Georg Rill

Vehicle Modeling by Subsystems

Computer simulations have become very popular in the automotive industry. In order to
Georg Rill achieve a good conformity with field test, sophisticated vehicle models are needed. A real
GeorgRill@aol.com vehicle incorporates many complex dynamic systems, such as the drive train, the steering
FH Regensburg, University of Applied Sciences system and the wheel/axle suspension. On closer inspection some force elements such as
Galgenbergstr. 30 shock absorbers and hydro-mounts turn out to be dynamic systems too. Modern vehicle
D-93053 Regensburg, Germany
models consist of different subsystems. Then, each subsystem may be modeled differently
and can be tested independently. If some subsystems are available as a set of nested
models of different complexity it will be even possible to generate overall vehicle models
which are well tailored to particular applications. But, the numerical solution of coupled
subsystems is not straight forward. This paper shows that the overall vehicle model can be
solved very effectively by suitable interfaces and an implicit integration algorithm. The
presented concept is realized in the product ve-DYNA, applied worldwide by automotive
companies and suppliers.
Keywords: Vehicle dynamics, vehicle model, axle modeling, drive train, multibody systems

Modeling Concept
For dynamic simulation the vehicles are usually modeled by
multi body systems (MBS), van der Jagt (2000). Typically, the
overall vehicle model is separated into different subsystems, Rauh
(2003). Fig. 1 shows the components of a passenger car model
which can be used to investigate handling and ride properties. The
vehicle model consists of the vehicle framework and subsystems for
the steering system and the drive train. 1
The vehicle framework represents the kernel of the model. It at
least includes the module chassis and modules for the wheel/axle
suspension systems. The vehicle framework is supplemented by
modules for the load, an elastically suspended engine, and
passenger/seat models. A simple load module just takes the mass
and inertia properties of the load into account. To describe the
sloshing effects of liquid loads dynamic load models are needed,
Rill and Rauh (1992). The subsystems elastically suspended engine,
passenger/seat, and in heavy truck models a suspended driver’s
cabin can all be handled by the presented generic free body model.
For standard vehicle dynamics analysis the chassis can be modeled
by one rigid body. For applications where the chassis flexibility has
to be taken into account a suitable flexible frame model is presented.
Most wheel/axle suspension systems can be described by typical
multi body system elements such as rigid bodies, links, joints and Figure 1. Vehicle model structure.
force elements, Rill (1994). Using a modified implicit Euler
algorithm for solving the dynamic equations, axle suspensions with Tire forces and torques have a dominant influence on vehicle
compliancies and dry friction in the damper element can be handled dynamics. The semi-empirical tire model TMeasy has mainly been
without any problems, Rill (2004). Due to their robustness leaf developed to meet both the requirements of user-friendliness and
springs are still a popular choice for solid axles. They combine sufficient model accuracy, Hirschberg et. al. (2002). Complex tire
guidance and suspension properties which causes many problems in models such as the FTire Model provided by Gipser (1998) can be
modeling, Fickers and Richter (1994). A leaf spring model is used for special applications. The module tire also includes the
presented in this paper which overcomes these problems. wheel rotation which acts as input for the drive train model. The
The steering system at least consists of the steering wheel, a presented drive train model is generic. It takes lockable differentials
flexible steering shaft, and the steering box which may also be into account, and it combines front wheel, rear wheel and all wheel
power-assisted. Neureder (2002) has developed a very sophisticated drive. The drive train is supplemented by a module describing the
model of the steering system which includes compliancies, dry engine torque. It may be modeled quite simply by a first order
friction, and clearance. differential equation or by the enhanced engine torque module en-
DYNA developed by TESIS.
Road irregularities and variations in the coefficient of friction
present significant impacts on the vehicle. A road model generating
a two-dimensional reproducible random profile was provided by
Rill (1990).
This modeling concept is realized with a MATLAB/Simulink®
interface in the product ve-DYNA which also includes suitable
Presented at XI DINAME – International Symposium on Dynamic Problems of models for the driver, TESIS.
Mechanics, February 28th - March 4th, 2005, Ouro Preto. MG. Brazil.
Paper accepted: June, 2005. Technical Editors: J.R.F. Arruda and D.A. Rade.

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

Vehicle Modeling by Subsystems

Module Flexible Frame Modal Coordinates

The motions of the front and rear body relative to the center
Multi Body Approach to First Eigenmodes body are small compared to the free body motions of the center part.
Hence, the linearized rotation matrices
The chassis eigenmodes of most passenger cars start at f >20Hz.
Hence, for standard vehicle dynamic analysis the chassis can be  1 −γ CF βCF   1 −γ CR βCR 
ACF =  γ CF −α CF  , ACR =  γ CR −α CR  , (3)
modeled as one rigid body. The lower chassis stiffness of trucks and
1 1
pickups results in eigenmodes starting at f ≈ 10 Hz , Fig. 2.
 − βCF αCF 1   − βCR αCR 1 

and the position vectors

   
x
 CF  x
 CR 
   
rCF ,C = r K
CF , C + y
 
 CF  , rCR , C = rK
CR , C + y
 
 CR  (4)
   
z  
z 
 CF   CR 

are used to describe the orientation and position of the front and rear
Figure 2. Chassis eigenmode of a pickup at f=11.2 Hz. K K
body relative to the center part. The vectors rCF , C and rCR , C denote

the initial position of the front and rear body.

The first eigenmodes consist of torsion and bending of the The generalized coordinates
chassis. These modes can be approximated by a multi body chassis
model where the chassis is divided into three parts, Fig. 3.
yF = [ xCF , yCF , zCF , α CF , β CF , γ CF ],
T

(5)
yR = [ xCR , yCR , zCR , α CF βCR , γ CR ]
T

describe the motions of the front and rear body relative to the center
body. These motions are approximated by nM eigenmodes e1 , e2 ,
... , enM now

m 
  1 
  m
Figure 3. Flexible frame model. yF =  eF 1 , e F 2 , ...eFnM   2 

 ⋮ 
 
 Ef
 m 
 nM 
Free Body Motions (6)
 m1 
The position and orientation of the reference frame xC , yC , zC   
m
yF =  eF 1 , e R 2 , ...eRnM   2 
which is fixed to the center body with respect to the inertial frame 
  ⋮ 
x0 , y0 , z0 is given by the rotation matrix  ER   
 mnM 

cosγ 0C -sinγ 0C 0   cosβ 0C 0 sinβ 0C  where m1 , m2 , ..., mnM are modal coordinates, and EF and ER
A 0C =  sinγ 0C cosγ 0C 0  ×  0 1 0  ×
represent 6×nM matrices containing the eigenmodes.
 0 0 1  -sinβ 0C 0 cosβ 0C 
(1)
 
