle. ISO 3888-2 international standard was
considered for designing of the double lane change manoeuvre. Like straight path manoeuvre simulations, double lane
change was also conducted in TruckSim simulation tool for two speeds 50 kmph and 70 kmph. The bus was made to
follow a predetermined path according to the standard. Therefore, 25 iterations for a 5 level each combination of caster
offset and kingpin offset was considered as shown in the simulation matrix in Table 2. Double lane change study helps
in understanding the vehicle’s response during transient manoeuvres.
3. Results and Discussions:

3.1 Straight Path Driving
As mentioned earlier the straight path simulations were carried out at a constant speed to evaluate the vehicle
behaviour in steady state condition. In addition, it was conducted at two different speeds of 30 kmph and 60 kmph for
better clarity. Table 3 shows the comparative results, in terms of percentage change, of the effects of input variables
caster offset and kingpin offset at wheel centre on different output performance metrics/parameters. Results are stated
considering the steady state values of the parameters. Figure 5 shows the plots of the effects of kingpin offset and caster
offset on tyre lateral forces and tyre slip angles for front steered wheels.
Table 3. Effects of caster offset and kingpin offset variation on different parameters for straight path driving
Input Variables A) Caster offset* B) Kingpin offset#
Speed (kmph) 30 60 30 60
Parameters Remarks
Camber Angle** Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect
Body Slip Angle Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect
Tyre Slip Angle** Increases by 40 - Increases by 30- Increases by 20-50% Increases by 20-
105% to become 109% to become to become more 50% to become
more negative, more negative, negative, though the more negative,
though the though the magnitude magnitude is though the
magnitude is is negligible negligible magnitude is
negligible negligible
Tyre Vertical Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect
Force**
Tyre Lateral Increases by 22- Increases by 23- Increases by 19-48% Increases by 19-
Force** 102% 106% 48%
Tyre Longitudinal Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect
Force**
* Changes are mentioned as kingpin offset is changed from 50 mm to 150 mm, for every 25 mm increase in value. #Changes are
mentioned as caster offset is changed from -50 mm to +50 mm, for every 25 mm increase in value. ** Comments mentioned for
front RH steered tyres
The important takeaway from straight path driving analysis was, the understanding that with the variation in caster
offset and kingpin offset at steered wheel centres the lateral forces at tyre-road contact varied. Though the magnitude of
the lateral forces were not dominant, but a definite pattern was observed. The effect of caster offset was relatively
significant as compared with kingpin offset though trend was similar in both cases as can be seen from Figure 3a, 3b
and Table 3. Lateral forces directly affect tyre slip angles, as a result of which similar effects were observed in case of
tyre slip angles too. Since, tyre slip angles decide the attitude of the vehicle, these parameters could play an important
role in directional stability of any type of vehicles travelling at different speeds.
6
a) b)
c) d)
Fig. 3 Combined effects of caster offset and kingpin offset for straight path driving a) Lateral force at tyre-road contact for front RH
tyre, b) Lateral force at tyre-road contact for front RH wheel, c) Tyre slip angle front LH, d) Tyre slip angle front RH
3.1.1 Analytical validation of tyre vertical force distribution

