5B1-4 Joint International Conference on Electric Vehicular Technology and Industrial,
Mechanical, Electrical and Chemical Engineering (ICEVT & IMECE) 2015
Simulation and Model Verification of a Vehicle
Handling Dynamics
Ubaidillah, K. Pamungkas, M. Nizam
Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of
Engineering, Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS)
Jl. Ir. Sutami 36A, Kentingan, Surakarta, 57126, Indonesia
ubaidillah@uns.ac.id
Abstract— The purpose of this study is to model, simulate and
verify the entire vehicle handling dynamics of UNS Electric
vehicle (Semar-T) using Matlab-Simulink. The modeling of
Semar-T electric vehicle begins from the derivation equation of
motion and Dugoff tire model. The equations are derived using
Second Newton’s Law and then simulated in Matlab-Simulink
environment. Five handling condition tests are performed for
exploring the handling performance namely step steer test,
double-lane change test, slalom test, sudden braking test and
sudden acceleration test. The disturbances input come from the
lateral and longitudinal direction. Disturbance in the lateral
direction is steer input while disturbances in the longitudinal
direction are braking and throttling. The steering, braking and
throttling input in this study is taken from the verification
software namely CarSimEd. The results of the validation show
that the vehicle model is valid based on verification using
CarSimEd with the error magnitude between 5-15 %. Therefore,
the results of simulation from Matlab-Simulink can be applied to
studies the behavior handling dynamics of Semar-T electric
vehicle.
Keywords— vehicle handling; CarSimEd; handling dynamics;
Dugoff tire model
I. INTRODUCTION
Handling is a vehicle response occurred due to the presence
of an input from the driver in which it belongs to the major part
of active vehicle safety [1], [2]. Handling includes the balance
of the vehicle when performing the maneuver and when
moving on the straight path [3]. The handling dynamic
behavior of the vehicle is determined by the forces imposed on
the vehicle by the tire, gravity, and aerodynamics. The vehicle
and its components are studied to determine what force will be
produced by each of these sources at a particular maneuver and
trim condition, and how the vehicle will respond to these forces
[4]. The behavior of vehicle handling dynamics can be learned
from modeling and simulation to safe the vehicle development
cost [5], [6].
This study deals with the investigation on the development
of full DOF vehicle ride, tire and handling models. The
modeling begins from the building tire model in which the
Dugoff Tire Model is used in this study. The tire models are
then integrated with the derived handling model. All governed
equations are derived using second Newton’s Law. The derived
978-1-4673-8504-6/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE
S.A. Mazlan
Vehicle System Engineering, Malaysia Japan International
Institute of Technology, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
amri.kl@utm.my
equations are then simulated in MATLAB-SIMULINK
software under throttle, steering and braking inputs. The
simulation results are then verified using other vehicle
dynamics software namely CarSimEd. Five types of vehicle
dynamics test are performed for the purpose of model
validation namely step steer test, double lane change test,
slalom test, sudden braking test and sudden acceleration test.
This paper is organized as follows: the first section contains
an introduction on handling model. The details of the equations
for handling and Dugoff’s tire model are described in Section