 0 0 0 
  Generalized Coordinates
× 0 
 cosα 0C -sinα 
0C 
  The flexible chassis is modeled by 3 rigid bodies here. The
1 

sinα 0C cosα 
0C  orientation and the position of the bodies are described by free body
motions and modal coordinates
and the position vector

 
yC = [x0C Z0C α 0C β 0C γ 0C m1 m2 … mnM ]T (7)
x
 0C 
 
r0C , 0 = y
 
 0C  , (2) where the 6 free body motions and the nM modal coordinates are
 
z 
 0C  collected in the vector yC . The dimension of yC depends on the
number nM of modal coordinates, n y = 6 + nM .
where the comma separated subscript 0 indicates that the
coordinates of the vector from 0 to C are expressed in the inertial
frame. The generalized coordinates roll, pitch, and yaw angle α 0C , Equations of Motion
β 0C , γ 0C as well as the coordinates x0C , y0C , z0C of the vector To generate the equations of motion Jordain’s Principle with
r0C , 0 describe the free body motion of the vehicle. generalized speeds is used. For a multi body system consisting of

J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng. Copyright  2006 by ABCM October-December 2006, Vol. XXVIII, No. 4 / 431
 Georg Rill

m rigid bodies it results in a set of two first order differential Within Jordain’s Principle the compliance forces and torques are
equations reduced to generalized forces which are calculated by

K yɺ = z , 
 m1 


 m1 

(8)    
M zɺ = q . 
 m2 


 m2 

qFcmp = EFT cCF E F   and qRcmp = ERT cCR E R   , (15)


⋮ 



⋮ 

The kinematic matrix K follows from the definition of the    


m 
nF 


m 
nF 
generalized speeds. The elements of the mass matrix M are given
by
where
m 
 ∂v ∂v T
∂ω ∂ω  T
M ij = ∑ 
   
mk 0 k +0k
Θk 0k  , 0k
(9) 

cF1 0 ⋯ 0 



cR1 0 ⋯ 0 


 ∂zi ∂z j ∂zi ∂z j     
k =1     

 0 cF 2 ⋱ ⋮ 


 0 cR2 ⋱ ⋮ 

EFT cCF EF = 


 and ERT cCR ER = 


 (16)

 ⋮ ⋱ ⋱ 0 


 ⋮ ⋱ ⋱ 0 

where mk is the mass and Θ k the inertia tensor of body k . Finally, 










0 ⋯ 0 c 
FnM 



0 ⋯ 0 c 
RnM 
the components of the generalized forces and torques are defined by
are nM ×nM stiffness matrices. which are defined by the modal
n 
∂v0Tk  ∂ω0Tk  
qi = ∑ 
  
 FAk − mk a0 k  + TAk − Θkα 0 k − ω0 k × Θkω0 k   , (10)
R  R
stiffnesses cF 1 , cF 2 , ... cFnM and cR1 , cR 2 , ... cRnM . Thus, to
k =1  ∂zi ∂zi 
   

describe the motions of a flexible chassis only some eigenmodes
where FAk , TAk denote the forces and torques applied to body k and modal stiffnesses have to be provided.

and a0Rk , α 0Rk are remaining parts of the accelerations which do not
Results
depend on the derivatives of the generalized speeds.
Depending on the vehicle layout, a flexible frame has a
significant influence on the driving behavior, Fig 4. The rear axle of
Applied Forces and Torques
the considered bus is guided by four links. Here, the arrangement of
The forces and torques applied to the bodies can be written as the links generates a steering effect which depends on the roll angle
of the rear part of the chassis and, therefore, also on the torsional
FC = FCext + FCF cmp
+ FCRcmp
, stiffness of the chassis.
FF = FF − FCF ,
ext cmp
(11)
FR = FRext − FCRcmp

and

TC = TCext + TCFcmp
+ TCRcmp
,
TF = TF − TCF ,
ext cmp
(12)
TR = TRext − TCR
cmp
,

where the superscripts ext and cmp denote external and

compliance forces and torques.
Applying Jordain’s Principle, one part within the equations of
motion describes the whole chassis motion. The compliance forces
and torques are internal forces for the whole chassis and, therefore,
do not show up in the corresponding parts of the generalized force
vector.
If we assume that the compliance forces and torques are
proportional to the motions of the front and rear body then, we will
get

 cmp   cmp 
 FCF   FCR 
 = c  =c
CF y F and CR y R , (13)
 
 cmp   cmp 

TCF  
TCR 

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

   
 m1   m1 
   
 cmp     cmp   
F
 CF   m2  F
 CR   m2 

 cmp 
 = cCF E F   and 
 cmp 
 = cCR E R   . (14) Figure 4. Step input on bus with rigid and flexible Frame.
T
 CF 


⋮ 

T
 CR 


⋮ 

   