Shown in Figure 4 is a schematic of a rigid body model of a bus. The vertical load at tyre-road contact for individual
tyres in terms of longitudinal and lateral acceleration are given by the following linear equations 1 to 4. The equations
could easily be derived by standard classical mechanics’ operations. Refer Figure 4 for same.
Fig. 4. Bus model schematic
7
𝑀 ∗ 𝑔 𝑏 ℎ𝑔 𝑎𝑥 ℎ𝑔 ∗ 𝑏 𝑎𝑦 1
𝐹𝑧1 = ( − ∗ + ∗ )
𝐿 2 2 𝑔 𝑇 𝑔
𝑀 ∗ 𝑔 𝑏 ℎ𝑔 𝑎𝑥 ℎ𝑔 ∗ 𝑏 𝑎𝑦 2
𝐹𝑧2 = ( − ∗ − ∗ )
𝐿 2 2 𝑔 𝑇 𝑔
𝑀 ∗ 𝑔 𝑎 ℎ𝑔 𝑎𝑥 ℎ𝑔 ∗ 𝑏 𝑎𝑦 3
𝐹𝑧3 = ( + ∗ − ∗ )
𝐿 2 2 𝑔 𝑇 𝑔
𝑀 ∗ 𝑔 𝑎 ℎ𝑔 𝑎𝑥 ℎ𝑔 ∗ 𝑏 𝑎𝑦 4
𝐹𝑧4 = ( + ∗ + ∗ )
𝐿 2 2 𝑔 𝑇 𝑔
The notations of the above equations are mentioned in the Appendix. Equations (1 - 4) provide reasonably good
validation for the simulation results from TruckSim as can be seen from Figure 5. The graph shows the comparison of
simulation results of straight path driving at 30 kmph and analytical model which considers the takes into consideration
the acceleration of vehicle. Similarly, the results have been evaluated for steady state circle and double lane
manoeuvres. It was observed that results were in good confirmation with each other.
Fig 5. Comparison of load distribution for simulation and analytical model
The differences that can be seen between analytical results and simulations results as in Figure 5 are due to the
assumption of rigid body model considered for formulation of the mathematical equations. On the other hand, in
TruckSim the multi body dynamics analysis is carried out, considering sprung and unsprung masses as two separate
entities, unlike the rigid body model wherein the total load is located at the CG location. As a result of which the
contribution of the load transfer due to pitch is not captured fully in case of rigid body model, and thus more vertical
load is on front wheels as compared with simulation results from TruckSim. The variation is in range of 3-8% which
considering above facts is acceptable.
Furthermore, the simulations carried out in TruckSim considers multiple compliance effects. For validation purpose
the values of the parameters on the right-hand side of the above equations are obtained from the school bus model data
used in TruckSim. The values thus obtained by substitution are validated against the values from simulation runs. Both
results are found to be in good agreement. Since other output parameters, tyre lateral forces and longitudinal forces, slip
angles, etc. are directly influenced by tyre vertical forces the above validation suffices the need for validation of other
output parameters results.
3.2. Steady State Circles
Steady state circle manoeuvres were simulated for four different conditions as mentioned in the methodology in
Section 2.3. Results for the effects of caster offset at wheel centre on steady state circle manoeuvre has been discussed
in detail in Table 4. Similarly, Table 5 discusses the effects of kingpin offset at wheel centres on various performance
parameters. The results for all the four-steady state circle simulation conditions are described in detail in Tables 4 and 5.
8
The results are mentioned in terms of percentage change. Negligible effects mentioned in the table refer to less than
0.1% change for the corresponding changes in input variable values.
Table 4. Effects of caster offset variation on different parameters during steady state circle manoeuvres
Input Variable A) Caster offset
Steering Wheel
300 600
Angle (degrees)
Speed (kmph) 10 30 10 30
Parameters Remarks*
Camber Angle** Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect; Magnitude decreases
trend: camber by approx. 1.8-2.1%.
becoming more The value tends to
negative become positive
Body Slip Angle Negligible effect Decreases by 1.4- Negligible effect Decreases by 1.5-
1.5% 1.8%
Tyre Slip Increases by 15-30%, Magnitude decreases Increases by 15-35%, Magnitude decreases
Angle** though the magnitude by approx. 2.7-3.2%. though the magnitude by approx. 5-5.4%.
is negligible The value tends to is negligible The value tends to
become positive become positive
Tyre Vertical Negligible effect Decreases by 2.14- Negligible effect Decreases by 0.5-
Force** 2.16% 0.6%
Tyre Lateral Increases by 9-15% Increases by 2.6- Increases by 7-12% Decreases by 4.5-5%
Force** 2.9%
Force**
Diameter of Turn Negligible effect Increases by 1.4- Negligible effect Increases by1.5-1.8%
(of C.G) 1.5%
Understeer Negligible effect Magnitude decreases Negligible effect Magnitude decreases
Gradient by approx. 1.95-2.4% by approx. 5.6-7%.
and becomes more The value tends to