II. The modeling block diagram Simulink is introduced and
validated with CarSimEd software in section III. While section
IV discusses the results obtained from the proposed model, and
the last section presents the conclusions.
II. GOVERNING EQUATION
A. Handling Model
Figure 1 shows the free body diagram of vehicle handling
model. In vehicle handling model, it is assumed that the vehicle
handling is moving on a flat road. The handling model
employed in this study is a 7-DOF system. It takes into account
three degrees of freedom for the vehicle body in lateral and
longitudinal motions as well as yaw motion (r) and one degree
of freedom from the rotational motion of each tire. The vehicle
experiences motion along the longitudinal x-axis and the lateral
y-axis, and the angular motions of yaw around the vertical z-
axis. The motion in the horizontal plane can be characterized
by the longitudinal and lateral accelerations, denoted by ax and
ay respectively, and the velocities in longitudinal and lateral
direction, denoted by vx and vy, respectively [7], [8].
Fig. 1. Free body diagram of vehicle handling
280
5B1-4 Joint International Conference on Electric Vehicular Technology and Industrial,
Mechanical, Electrical and Chemical Engineering (ICEVT & IMECE) 2015
The Acceleration in the longitudinal x-axis is defined as §w w w w w ·
stated in Eq. (1), ¨ Fxfl cos į − Fxfr cos į + F xrl − Fxrr − Fyfl sin į + ¸
¨ 2 2 2 2 2 ¸
‫ݒ‬ሶ௫ ൌ ܽ௫ ൅ ‫ݒ‬௬ ‫ݎ‬ሶ (1)
.. 1 ¨w ¸
r= ¨ Fyfr sin į + l r Fyrl + l r Fyrr − l f Fyfl cos į − l f Fyfr cos į − ¸
Jz ¨ 2 ¸
By summing all the forces in x-axis, longitudinal acceleration ¨ l f Fxfl sin į − l f Fxfr sin į ¸
can be defined as follows (Eq. (2)), ¨ ¸
© ¹ (13)
ிೣ೑೗ ୡ୭ୱ ఋିி೤೑೗ ୱ୧୬ ఋାிೣ೑ೝ ୡ୭ୱ ఋିி೤೑ೝ ୱ୧୬ ఋାிೣೝ೗ ାிೣೝೝ
ܽ௫ ൌ (2) where, Jz is the moment of inertia around the z-axis. The roll
௠೟
and pitch motion depend very much on the longitudinal and
Similarly, acceleration in lateral y-axis is defined as (Eq. (3)), lateral acceleration. Since only the vehicle’s body undergoes
 ‫ݒ‬ሶ௬ ൌ ܽ௬ െ ‫ݒ‬௫ ‫ݎ‬ሶ  (3) roll and pitch, the sprung mass, denoted by ms has to be
considered in determining the effects of handling on pitch and
By summing all the forces in lateral direction, lateral roll motions as the following equations (Eq. (14) and Eq.
acceleration can be defined as (Eq. (4)), (15)):
ி೤೑೗ ୡ୭ୱ ఋାிೣ೑೗ ୱ୧୬ ఋାி೤೑ೝ ୡ୭ୱ ఋାிೣ೑ೝ ୱ୧୬ ఋାி೤ೝ೗ ାி೤ೝೝ
ܽ௬ ൌ (4) ߮ሷ ൌ 
ି௠ೞ ௛೎೒ ௔೤ ାఝ൫௠ೞ ௚௛೎೒ ି௞ക ൯ାఝሶ ሺିఉക ሻ
(14)
௠೟
ூೣೣ
The steering angle is denoted by į, the yaw rate by ‫ݎ‬ሶ and ݉௧ ሶ
ି௠ೞ ௛೎೒ ௔೤ ାఏ൫௠ೞ ௚௛೎೒ ି௞ഇ ൯ାఏ ሺିఉഇ ሻ
denotes the total vehicle mass. The symbols ‫ܨ‬௫௜௝ and ‫ܨ‬௬௜௝ ߠሷ ൌ  (15)
ூ೤೤
denote the tire forces in the longitudinal and lateral directions,
respectively, with the index (i) indicating front (f) or rear (r) B. Braking and Throttling Torques
tires and index (j) indicating left (l) or right (r) tires. The The equilibriums of the torque about the axis for the front
longitudinal and lateral vehicle velocities vx and vy can be and rear wheels are described in equations below (Eq. (16) and
obtained by the integration of ‫ݒ‬ሶ௫ and ‫ݒ‬ሶ௬ . The velocities can be
Eq. (17)),
used to obtain the side slip angle, denoted by Į. Thus, the slip
angles (front) ߙ௙ and (rear) ߙ௥ are found in Eq. (5) and Eq. (6), ‫ܨ‬௫௙ ܴఠ െ ܶ௕௙ ൅ ܶ௔௙ ൌ  ‫ܫ‬ఠ ߱௙ሶ (16)
respectively,
‫ܨ‬௫௥ ܴఠ െ ܶ௕௥ ൅ ܶ௔௥ ൌ  ‫ܫ‬ఠ ߱௥ሶ (17)
௩೤ ା௟೑ ௥
ߙ௙ ൌ –ƒିଵ െ ߜ௙ (5) where ߱௙ and ߱௥ are the angular velocity of the front and rear
௩ೣ
௩೤ି௟ೝ ௥ wheels, ‫ܫ‬ఠ is the inertia of the wheel about the axel, ܴఠ is the
ߙ௥ ൌ –ƒିଵ ቀ ቁ (6) wheel radius, ܶ௕௙ and ܶ௕௥ are the applied braking torques, and
௩ೣ