m 
nF 


m 
nF 

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

Vehicle Modeling by Subsystems

Module Leaf Spring
Modeling Aspects
Poor leaf spring models approximate guidance and suspension
properties of the leaf spring by rigid links and separate force
elements, Matschinsky (1998). The deformation of the leaf springs
must be taken into account for realistic ride and handling
simulations.
Within ADAMS leaf springs can be modeled with sophisticated
beam-element models, ADAMS/Chassis 12.0. But, according to
Fickers (1994) it is not easy to take the spring pretension into
account. To model the effects of a beam, ADAMS/Solver uses a
linear 6 -dimensional action-reaction force (3 translational and 3
rotational) between two markers. In order to provide adequate
representation for the nonlinear cross section, usually 20 elements
are used to model one leaf spring. A subsystem consisting of a solid
axle and two beam-element leaf spring models would have
f = 6 + 2 ∗ (20 ∗ 6) = 246 degrees of freedom. In addition, the beam-
element leaf spring model results in extremely stiff differential
equations. These and the large number of degrees of freedom slow
down the computing time significantly.
For real time applications the leaf springs must be modeled by a
simple, but still accurate model. Fig. 5 shows a model of a solid axle
with leaf spring suspension, which is typical for light truck rear axle
suspension systems. There are no additional links. Hence, only the
forces and torques generated by leaf spring deflections guide and
suspend the axle.
ψ1
zL P
xL
yL
ϕ1
ϕ2
C
ϕ4 R model.
le
Similar to Fickers (1994) each leaf spring is modeled by five
rigid bodies which are connected to each other by spherical joints,
Fig. 5.
Each leaf spring is connected to the frame via the front leaf eye
X . Furthermore each leaf spring is attached to the shackle at Y ,
and again to the frame at Z . In C the center part of each leaf
spring is rigidly connected to the axle. The front eye bushings are
modeled by spring/damper elements in x -, y -, and z -direction.
The shackles are modeled by radial and a lateral spring/damper
elements. Within each leaf spring the angles ϕ1 , ψ 1 , and ϕ 2 , ψ 2
describe the motions of part P - Q and part R - S relative to the
center part. The outer parts Q - X and P - Y perform their
rotations, ϕ3 , ψ 3 , and ϕ 4 , ψ 4 , relative to part P - Q and part R -
S . As each leaf spring element is considered as a rigid rod, the roll
motions can be neglected. The angles are collected in 4× 1 position
vectors
T T
y1F =  ϕ1(1) , ψ 1(1) , ϕ3(1) , ψ 3(1)  ; y1R =  ϕ 2(1) ,ψ 2(1) , ϕ4(1) , ψ 4(1)  ; (18)
T T
y2 F =  ϕ1(2) ,ψ 1(2) , ϕ3(2) ,ψ 3(2)  ; y2 R =  ϕ2(2) ,ψ 2(2) , ϕ 4(2) ,ψ 4(2)  ; (19)
where y1F , y2 F and y1R , y2 R describe the momentary shape of the
front and the rear part of the left (1) and the right (2) leaf spring.
A fully dynamic description of a solid axle with two five link
leaf spring models would result in f = 6 + 2 ∗ 8 = 22 degrees of
freedom. Compared to the beam-element model this is a really
ψ3 significant reduction.
X But a dynamic description of the five link leaf spring model still
Q front
includes some high frequent modes which will cause problems in
leaf eye
ϕ3 bushing the numerical solution of the equations of motion. As mass and
inertia properties of the leaf spring model parts are small compared
to the solid axle, a quasi static solution of the internal leaf spring
deflection should be accurate enough within the overall vehicle

Z
ψ2
A quasi static solution provides the position vectors of the leaf
ack

S
spring parts as functions of the axle position vector,
sh

Y ψ4 y1F = y1F ( y A ) , y1R = y1R ( y A ) , y2 F = y2 F ( y A ) , y2 R = y2 R ( y A ) . Hence,

X1
the subsystem solid axle with two leaf springs has only f = 6
degrees of freedom.
X2
yA zA
Initial Shape and Pretension
xA
Z1 C1
A
CA At first it is assumed that the leaf spring is located in the xz -
C2
x, y, z plane of the leaf spring fixed frame xL , yL , z L and its shape in the
Y1 α, β, γ
design position can be approximated by a circle which is fixed by
yB zB Z2 the points X , C and Y . By dividing the arc X - Y into 5 parts of
xB
Y2
equal length the position of the links P , R , S , Q and the initial
B
values of the angles ϕ01 , ψ 01 , ϕ02 , ψ 02 , ϕ03 , ψ 03 , ϕ04 , ψ 04 can be
Figure 5. Axle model with leaf spring suspension. calculated very easily.
In design position each leaf spring is only preloaded by a
vertical load which results in zero pretension forces in the yL -
The position of the axle center A and the orientation of an axle
fixed reference frame x A , y A , z A are described relative to a chassis direction, F0yB = 0 , F0yS = 0 and zero pretension torques around the
fixed frame xB , yB , z B by the displacements ξ , η , ζ and the zl -axis, T0zP = 0 , T0zQ = 0 , T0zR = 0 , T0zS = 0 . In addition the torques
rotation angles α , β , γ which are collected in the 6×1 axle around the xl -axis vanish, T0xP = 0 , T0xQ = 0 , T0xR = 0 , T0xS = 0 .
position vector To transfer the vertical preload F0 to the front eye bushing and
the shackle, the joints P , Q , R , S must provide torques around
yA = [ ξ , η, ζ , α , β , γ ] .
T
(17)

J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng. Copyright  2006 by ABCM October-December 2006, Vol. XXVIII, No. 4 / 433
 Georg Rill

the yL -axis, Fig. 6. The pretension forces in the front eye bushing The deflection w and the force F are related to each other via
x z
F , F and in the shackle F0 S , can easily be calculated from the the stiffness c
0B 0B

equilibrium conditions of the five link leaf spring model, F = cw. (22)
F + F0 S u
x
0B
x
YZ = 0,
If we transfer the beam model to the five link leaf spring model
F + F0 + F0 S uYZ
z
0B
z
= 0, (20) and look at the front half, Fig. 4, one will get
− rXC F0 + rXY F0 S uYZ − rXY
x z x x z
F0 S uYZ = 0,
w = a ϕ1 + a (ϕ1 + ϕ3 ) , (23)

where a defines the length of one link, and small deflections in the
xL , z L plane were assumed. The torques around the yL -axis in the
joints P and Q are proportional to the deflection angles ϕ1 and ϕ 3

TPy = cϕ1 ϕ1 and TQy = cϕ3 ϕ3 . (24)

The equilibrium condition results in

F F
TPy = 2 a and TQy = a :. (25)
2 2

The leaf spring bending mode due to a single force can be

approximated very well by a circular arc. Hence, the relative angle
between connected links is equal, ϕ1=ϕ3=ϕ and Eq. 23 can be
w
simplified to w=3aϕ or or ϕ = . From Eqs. 24 and 25 follows
3a

Figure 6. Pretension forces and torques. w F w F

cϕ1 = 2a and cϕ3 =a . (26)
3a 2 3a 2
where uYZ refers to the unit vector in the direction of the shackle,
x z Using Eq. 22, one finally obtains
and rXY , rXY are the x and z components of the vector from
pointing from X to Y . The pretension torques in the leaf spring 3
cϕ1 = 3 a 2 cV and cϕ3 = a 2 cV , (27)
joints around the yL -axis, T0yP , T0yQ , T0yR , T0yS follow from 2