positive become positive
Chassis roll angle Increases by 2-3.2%, Decreases by approx. Increases by about Decreases by approx.
though the magnitude 1.8% 4% though 2.1-1.7%
is negligible magnitude is
negligible
Yaw rate Negligible effect Decreases by approx. Negligible effect Decreases by approx.
1.4-1.56% 1.7-1.9%
Yaw angle Negligible effect Decreases by approx. Negligible effect Decreases by approx.
1.5% 1.7%
*Changes are mentioned as caster offset is changed from -50 mm to +50 mm. **Comments mentioned for front RH steered tyres.
In addition to the tyre-road contact forces and camber angle, for study of steady state circle manoeuvres
additional performance metrics were evaluated, which included diameter of turn, understeer gradient, roll angle, yaw
rate and yaw angle; the results for same can be seen from Tables 4, 5 and Figure 6. In Figure 6 are shown some of the
plots showing effects of both caster offset and kingpin offset on steady state circle manoeuvres. The plots are for steady
state circle manoeuvre at 30 kmph and 300 degrees steering wheel angle. The primary aim of carrying out the steady
state circle manoeuvre analysis was to understand the effects of the parameters under study on diameter of turn for the
long wheelbase buses. As can be seen from Figure 6h and Table 4 the effect of caster offset at wheel centres on the
diameter of turn is noteworthy in case of 30 kmph speed in both 300 degrees and 600 degrees steering wheel angle
cases. Though, the similar trends are visible for 10 kmph also the magnitude variation are negligible. Similarly, effects
on other parameters are discussed in the Table 4. Overall, for steady state circles manoeuvres it was observed that caster
offset had significant effect on lateral dynamics of the bus during steady state driving.
9
Table 5. Effects of kingpin offset variation on different parameters during steady state circle manoeuvres
Input Variable B) Kingpin offset
Steering Wheel
Angle (degrees) 300 600
Speed (kmph) 10 30 10 30
Parameters Remarks #
Body Slip Angle Negligible effect Negligible effect Decreases by 0.15- Negligible effect
0.25%
Tyre Slip Angle** Increases by 8- Increases in Increases by 0.4- Negligible effect
9.5%, though the magnitude by 0.7% 0.8%, though the
magnitude is to 0.9% and becomes magnitude is
negligible more negative negligible
Force**
Tyre Lateral Force** Increases by 5.6% Increases by 0.7-0.8% Negligible effect Negligible effect
Force**
Diameter of Turn Increases by 0.12% Negligible effect Increases by 0.15% Negligible effect
(C.G)
Understeer Gradient Magnitude Increases in Decreases in Magnitude increases
decreases by magnitude by 0.7% magnitude by 0.22% by approx. 0.9%.
approx. 0.2% and to 0.8% and tends to to 0.32%. i.e. and
tends to become become more tends to become
positive negative positive
Chassis roll angle Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect
Yaw rate Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect
Yaw angle Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect
#
Changes are mentioned as kingpin offset is changed from -50 mm to 50 mm, for every 25 mm increase in value. ** Comments mentioned for front
RH steered tyres
Similar to caster offset study, kingpin offset also was also evaluated to study its effect on directional stability of the bus
during steady state circle manoeuvres. It was observed that though kingpin offset affected lateral forces at tyre-road
contact and thus the tyre slip angles. It was obtained that effects of kingpin offset on lateral forces were more prominent
in case of lower speeds at lower steering angle as can be seen from the Table 5. Thus, it can be safely concluded that
vehicle longitudinal speed and the steering input too have a role to play in affecting sensitivity of kingpin offset on
lateral forces at tyres-road contact. Further, it could be seen that diameter of turn was affected by variation in kingpin
offset, though the effects were not as significant as compared to effects due to variation of caster offset at wheel centres.
The trend of effects on understeer gradient can be seen from Figure 6g, though the percentage change was insignificant.
It was also noticed that kingpin offset variation had negligible or almost no effect on chassis roll angle, yaw rate and
yaw angle.
10
a) b)
c) d)
e) f)
g) h)
Fig. 6 Combined effects of caster offset and kingpin offset for steady state circle manoeuvre a) Road wheel steering angle front LH,
b) Road wheel steering angle front RH, c) Lateral force at tyre-road contact for front LH tyre, d) Lateral force at tyre-road contact