where, ߙ௙ and ߙ௥ correspond to the side slip angles at front and ܶ௔௙ and ܶ௔௥ are the applied throttling torques for the front and
rear tires, lf and lr are the distance between front and rear tire to rear wheels [9], [10].
the body center of gravity, respectively. To calculate the C. Dugoff’s Tire model
longitudinal slip, longitudinal component of the tire velocity
should be derived. The front and rear longitudinal velocity Tire model considered in this study is Dugoff model [11].
component is given by Eq. (7) and Eq. (9), Tire model can describe the behavior of tire in any driving
conditions such us input steering, braking, throttling by the
‫ݒ‬௪௫௙ ൌ ܸ௧௙ …‘• ߙ௙ (7) driver [12]. The longitudinal and lateral forces generated by a
tire are a function of the slip angle and longitudinal slip of tire
ଶ
ܸ௧௙ ൌ ට൫‫ݒ‬௬ ൅ ݈௙ ‫ݎ‬൯ ൅ ‫ݒ‬௫ଶ (8) about the road. Dugoff’s model provides for the calculation of
forces under combined lateral and longitudinal tire force
‫ݒ‬௪௫௥ ൌ ܸ௧௥ …‘• ߙ௥ (9) generation. It is assumed that a uniform vertical pressure
distributes on tire contact path [4], [13]. The Dugoff’s tire
ଶ model equations are shown as follows (Eq. (18) and Eq. (19)),
ܸ௧௥ ൌ ට൫‫ݒ‬௬ ൅ ݈௥ ‫ݎ‬൯ ൅ ‫ݒ‬௫ଶ (10)
The longitudinal tire force can be determined from Eq.
Then, the longitudinal slip ratio of front and rear tires are (18),
determined from Eq. (11) and Eq. (12), ఙೣ
‫ܨ‬௫ ൌ  ‫ܥ‬ఙ ݂ሺߣሻ (18)
ଵାఙೣ
௩ೢೣ೑ ିఠ೑ ோೢ
‫ݏ‬௔௙ ൌ (11)
௩ೢೣ೑ Meanwhile, the lateral tire force is obtained from Eq. (19),
௩ೢೣೝିఠೝ ோೢ
‫ݏ‬௔௥ ൌ (12) ୲ୟ୬ሺఈሻ
௩ೢೣೝ ‫ܨ‬௬ ൌ  ‫ܥ‬ఈ ݂ሺߣሻ (19)
ଵାఙೣ
where, Ȧr, Ȧf, and ܴ௪ are angular velocities of rear and front
tirer, and the wheel radius, respectively. The yaw motion is where, the longitudinal slip ratio (ߪ௫ ), slip angle (ߙ),
also dependent on the tire forces ‫ܨ‬௫௜௝ and ‫ܨ‬௬௜௝ as stated below longitudinal tire stiffness (‫ܥ‬ఙ ), and cornering stiffness (‫ܥ‬ఈ ), ߣ
(Eq. (13)), are given by (Eq. (20) until Eq. (22)),