−T0yP + rPX
z
F0xB −rPX
x
F0zB = 0 where the beam stiffness c was replaced by the vertical leaf spring
stiffness cV . Assuming symmetry, the stiffnesses in the rear joints
−T0yQ + rQX
z
F0xB −rQX
x
F0 Bz = 0
(21) are given by cϕ2 = cϕ1 and cϕ4 = cϕ3 . The stiffnesses around the
T0yR + rRYz F0 S uYZ
x
−rRYx F0 S uYZ
z
=0
vertical axis cψ1 , cψ 2 , cψ 3 and cψ 4 can be calculated in a similar
T0yS + rSYz F0 S uYZ
x
−rSYx F0 S uYZ
z
=0
way. The torsional stiffness of the leaf spring is neglected in this
approach.
where rij , i = P, Q, R, S , j = X , Y are vectors pointing from i to
j. Actual Shape
The energy of a flexible system achieves a minimum value,
Compliance
E → Min , in an equilibrium position. The energy of the five link
The leaf spring compliance is defined in the design position by leaf spring model is given by
the vertical and the lateral stiffness, cV and cL . In Fig. 7a the leaf
1 T 1 1 1 1
spring is approximated by a beam which is supported on both ends E= wX cB wX + cϕ1 ϕ12 + cψ1 ψ 12 + cϕ3 ϕ32 + cψ 3 ψ 32 +
2 2 2 2 2 (28)
and is loaded in the center by the force F .
1 1 1 1 1 1
+ cϕ2 ϕ 2 + cψ 2 ψ 2 + cϕ4 ϕ4 + cψ 4 ψ 4 + cSR wSR
2 2 2 2 2
+ cSL wSL
2
,
2 2 2 2 2 2

where wX is the 3×1 displacement vector and cB is the 3×3

stiffness matrix of the front eye bushing, wSR , wSL are the radial
and lateral shackle displacements, and cSR , cSL denote the
corresponding stiffnesses.

Figure 7. Leaf spring stiffness.

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

Vehicle Modeling by Subsystems

According to Eqs. 18 and 19, the actual shape of the leaf spring orientation of the solid axle. Similarly to Eq. 32 the displacement
is determined by the position vectors y1 = [ ϕ1,ψ 1, ϕ3 , ψ 3 ] velocities are given by
T
and
y2 = [ ϕ2 , ψ 2 , ϕ 4 , ψ 4 ] . If the leaf spring energy becomes a ∂uSR ∂u
T

uɺ SR = yɺ and uɺ SL = SL yɺ A . (34)
minimum, the following equations will hold ∂y A A ∂y A

∂E ∂E ∂E ∂E Finally, the shackle force reads as

= 0, = 0, ⋯ = 0, = 0. (29)
∂ϕ1 ∂ψ 1 ∂ϕ 4 ∂ψ 4
FS = FSR uSR + FSL uSL . (35)
As the shackle displacements wSR , wSL do not depend on y1
and the front bushing displacement vector wX does not depend on Forces Applied to the Axle
y2 the conditions in Eq. 29 form two independent sets of nonlinear The leaf springs act like generalized force elements in this
equations f1 ( y1, y A ) = 0 and f 2 ( y2 , y A ) = 0 , where y A denotes the approach, Fig. 8. Guidance and suspension of the solid axle is done
by the resulting force
dependency of the actual position and orientation of the solid axle.
These equations are solved iteratively by the Newton-Algorithm. F = FB1 + FB 2 + FS 1 + FS 2 (36)
Starting with initial guesses y10 , y20 one gets an improvement by
solving the linear equations and the resulting torque

∂f1  k +1 T = rAB1×FB1 + rAB 2×FB 2 + rAS 1×FS 1 + rAS 2×FS 2 , (37)

 y1 − y1k  = − f1 ( y1 y A )
∂y1 
k = 0,1, 2,... (30) where rAB1 = rAB1 ( y A ) , ... rAS 2 ( y A ) describe the momentary position
∂f 2  k +1
 y2 − y2k  = − f 2 ( y2 y A ) of the front eye bushings and the shackles relative to the axle center.
∂y2 

∂f1 ∂f 2
Here, the Jacobians ∂y1 ∂y2
can be calculated analytically.

Leaf Spring Reaction Forces

The actual forces in the front leaf eye bushing are given by

FB = F0 B + cB wX + d B uɺ X , (31)

where F0B denotes the pretension force and cB , d B are 3×3

matrices, characterizing the stiffness and damping properties of the
front leaf eye bushing. The displacement vector wX in the front leaf
eye bushing depend on the generalized coordinates y1 and y A
which describe the actual shape of the front leaf spring part and the
actual position and orientation of the solid axle. By solving Eq. 30,
y1 is given as a function of y A . Hence, wx only depends on y A Figure 8. Forces applied to the axle.

and its derivative can be determined by

As the forces in the front eye bushings FB1 , FB 2 and the
∂wX shackle forces FS1 , FS 2 depend on the axle state y A , yɺ A only, the
uɺ X = yɺ , (32)
∂y A A resulting force F and the resulting torque T are also functions of
the axle state only. Since, hereby each leaf spring acts as a
where yɺ A describes the velocity state of the solid axle. generalized force element, it can easily be integrated into the vehicle
The radial and lateral components of the shackle forces can be framework. By suppressing high frequent leaf spring eigenmodes, it
calculated from is perfectly adopted to real-time application.

FSR = uSR
T
F0 S + cSR wSR + d SR wɺ SR and FSL = uSL
T
F0 S + cSL wSL + d SL wɺ SL , (33) Bending Modes
The quasi-static approach reproduces all significant bending
where F0S represents the pretension force, uSR , uSL are unit vectors
modes of the leaf spring, Fig.9. A leaf spring is stiffer in the lateral
in the radial and lateral shackle direction, and cSR , cSL , d SR , d SL direction than in the vertical direction. Hence, a displacement in the
are constants characterizing the stiffness and damping properties of front eye bushing is noticeable only on lateral leaf spring
the shackle. The shackle displacements wSR and wSL depend on the deflections.
generalized coordinates y2 R and y A which describe the actual
shape of the rear leaf spring part and the actual position and

J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng. Copyright  2006 by ABCM October-December 2006, Vol. XXVIII, No. 4 / 435
 Georg Rill

good conformity to measurements, Fig. 10. The nonlinearity in the

spring characteristics is caused by an additional bump stop and by
the change of the shackle position during jounce and rebound.
Obviously, the five link model is accurate enough.

Free Body Module

Position and Orientation

To describe the momentary state of the body E the frame xE
yE , z E located in the center of gravity is used. In addition, sensor
points S monitor position, velocity, and acceleration at specific
body points, Fig. 11.