for front RH tyre, e) Yaw Rate, f) Yaw Angle, g) Understeer Gradient, h) Diameter of turn variation
11
3.2 Double Lane Change
The simulation results of double lane change manoeuvres are discussed in Table 6. In total 50 simulations were
carried out to evaluate the effects of caster offset and kingpin offset. Therefore, in all 25 simulations each at 50 kmph
and 70 kmph were carried out.
Table 6. Effects of caster offset and kingpin offset on different parameters during double lane change manoeuvres
Input Variables A) Caster offset* B) Kingpin offset#
Speed (kmph) 50 70 50 70
Parameters Remarks
Body Slip Angle Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect
Tyre Slip Angle** Decreases by Decreases by approx. Decreases by approx. Decreases by
approx. 1.1% 1.7-1.9% 0.7% approx. 0.5%
Force**
Tyre Lateral Decreases by Decreases by approx. Increases by approx. Increases by approx.
Force** approx. 0.7-0.8% 1.2-1.3% 0.75% 0.5%
Force**
Chassis roll angle Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect
Yaw rate Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect
Yaw angle Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect Negligible effect
Handwheel Increases by Increases by approx. Decreases by 0.3- Decreases by 0.5-
Steering Angle ## approx. 3.6 -4.3% 5.4 -6.5% 0.45% 0.75%
*
Changes are mentioned as caster offset is changed from -50 mm to +50 mm, for every 25 mm increase in value. # Changes are mentioned as Kingpin
offset is changed from 50 mm to 150 mm, for every 25 mm increase in value. ** Comments mentioned for front RH steered tyres ## Maximum values
in the whole range are considered
Plots showing various results for double lane change simulations for 70 kmph speed are as shown in Figure 7. From
figure 7a, 7b and 7c it can be seen that, to follow the same path in double lane change manoeuvre the driver has to give
different inputs at the steering wheel as the values of caster offset and kingpin offset is varied. Though the effect of
kingpin offset is comparatively less dominant but caster offset apparently has significant effect on double lane change
manoeuvre. From Figure 7a it can be seen that, for -50 mm of caster offset the magnitude of steering input needed to
manoeuvre is lowest throughout the run. On contrary, the steering input for 50 mm caster offset is highest throughout
the double lane change manoeuvre.
12
a) b)
c) d)
e) f)
g) h)
Fig. 7 Combined effects of caster offset and kingpin offset for double lane change at 70 kmph. a) Steering wheel angle for
varying caster offset, b) Steering wheel angle for varying Kingpin offset, c) Path traced for double lane change, d) Maximum tyre
Slip Angle Variation, e) Maximum lateral force variation at tyre-road contact, f) Maximum handwheel steering angle, g) Maximum
road wheel angle for varying caster offset, h) Maximum steering wheel angle for varying kingpin offset
13
4. Conclusions
An exhaustive study was done to understand the effects of caster offset and kingpin offset. The results discussed in
the paper are due to the influence of the wheel geometry parameters on handling of the vehicle. From the hand wheel
steer angle plots (Refer Figure 7a), for double lane change, it was observed that caster offset and kingpin offset at the
wheel centres had effect on the steering input values. Though for kingpin offset the effect on value of steering angle of
wheel was negligible, it was found out to be significant in the case of caster offset. From Figure 7g and 7h, which shows
maximum values of road wheel angles during double lane change manoeuvres, it is observed that for same path traced
the wheels were steered for different magnitudes. This effect on the road wheel steering angle could be stated to be one
of the major influencers in indirect influence of caster offset and kingpin offset on the dynamics of vehicles.
The study shows that selection of these parameters is critical as the vehicle dynamic engineers also need to consider
packaging constraints in the design stage. Thus, with appropriate selection of parameters based on optimal design
considering application, significant improvement can be done in handling characteristics of a vehicle. Thus, the
outcome of the work gives a clear and thorough understanding of the sensitivity of handling response metrics to input
variables. This study lays the foundation for a comprehensive understanding of interaction of the wheel alignment
parameters on dynamics of vehicles.
Nomenclature
a Distance of C.G. from front axle [m]