281
5B1-4 Joint International Conference on Electric Vehicular Technology and Industrial,
Mechanical, Electrical and Chemical Engineering (ICEVT & IMECE) 2015
ஜி೥ ሺଵାఙೣ ሻ comparison between Simulink model and verification software,
ߣ ൌ  మ భΤ మ
(20)
ଶቄሺ஼഑ ఙೣ ሻమ ା൫஼ഀ ௧௔௡ሺఈሻ൯ ቅ the steering, braking and throttling inputs in this simulation are
the disturbances taken from the CarSimEd software. The model
݂ሺߣሻ  ൌ  ሺʹ െ ߣሻߣ if ߣ ൏ ͳ (21) is said to be true or acceptable if the error between the model
and the comparison software ranges between 2-15% [14].
݂ሺߣሻ  ൌ ͳ if ߣ ൒ ͳ (22)
The notation ‫ܨ‬௭ is the vertical force on the tire, while Ɋ is the IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
tire-road friction coefficient. A. Results in Lateral Direction
III. SIMULATION AND VERIFICATION Simulation procedures employed in lateral direction involve
step steer test at speed 50 km/h, double-lane change at speed 80
A. Simulation km/h, and slalom test at 30 km/h. Figure 2 includes the
The governing equations described in section II are then responses of Semar-T electric vehicle including body roll
adopted into Simulink block diagrams. The simulation angle, acceleration, and yaw rate in a lateral direction under
parameter values of the Semar-T electric vehicle which will be step steer disturbance. The responses of the electric vehicle in
used as input in the simulation of vehicle handling models is double-lane change condition were captured in Figure 3.
listed in Table 1. Meanwhile, Figure 4 corresponds to the response of the electric
vehicle under slalom test. The vehicle responses resulted by the
TABLE 1. SIMULATION PARAMETERS Simulink model and CarSimEd at the lateral direction shows
good agreements, and the simulation results closely follow the
Symbol Description Unit trend obtained from the CarSimEd.
݉௦ Sprung masses 1400 kg The slight difference in magnitude may be due to the
‫ܫ‬௬௬ Pitch moment inertia 1263.5 kgm2 body flexibility that was ignored in the simulation model. The
‫ܫ‬௫௫ Roll moment inertia 450.1 kgm2 slight difference in the responses may also be because the roll
‫ܫ‬௭௭ Yaw moment inertia 1263.5 kgm2 center in CarSimEd which assumed to be fixed on the ground,
݉௨௙௟ Front left wheel unsprung masses 40 kg whereas, in the developed model, the roll center is assumed to
݉௨௥௟ Rear left wheel unsprung masses 35 kg be at fixed distance from the sprung mass center of gravity. It
݉௨௥௥ Rear right wheel unsprung masses 35 kg is also be caused by one of the modeling assumptions namely
݉௨௙௥ Front right wheel unsprung masses 40 kg the effects of anti-roll bar which were completely ignored in
‫ܭ‬௦௙௟ Spring stiffness at the front left 18000 N/m the simulation model.
‫ܭ‬௦௥௟ Spring stiffness at the rear left 18000 N/m
‫ܭ‬௦௥௥ Spring stiffness at the rear right 18000 N/m matlab carsim
1
‫ܭ‬௦௙௥ Spring stiffness at the front right 18000 N/m
‫ܥ‬௦௙௟ Damping stiffness at the front left 1500 Ns/m 0
‫ܥ‬௦௥௟ Damping stiffness at the rear left 1500 Ns/m -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Roll (deg)