Figure 9. Bending modes.

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

Figure 11. Elastically suspended body.

The frame B is fixed to the vehicle. The suspension of body E

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

 
x
 B
 
r0 B, 0 = y .
 
 B (38)
 

z 
 B

The orientation of the frame axes is described by a rotation

matrix. Three elementary rotations are put together. The sequence

A0 B = Aγ B Aβ B Aα B
(39)
yaw pitch roll

results in

A0 B = [cos β B cos γ B ]
cos β B cosγ B - cosαBsinγ B sinαB sinγ B sin B sin γ B α


 
 + sin α B sin β B cosγ B + cos α B sin β B cosγ B
A0 B = cos B cosγ B
α

- sin B cosγ B α

 (40)
 
cos β B cosγ B + sinα B sin β B cosγ B + cosα B sin β B cosγ B 
- sinβ sinα B cos β B cosα B cos β B 
Figure 10. Comparison to measurements.  B

Using this model at the rear axle instead of a poor kinematic

approach means only 85% more computer run time. Hence, real
time applications are still possible. The simulation results are in

436 / Vol. XXVIII, No. 4, October-December 2006 ABCM

Vehicle Modeling by Subsystems

Hence, position and orientation of the vehicle-fixed reference 

 1 0 − sin β B  αɺ B  ω0 Bx 
frame are described by 6 generalized coordinates xB , y B , z B and
sin α B cos β B   βɺ B  = ω0 By  ,
   

 0 cos α B (48)
α B, βB,γ B . 
 0 − sin α B
 
cosα B cos β B   γɺ B  ω0 Bz 


The position and orientation of the elastically suspended body
with respect to the reference frame B is defined by where the solution of Eq. 48 is given by

γɺ B = (ω0 Bz cos α B + ω0 By sin α B ) / cos β B ,

 
x E
 
rBE , B = y .
 
 E (41) βɺ B = −ω0 Bz sin α B + ω0 By cos α B , (49)
 
z 
 E αB
ɺ = ω0 Bx + γɺ B cos α B .

and The momentary state of the reference frame B is fully

characterized by 6 generalized coordinates xB , y B , z B , α B , β B , γ B

1 0 0   cos β E 0 sin β E 

    and 6 generalized speeds v0 Bx , v0 By , v0 Bz , ω0 Bx , ω0 By , ω0 Bz .
ABE = 0

 cos α E − sin α E  ×  0 1 0  ×
    The velocity and the angular velocity of the elastically


0 sin α E cosα E  

− sin β E 0 cos β E  suspended body with respect to the inertial frame 0 is given by
(42)
 cos γ E − sin γ E 0
×  sin γ E − cos γ E 0  . v0 E , B = v0 B, B + ω0 B , B × rBE , B + rɺ BE , B ,
(50)
 0 0 1  ω0 E , B = ω0 B, B + ωBE , B ,

where the derivative of the position vector and the angular velocity
Generalized Speeds of the elastically suspended body follow from the Eqs. 41 and 42.
They read as
The velocity of the reference frame B with respect to the
inertial frame 0 is given by
 xɺ E 
=  
 xɺ B  rɺ BE , B  yɺ E  (51)
 zɺ E 
v0 B, 0 = rɺ 0 B , 0 =  yɺ B  (43)
and
 zɺ B 

The velocity denoted in the inertial frame can be transformed to


1
 0 sin β E  α

ɺ E
− sin α E cos βE   βɺ E  .
 
the reference frame ωBE , B = 0 cos α E


 (52)
 
0 sin α E


cosα E cos βE   γɺ E 
v0 B, B = A0TB rɺ 0 B , 0 . (44)
By using the components of the velocity
By this, the orthogonality of the rotation matrix
 T
v0 E , B =  v0 Ex v0 E y v0 Ez  (53)
AB 0 = A0−B1 = A0TB (45)  

was already taken into consideration. and the angular velocity

The angular velocity of the reference frame B with respect to
T
ω0 E , B = ω0 E ω0 E ω0 E

 
the inertial frame 0 may be expressed directly in reference frame   (54)
 x y z 

B
as generalized speeds, Eq. 50 can be written as a set of kinematical

1 0 − sin β B  αɺ B  differential equations
sin α B cos β B   βɺ B  .
 
ω0 B , B = 0 cos α B

 (46)
 xɺ E   v0 Ex − v0 Bx  ω0 Ex   xE 
   
 
0 − sin α B cosα B cos β B   γɺ B 
   


 ɺ  =  v −v  −  ω  ×  y  (55)
 y E   0 E y 0 By   0 Ey   E 
The 6 components of v0 B, B and ω0 B, B will be chosen as  zɺ E   v0 Ez −v0 Bz   ω0 Ez   zE 
generalized speeds now. First order kinematical differential
equations connect this speeds with the derivatives of the and
 
 xɺ B   v0 Bx 
ɺ E  ω0 Ex − ω0 Bx 
 

 ɺ  = A  v 

 1 0 sin β E  α
  

(47)  
 yB
  
0 B  0 By 
0 cos α E − sin α E cos βE   βɺ E  =  ω0 Ey −ω0 By  .
 
 (56)
  
 zɺ B  v     

0 sin α E cosα E cos βE   γɺ E   ω0 E −ω0 B 

 
 0 Bz  

 z z 

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

J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng. Copyright  2006 by ABCM October-December 2006, Vol. XXVIII, No. 4 / 437
 Georg Rill

B , the 6 generalized speeds v0 Ex , v0 Ey , v0 Ez , ω0 Ex , ω0 Ey , ω0 Ez are the vij = eijT, B  rɺ BE , B + ωBE , B × rej , B  , (66)
components of the absolute velocity and angular velocity of body
E. where rɺ BE , B and ωBE , B are given by the Eqs. 51 and 52. The forces
Fij , B , F ji , B and the torques Tij , B , T ji , B applied to body and chassis
Accelerations
are determined by
The accelerations of body E with respect to the inertia frame 0
can be expressed in reference frame B . They read as Fij , B = f  uij , vij  eij , B , F ji , B = − Fij , B , (67)