ax Longitudinal acceleration [m/s2]
ay Lateral acceleration [m/s2]
b Distance of C.G. from rear axle [m]
Fz1 Vertical load at tyre-road contact (front right hand tyre) [kg]
Fz2 Vertical load at tyre-road contact (front left hand tyre) [kg]
Fz3 Vertical load at tyre-road contact (rear left hand tyre) [kg]
Fz4 Vertical load at tyre-road contact (rear right hand tyre) [kg]
F LH Front left hand side -
F RH Front right hand side -
g Acceleration due to gravity [m/s2]
hg Height of centre of gravity [m]
L Wheelbase [m]
M Vehicle mass [kg]
R LH Rear left hand -
R RH Rear right hand -
T Track width [m]
14
References
Gillespie, T., 1992, Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics, Society of Automotive Engineers Inc., Warrendale.
Jazar, R. N., 2006, Vehicle Dynamics: Theory and Applications, Springer, Australia.
Karnopp, D., 2004, Vehicle Stability, Marcel Dekker Inc.: New York.
Ledesma R. and S. Shih, 2001. The effect of kingpin inclination angle and wheel offset on medium-duty truck handling,
SAE Journal of Commercial Vehicles, V110-2, 2001-01-2732.
Lee, S., Jeong, B., 2015. Comparisons of Traffic Collisions between Expressways and Rural Roads in Truck Drivers,
Journal of Safety and Health at Work.
Park, S. and J. Sohn, 2011. Effects of camber angle control of front suspension on the vehicle dynamic behaviors.
Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 307–313.
Patel H., M. Casino, D. Noakes, N. Kauffman, D. Rohwedder, J. Popat, A. Nabar, and P. T. Tkacik, 2016. Suspension
variables influencing static vehicle wheel alignment measurements, SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars-
Mechanical Systems, Volume 9, Issue 2.
Rajavardhan R. P., S. R. Shankapal and S. M. Vijaykumar, 2010. Effect of wheel geometry parameters on vehicle
steering, SAS TECH Journal, Volume 9, Issue 2.
Vo D., R. Jazar and M. Fard, 2015. A comparison between caster and lean angle in generating variable camber.
Proceedings of 18th Asia Pacific Automotive Engineering Conference, SAE technical paper 2015-01-0067.
Vo, D., H. Marzbani, M. Fard and Jazar, R., 2016. A novel kinematic model of a steerable tyre for examining kingpin
moment during low-speed-large steering angle cornering. Proceedings of SAE Commercial Vehicle Engineering
Congress. SAE technical paper 2016-01-8030.
Williams, D. and A. Nhila, 2013. Handling comparison of vehicles with steerable auxiliary axles, SAE International
Journal of Commercial Vehicles, Volume 6, Issue 2.
Yoshino, T. and H. Nozaki, 2014. Camber angle control method corresponding to the electric vehicle age. Scientific
Research Publishing Journal Inc. Engineering, 6, 472-484, 2014.
Appendix
Bus Specifications:
Sprung mass: 6000 kg
Unsprung mass: 480 kg (Front), 735 kg (Rear)
Wheelbase: 6450 mm
Distance from centre of gravity to front axle: 2950 mm
Distance from centre of gravity to rear axle: 3500 mm
Height of C.G.: 550 mm
Track width: Front: 2070 mm; Rear:1863 mm
Kingpin geometry:
a) Lateral offset at center: LH=RH=100 mm
b) Kingpin inclination angle: LH=RH=7.2 degrees
c) Longitudinal offset at center of tyre = LH=RH=0 mm
d) Caster angle = LH=RH=5.2 degrees

Study of The Effects of Caster Offset and Kingpin Offset On Kinematics and Lateral Dynamics of Long Wheelbase Solid Axle Bus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Study of The Effects of Caster Offset and Kingpin Offset On Kinematics and Lateral Dynamics of Long Wheelbase Solid Axle Bus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF CASTER OFFSET AND KINGPIN OFFSET ON

Sagar Jambukara and Sujatha Cb

1.1 Wheel alignment parameters

Fig.1: Schematic of kingpin geometry

1.2 Bus Model

Fig. 2. Long wheelbase school bus image from Trucksim software

2.1 DOE for Kinematic and Dynamic Analysis

Table 1. Design of experiments parameters

Table 2. Simulation matrix

2.2 Straight Path Driving

2.3 Steady State Circles

2.4 Double Lane Change

3. Results and Discussions:

3.1.1 Analytical validation of tyre vertical force distribution

Fig. 4. Bus model schematic

Fig 5. Comparison of load distribution for simulation and analytical model

3.2. Steady State Circles

3.2 Double Lane Change

a Distance of C.G. from front axle [m]

You might also like