‫ܥ‬௦௥௥ Damping stiffness at the rear right 1500 Ns/m

-2
‫ܥ‬௦௙௥ Damping stiffness at the front right 1500 Ns/m
‫ܭ‬௧௙௟ Tire stiffness at the front left 200.000 N/m -3
‫ܭ‬௧௥௟ Tire stiffness at the rear left 200.000 N/m
-4
‫ܭ‬௧௥௥ Tire stiffness at the rear right 200.000 N/m
‫ܭ‬௧௙௥ Tire stiffness at the front right 200.000 N/m -5
Time (s)
Distance between front and rear tire to
݈௙ ǡ ݈௥ 0.95 m
body center of gravity (a). Roll angle
Distance from roll and pitch axis to center
hcg 0.95 m matlab carsim
of gravity
1
‫ݓ‬ Wheel track 1.3 m
Lateral Acceleration

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
B. Verification -3
(m/s2)

The vehicle handling dynamics of Semar-T was verified

using the CarSimEd software for the purpose of validation. -5
CarSimEd is a software package developed by the University
of Michigan that can be used for simulating and analyzing the -7
behavior of four-wheeled vehicles in response to steering, -9
braking, and throttle inputs. It produces the same kinds of Time (s)
outputs that might be measured with physical tests involving
(b) Lateral acceleration
instrumented vehicles. Five types of vehicle dynamics test are
performed namely step steer test at speed of 50 km/h, double
lane change test at speed of 80 km/h, slalom test at speed 30 of
km/h, sudden braking test at speed of 60 km/h, and sudden
acceleration test at speed of 20 km/h. To make apple to apple

282
5B1-4 Joint International Conference on Electric Vehicular Technology and Industrial,
Mechanical, Electrical and Chemical Engineering (ICEVT & IMECE) 2015
matlab carsim matlab carsim
5
8
-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Yaw Rate (deg)

Yaw Rate (deg/s)

4
-15 0

-25 -4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

-35 -8
-12
-45 Time (s)
Time (s)
(c) Yaw rate
(c) Yaw rate
Fig. 3. Vehicle response under double-lane change tests at 80 km/h
Fig. 2. Vehicle responses under the step steer input at 50 km/h
The verification is also performed for slalom maneuver
The next maneuver for verification process of the vehicle
with the speed of 30 km/h. Figure 3 shows the responses
model is the double lane change maneuver with the speed of between developed model and CarSimEd regarding roll angle,
80 km/h. Double lane change is one of the handling
lateral acceleration, and yaw rate. As can be seen in the figure,
maneuvers used to evaluate the road holding of the vehicle.
the results for the developed model are very close and
This handling maneuver can be considered as the
following the trend of CarSimEd software with acceptable
representation of some crash avoidance. Figure 2 shows the
error. In overall, similar responses and trend can be obtained
responses of model and vehicle behaviors obtained from
from the developed model compared to the behaviors obtained
CarSimEd regarding roll angle, lateral acceleration and yaw
with CarSimEd.
rate. Again, it can be seen that the trend between model matlab carsim
developed and CarSimEd results are almost similar but 4
slightly different in magnitude. This difference might be due
to the parameters assumption in the modeling of vehicle 2
Roll (deg)

dynamics that affect the responses of developed model. There

are some parameters referred from previous researchers that 0
are really difficult to identify such as Dugoff tire model. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-2
matlab carsim
2.5 -4
Time (s)
(a) Roll angle
1.5
matlab carsim
Roll (deg)

0.5 6
Lateral Acceleration

-0.5 4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2
-1.5
(m/s2)

0
-2.5
Time (s) -2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-4
(a) Roll angle
-6
Time (s)
matlab carsim
5
(b) Lateral acceleration
Lateral Acceleration

3 matlab carsim
60
1
(m/s2)

40
Yaw Rate (deg/s)

-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
20
-3
0
-5
Time (s) 0 2 4 6 8 10
-20
(b) Lateral acceleration
-40
Time (s)

(c) Yaw rate

Fig. 4. Vehicle response under slalom tests at 30 km/h

283
5B1-4 Joint International Conference on Electric Vehicular Technology and Industrial,
Mechanical, Electrical and Chemical Engineering (ICEVT & IMECE) 2015
B. Results in Longitudinal Direction matlab carsim
0.004
The simulation process employed in longitudinal direction
0.000
involves sudden braking at speed 60 km/h and sudden