a0 E , B = vɺ 0 E , B + ω0 B, B × v0 E , B ,
(57) and
α 0E,B = ωɺ 0 E , B + ω0 B , B × ω0 E , B ,
Tij , B = rEj , B × Fij , B , T ji , B = rBi , K × F ji , B , (68)
where
where f describes an arbitrary spring/damper characteristic.
T
vɺ0 E , B = vɺ 0 Ex vɺ 0 Ey vɺ0 Ez  (58)
Equations of Motion
and
Applying liner and angular momentum to the elastically
T suspended body, one obtains
ωɺ 0 E , B = ωɺ 0 E x ωɺ 0 E y ωɺ 0 E z
(59)
mE vɺ 0 E , B = FE , B − mE  g, B + ω0 B, B × v0 E , B  (69)
follow from the Eqs. 53 and 54.
and
Force Elements
If a force element is attached to the chassis at point i and to the Θ E , B ωɺ 0 E , B = TE , B − ω0 E , B × Θ E , Bω0 E , B − Θ E , B  ω0 B , B × ω0 E , B  , (70)
body at point j , the momentary position of force element ij will
be defined by where mE , Θ E , B denote mass and inertia tensor of the free body,
FE , B , TE , B are the resulting forces and torques applied to the free
rij , B = rBE , B + rEj , B − rBi , K , (60)

 body, and g, B is the vector of gravity expressed in the body fixed
rBj , B
reference frame. These equations are coupled with the chassis
equations of motion only by the applied forces and torques. Due to
where the particular choice of generalized speeds, no mass or inertia
coupling terms appear.
rEj , B = ABE rEj , K , (61)
By using this modeling technique, Seibert and Rill (1998)
showed that the comfort of a passenger car is significantly
rBi , K , rEj , K are given by data, and rBE , B follows from Eq. 41. The influenced by the engine suspension system. The free body model
actual length can be calculated from can also be used to model an elastically suspended driver’s cab, Rill
(1993).
uija = rijT, B rij , B , (62)
Subsystem Drive Train
and the unit vector
Generic Model Structure
rij , B
eij , B = (63)
uija The subsystem drive train, Fig. 12, interacts on one hand with
the engine and on the other hand with the wheels. Hence, the
angular velocities of the wheels ω1 , …, ω4 and the engine or the
describes the momentary direction of the force element. If uij0
gear output angular velocity ω0 respectively are input quantities.
denotes the initial length of the force element, the displacement of
the force element will be formed by For this reason, the calculation of the engine torque and the
dynamics of the wheel rotation are performed in other subsystems.
uij = uij0 − uija . (64) Via the tire forces and torques, the drive train is coupled with the
steering system and the vehicle frame work.
The displacement velocity follows from

d 
vij = eijT, B  rij , B  .

(65)
dt  

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

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

Vehicle Modeling by Subsystems

Equation of Motion
The equation of motion for the drive train is derived from
Jordain’s Principle, which reads as

∑ ( Θ ωɺi i − ti ) δ ωi = 0 , (75)

where Θi is the inertia of body i , ωɺ i denotes the time derivative of

the angular velocity, ti is the torque applied to each body, and δ ωi
describe the variation of the angular velocity. Applying Eq. 75 for
the different parts of the drive train model results in

front drive shaft left : ( ΘS 1 ωɺ S 1 − tS 1 − tLF ) δ ωS1 = 0 ,

front drive shaft right : ( ΘS 2 ωɺ S 2 − tS 2 + tLF ) δ ωS 2 = 0 ,
(76)
front differential housing : ( ΘHF ωɺ HF ) δ ωHF = 0 ,
front differential input shaft : ( Θ IF ωɺ IF + tSF ) δ ωIF = 0 ,

front drive shaft : ( ΘSF ωɺ SF − tSF − tLC ) δ ωSF = 0 ,

rear drive shaft : ( ΘSR ωɺ SR − tSR + tLC ) δ ωSR = 0 ,
(77)
center differential housing : ( ΘHC ωɺ HC ) δ ωHC = 0 ,
center differential input shaft : ( ΘIC ωɺ IC + tS 0 ) δ ωIC = 0 ,

rear differential input shaft : ( Θ IR ωɺ IR + tSR ) δ ωIR = 0 ,

Figure 12. Drive train model. rear differential housing : ( ΘHR ωɺ HR ) δ ωHR = 0 ,
(78)
rear drive shaft left : ( ΘS 3 ωɺ S 3 − tS 3 − tLR ) δ ωS 3 = 0 ,
The drive train model includes three lockable differentials. The rear drive shaft right : ( ΘS 4 ωɺ S 4 − tS 4 + tLR ) δ ωS 4 = 0 .
angular velocities of the drive shafts ωS1 : front left, ωS 2 : front Using the Eqs. 71, 74, and 72 one gets:
right, ωSF : front, ωSR : rear, ωS 3 : rear left, ωS 4 : rear right are used
as generalized coordinates. ( ΘS1 ωɺ S1 − tS1 − tLF ) δ ωS1 = 0 ,
The torque distribution of the front and rear differential is 1:1. If ( Θ S 2 ωɺ S 2 − tS 2 + tLF ) δ ωS 2 = 0 ,
rF and rR are the ratios of the front and rear differential, one will  1 1    1 1 

 Θ HF  ωɺ S 1 + ωɺ S 2    δ ωS 1 + δ ωS 2  = 0 ,


get   2 2    2 2 
 
 1 1   1 1 
1 1  Θ IF  rF ωɺ S 1 + rF ωɺ S 2  + t SF   rF δ ωS 1 + rF δ ωS 2  = 0 ,
ωHF = ω S 1 + ωS 2 , 
  2 2   2
 2 
2 2 (71)
( Θ SF ωɺ SF − tSF − tLC ) δ ωSF = 0 ,
ωIF = rF ωHF ;
( ΘSR ωɺ SR − tSR + tLC ) δ ωSR = 0 , (79)

1 1 ( Θ HC ( µ ωɺ SF + (1−µ ) ωɺ SR ) ) ( µ δ ωSF + (1−µ ) δ ωSR ) = 0 ,

ωHR = ω S 3 + ωS 4 ,  Θ IC ( µ rC ω

ɺ SF + (1−µ ) rC ωɺ SR ) + tS 0  ( µ rC δ ωSF + (1−µ ) rC δ ωSR ) = 0 ,
2 2 (72) 

ωIR = rR ωHR . 
 1 1  
 1 1 
 Θ IR  rR ωɺ S 3 + rR ωɺ S 4  + t SR   rR δ ωS 3 + rR δ ωS 4  = 0 ,
 2   2 
2  2