Longitudinal Slip
acceleration at speed 20 km/h. Figure 5 and 6 correspond to -0.004 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
the responses of Semar-T vehicle include longitudinal -0.008
acceleration, pitch rate and longitudinal slip at each tire for -0.012
sudden braking and sudden acceleration, respectively. -0.016
The results of model verification for sudden braking test -0.020
at 60 km/h are shown in Figures 5(a) to 5(d). Regarding -0.024
longitudinal acceleration and pitch rate, it can be seen that Time (s)
there are quite good similarities during the initial transient (d) Longitudinal slip at rear tire
phase as well as during the following steady state phase as
Fig. 5. Responses of vehicle to the sudden braking condition at 60 km/h
shown in Figures 5(a) and 5(b). Longitudinal slip responses of
the tires also showed substantial agreement with CarSimEd The results of sudden acceleration test at a constant speed
Software for all recorded values and satisfying comparison of 20 km/h indicate that CarSimEd and the Simulink model
with only small deviation in the transition area between results agree with a relatively good accuracy as shown in
transient and steady state phases as shown in Figures 5(c) and Figures 6(a) to 6(d). Figure 6(a) shows the behavior of
5(d). longitudinal acceleration obtained from sudden acceleration
matlab carsim
test maneuver that is also used as the input for the simulation
0.5 model. Regarding pitch rate, it is clear that the simulation
results closely follow the measured data with a minor
Acceleration (m/s2)

-0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 difference in magnitude as shown in Figure 6(b). The minor
Longitudinal

-1.5 difference in magnitude and small fluctuation occurred on

longitudinal slip are shown in Figures 6(c) and 6(d). The
-2.5
difference of the measured data is due to the body flexibility
-3.5 that was ignored in the simulation model. The minor
difference in magnitude between measured and simulated data
-4.5
Time (s) can also be caused by one of the modeling assumptions
namely the effects of the anti-roll bar which were completely
(a) Longitudinal acceleration
ignored in the simulation model.
matlab carsim
10 matlab carsim
8 3.5
Acceleration (m/s2)
Pitch Rate (deg/s)

6
Longitudinal

2.5
4
2 1.5
0
0.5
-2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-4 -0.5 0
Time (s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)
(b) Pitch rate
(a) Longitudinal acceleration
matlab carsim
0.004
matlab carsim
1
0.000
Longitudinal Slip

0
Pitch Rate (deg/s)

-0.004 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-0.008
-2
-0.012
-3
-0.016 -4
-0.020 -5
Time (s) Time(s)

(c) Longitudinal slip at front tire (b) Pitch rate

284
5B1-4 Joint International Conference on Electric Vehicular Technology and Industrial,
Mechanical, Electrical and Chemical Engineering (ICEVT & IMECE) 2015
matlab carsim sudden braking tests are significantly similar with the
-0.0001 0 CarSimEd Software and prove that the model is effectiveness
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
to perform the validation. As long as the trend of the model
Longitudinal Slip

-0.0003 responses is closely similar with the CarSimEd response with

acceptable deviation in magnitude, it can be said that the
-0.0005 model is valid.
-0.0007 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
-0.0009
Authors thank Universitas Sebelas Maret and LPDP-
Time (s) Ministry of Finance, the Republic of Indonesia for providing
funding on “Mobil Listrik Nasional” Research Grant 2015.
(c) Longitudinal slip at front tire