The torque distribution of the center differential is formed by  1 1    1 1 

 Θ HR  ωɺ S 3 + ωɺ S 4    δ ωS 3 + δ ωS 4  = 0 ,


tF µ 
= ,
tR 1 − µ
where t F , t R denote the torques transmitted to the front and rear
drive shaft, and µ is a dimensionless drive train parameter. A value
of µ = 1 means front wheel drive, 0 < µ < 1 stands for all wheel
drive, and µ = 0 is rear wheel drive. If the ratio of the center
differential is given by rC then
2 2  2 2 
(73) ( Θ S 3 ωɺ S 3 − tS 3 − tLR ) δ ωS 3 = 0 ,
( ΘS 4 ωɺ S 4 − tS 4 + tLR ) δ ωS 4 = 0 .
Collecting all terms with δ ωS 1 , δ ωS 2 , δ ωSF , δ ωSR , δ ωS 3 ,
δ ωS 4 and using the abbreviations ν = 1−µ , Θ∗HF = Θ HF +rF2 Θ IF ,
Θ∗HC = Θ HC +rC2 Θ IC , and Θ∗HR = Θ HR +rR2 Θ IR finally leads to three
blocks of differential equations

 
ωHC = µ ωSF + (1 − µ ) ωSR 1 1 1
(74)

 Θ S 1+ Θ∗HF  ωɺ S 1 + Θ∗HF ωɺ S 2 = t S1 + t LF − rF tSF ,
 4  4 2
ωIC = rC ωHC  
(80)
 
1 ∗ 1 1
Θ HF ωɺ S 1 +  Θ S 2 + Θ∗HF  ωɺ S 2 = tS 2 − t LF − rF tSF ,
holds. 4  4  2
 

J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng. Copyright  2006 by ABCM October-December 2006, Vol. XXVIII, No. 4 / 439
 Georg Rill




Θ SF +µ 2 Θ∗HC  ωɺ SF + µν Θ∗HC ωɺ SR = tSF + t LC − µ rC tS 0 , Locking Torques
(81)
µν Θ ωɺ SF + Θ SR +ν Θ
∗
HC



2 ∗ 
HC  ωɺ SR = tSR − t LC − ν rC t S 0 , The differential locking torques are created by an enhanced dry
friction model consisting of a static and a dynamic part
 
1 1 1

 Θ S 3+ Θ∗HR  ωɺ S 3 + Θ∗HR ωɺ S 4 = t S 3 + tLR − rR tSR , t LF = t LF
S
+ t LF
D
,
 4  4 2
 
(82) t LC = t LC + t LC ,
S D
(89)
 
1 ∗ 1 1
Θ HR ωɺ S 3 +  Θ S 4 + Θ∗HR  ωɺ S 4 = tS 4 − t LR − rR t SR , t LR = t LR
S
+ t LR
D
.
4  4  2
 

The dynamic parts are modeled by a torque proportional to the

which describe the dynamics of the drive train. Due to its simple differential output angular velocities
structure, an extension to a 6x6 or 8x8 drive train will be straight
forward. D
t LF = d LF ( ωS 2 − ωS 1 ) ,
D
t LC = d LC (ωSR − ωSF ) , , (90)
Drive Shaft Torques D
t LR = d LR (ωS 4 − ωS 3 )
The torques in the drive shafts are given by
where d LF , d LC , d LR are damping parameters which have to be
tS 1 = cS 1 △ϕ S 1 , where : △ϕS 1 = ω1 − ωS1 ;
chosen appropriately. In steady state operating conditions, the static
tS 2 = cS 2 △ϕ S 2 , where : △ϕS 2 = ω2 − ω S 2 ; S
parts t LF S
, t LC S
, t LR will provide torques, even if the differential
tSF = cSF △ϕ SF , where : △ϕ SF = ωIF − ωSF ; output angular velocities are equal. From the Eqs. 80, 81, and 82,
tS 0 = cS 0 △ϕ S 0 , where : △ϕ S 0 = ωIC − ω0 ; (83) one gets
tSR = cSR △ϕ SR , where : △ϕ SR = ωIR − ωSR ;
1
tS 3 = cS 3 △ϕ S 3 , where : △ϕ S 3 = ω3 − ωS 3 ; D
t LF = ( t S 2 − tS 1 ) ,
2
tS 4 = cS 4 △ϕ S 4 , where : △ϕ S 4 = ω4 − ωS 4 ;
1
D
t LF = ( tSR − tSF + (2µ − 1) rC tS 0 ) , (91)
2
and cS 0 , cS 1 , cS 2 , cS 3 , cS 4 , cSF , cSR denote the stiffnesses of the
1
drive shafts. The first order differential equations can be arranged in
D
t LR = ( tS 4 − t S 3 ) .
matrix form 2

△ϕɺ = K ω + Ω 0 , (84) By this locking torque model, the effect of dry friction inside the
differentials can also be taken into account.
where
Numerical Solution
ω = ωS 1, ωS 2 , ωSF , ωSR , ωS 3 , ωS 4 
T
(85) The equations of motion 80, 81, and 82 can be combined in a
matrix differential equation
represents the vector of the angular velocities,
M ωɺ = q(△ϕ , ω ) , (92)
△ϕ = △ϕ S 1, △ϕ S 2 , △ϕ SF , △ϕ S 0 , △ϕSR , △ϕ S 3 , △ϕ
T
 
 S 4  (86)
where ω , △ϕ are given by the Eqs. 85, 86, and the mass matrix M
contains the torsional angles in the drive shafts, is built by three 2x2 submatrices


Ω0 = ω1 , ω2 , 0, −ω0 , 0, ω3 , ω4 
T
(87) MF  0 0 
 
M= 0 
 MC 0  , (93)
 
is the excitation vector, and 0  0 M R 


 −1 0 0 0 0 0  where the elements of M F , M C , and M R follow from the Eqs. 80,

 0 −1 0 0 0 0 
 81, and 82. The vector of the generalized torques is written as
1 1 
 rF rF −1 0 0 0  
1 
2 2 

 S1 t +t
− rF t SF 
LF
K = 0 0 µ rC ν rC 0 0  (88) 

2 

  
1 

 0 1 1  t −t − rF tSF 


0 0 −1 rR rR 
S2
2
LF

 2 2   
  t +t − µ rC tS 0 


 0 0 0 0 −1 0  q= 
SF LC
. (94)
 0 t −t −(1− µ ) rC tS 0 

0 0 0 0 −1   SR

LC

 
1

 S3t +t − rR tSR
LR


 2 
forms a 7x6 distribution matrix.  
 