matlab carsim
0.0280
REFERENCES
Longitudinal Slip

0.0200 [1] Ubaidillah, K. Hudha, and H. Jamaluddin, “Simulation and

0.0120
0.0040
-0.0040 0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (s)
(d) Longitudinal slip at rear tire
Fig. 6. Responses of vehicle to the sudden acceleration test at 20 km/h
From the overall results of the simulation procedure has
been performed, the resulted responses of the Simulink model
and the CarSimEd are very close with a slight difference in
their magnitudes. The difference occurs because of several
factors as discussed previously. The deviation the responses
between Simulink model and CarSimEd vary from 5 to 15%.
Since the responses of the Simulink model and CarSimEd
have the similar trend and are close in magnitudes, therefore,
it can be said that the developed handling model of the Semar-
T is valid.
V. CONCLUSION
A full vehicle model for a passenger vehicle that consists of
handling and Dugoff tire model has been derived and
simulated in Matlab-Simulink. Model verification conducted
has been supported by different handling maneuvers situation.
The verification in lateral direction has covered the qualitative
method where the accuracy of the model developed was
compared with the CarSimEd software result. Five handling
maneuvers situation have been examined, and its results have
been compared with CarSimEd software in step steer, double
lane change and slalom, braking and acceleration conditions.
The simulation results of verification show that the results
obtained from Simulink and response from CarSimEd
software are significantly matched with acceptable error. The
longitudinal acceleration in both sudden acceleration and
experimental evaluation on a skyhook policy-based fuzzy logic
control for semi-active suspension system,” Int. J. Struct. Eng., vol.
2, no. 3, p. 243, 2011.
[2] A. Z. Bin Pokaad, K. Hudha, M. Z. B. M. Nasir, and Ubaidillah,
“Simulation and experimental studies on the behaviour of a
magnetorheological damper under impact loading,” Int. J. Struct.
7 8 9 10 Eng., vol. 2, no. 2, p. 164, 2011.
[3] P. N. Currier, “A method for modeling and prediction of ground
vehicle dynamics and stability in autonomous systems,” Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2011.
[4] T. D. Gillespie, Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics.
Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive
Engineers, Inc., 1992.
[5] Ubaidillah, K. Hudha, and F. A. A. Kadir, “Modelling,
characterisation and force tracking control of a magnetorheological
damper under harmonic excitation,” Int. J. Model. Identif. Control,
vol. 13, no. 1/2, p. 9, 2011.
[6] Ubaidillah, J. Sutrisno, A. Purwanto, and S. A. Mazlan, “Recent
Progress on Magnetorheological Solids: Materials, Fabrication,
Testing, and Applications,” Adv. Eng. Mater., vol. 17, pp. 563–597,
Sep. 2015.
[7] L. De Novellis, A. Sorniotti, and P. Gruber, “Design and
comparison of the handling performance of different electric vehicle
layouts,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part D J. Automob. Eng., vol. 228,
no. 2, pp. 218–232, Feb. 2014.
[8] M. Bian, L. Chen, Y. Luo, and K. Li, “A Dynamic model for
tire/road friction estimation under combined longitudinal/lateral slip
situation,” in SAE Technical Papers 2014-01-0123, 2014.
[9] K. Lundahl, “Modeling and Optimization for Critical Vehicle
Maneuvers,” Linkoping University, 2013.
[10] I. Preda and C. Gheorghe, “Vehicle mathematical model for the
study of cornering,” Fascicle Manag. Technol. Eng., vol. XI, no.
XXI, pp. 22–32, 2012.
[11] H. Dugoff, P. S. Fancher, and L. Segel, “An Analysis of Tire
Traction Properties and Their Influence on Vehicle Dynamic
Performance,” Feb. 1970.
[12] J. D. Setiawan, M. Safarudin, and A. Singh, “Modeling, simulation
and validation of 14 DOF full vehicle model,” in International
Conference on Instrumentation, Communication, Information
Technology, and Biomedical Engineering, 2009, no. August.
[13] R. Rajamani, Vehicle dynamics and control. Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer, 2006.
[14] J. Lee, J. Lee, and S. Heo, “Full vehicle dynamic modeling for
chassis controls,” in FISITA, 2008, no. F2008-SC-021.

285