1

 S4t −t − rR tSR
LR


 2 

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

Vehicle Modeling by Subsystems

Because the model also includes the high frequent drive shaft The change of q with respect to △ϕ leads to a 6x7 matrix
vibrations the differential equations for the drive train are stiff.
Hence, implicit integration algorithm should be used for the 
1 
numerical solution. Vehicle dynamic equations can be solved very

c
 S1 0 − rF cSF 0 0 0 0 

 2 
effectively by a modified implicit Euler algorithm, Rill (2004).  
 
1
The implicit Euler-formalism for Eq. 92 and Eq. 84 results in 
 0 cS 2 − rF cSF 0 0 0 0 

 2 
 

M ω k +1 = M ω k + h q  △ϕ k +1, ω k +1  , (95) ∂q 0 

 0 cSF − µ rC cS 0 0 0 0 

=   . (102)
∂△ϕ 0 
 0 0 −ν rC cS 0 cSR 0 0 

 
 
△ϕ k +1 = △ϕ k + h  K ω k +1 + Ω0  , (96) 
 0 0 0 0
1
− rR cSR cS 3 0 

 2 
 
 
 1 
where h is the integration step size, and the superscripts k and  0 0 0 0 − rR cSR 0 c S 3 
 2
k + 1 indicate the states at t and t + h . Applying the Taylor-  

expansion to q at △ϕ k +h △ϕɺ k and ω k , one gets The term which is finally needed in Eq. 100 is symmetric and
reads as
q  △ϕ k +1, ω k +1  ≈ q  △ϕ k +h △ϕɺ k , ω k   
1 1

−cS∗1 − rF2cSF rF cSF 0 0 0 
∂q
 

( )
 4 2 
+ △ϕ k +1 − (△ϕ k + h △ϕɺ k ) (97)  

∂△ϕ
 
 1 1 
 − rF2 cSF −cS∗ 2 rF cSF 0 0 0 
 4 
∂q  k +1  2 
+ ω − ω k  .  
 1 1 
∂ω   rF cSF rF cSF −cSF
∗ − µν rC2cS 0 0 0 
∂q 
 2 2


K=   , (103)
By using the Eqs. 84 and 96 the second term on the right side ∂△ϕ 

0 0 − µν rC2 cS 0 −cSR
∗ 1
rF cSF
1
rc


 F SF 
 2 2 
can be written as 



 1 1 
 0 0 0 rR cSR −cS 3 − rc 2 
R SR 
∂q ∂q 

( )  2 4 
△ϕ k +1−(△ϕ k +h△ϕɺ k ) = (△ϕ k +1−△ϕ k −h△ϕɺ k )  
∂△ϕ ∂△ϕ 
 0 0 0
1
rR cSR
1
− rR2cSR −c


 S4 
2 4
∂q  

= ( h  K ω k +1+Ω 0 −h  K ω k +Ω 0  ) (98)

∂△ϕ  where the abbreviations
∂q
= h K (ω k +1−ω k ) . 1 1
∂△ϕ cS∗1 = cS 1 + rF2 cSF , cS∗ 2 = cS 2 + rF2 cSF ,
4 4
Now, the implicit algorithm in Eq. 95 can be approximated by
∗
cSF = cSF + µ 2 rC2 cS 0 , ∗
cSR = cSR + ν 2 rC2 cS 0 , (104)
∗ 1 ∗ 1
c = cS 3 + rr2 cSR , c = cS 4 + rr2 cSR
M ω k +1 = M ω k + h q  △ϕ k +h△ϕɺ k , ω k  + S3
4
S4
4
 ∂q ∂q  k +1 k (99) were used.
+h  K+  (ω −ω ) ,
 ∂△ϕ ∂ω 
System Performance
which finally results in
Locking the differential improves the traction of a vehicle. In
−1 Fig. 13 the simulation results of a vehicle with rear wheel drive
 ∂q ∂q   k starting on a µ -split surface are shown.
ω k +1 = ω k + h  M − K−  q  △ϕ +h△ϕɺ , ω  ,
k k
(100)
 ∂△ϕ ∂ω  

where the partial derivatives ∂q /∂△ϕ and ∂q /∂ω can be calculated

quite easily.

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

 − d LF d LF 0 0 0 0 
 d − dLF 0 0 0 0 
 LF
∂q  0 0 − d LC d LC 0 0 
= . (101)
∂ω  0 0 d LC −d LC 0 0 
 0 0 0 0 −d LR d LR 
 
 0 0 0 0 d LR −d LR 
Figure 13. Vehicle starting on µ- split.

J. of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng. Copyright  2006 by ABCM October-December 2006, Vol. XXVIII, No. 4 / 441

At first all differentials are unlocked. The left rear wheel which
is running on a low µ -plate immediately starts spinning. At
t = 2.5 s the rear differential is locked. Now, the locking torque,
which is generated by the drive train model forces both wheels to
run with the same angular velocity.
Conclusion
Vehicle modeling by subsystems make a large variety of
applications possible. The combination of simple subsystems and
modules results in a vehicle model with a minimum number of data
and a very good run time performance. Such “light models“ can be
used to develop enhanced control strategies for electronic safety
devices. Depending on the focus of interest, more and more
subsystems and modules may be replaced by enhanced ones. Then,
sophisticated design studies or a comfort analysis are possible. If the
modified implicit Euler algorithm is also applied to the critical
subsystems drive train and steering system the numerical solution of
the overall vehicle model still will not be time consuming.
References
[1] ADAMS/Chassis 12.0 Reference Guide.
[2] Fickers, P.; Richter, B.: Incorporating FEA-Techniques into MSA
illustrated by several Rear Suspension Concepts. In: 9th European ADAMS
User Conference, Frankfurt, November 21st/22nd, 1994.
[3] Gipser, M.: Reifenmodelle für Komfort- und
Schlechtwegsimulationen. In: Tagungsband zum 7. Aachener Kolloquium
Fahrzeug- und Motorentechnik. IKA, RWTH Aachen und VDI 1998.
442 / Vol. XXVIII, No. 4, October-December 2006
Georg Rill
[4] Hirschberg, W.; Rill, G.; Weinfurter, H.: User-Appropriate Tyre-
Modeling for Vehicle Dynamics in Standard and Limit Situations. Vehicle
System Dynamics 2002, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 103-125. Lisse: Swets &
Zeitlinger.
[5] van der Jagt, P.: The Road to Virtual Vehicle Prototyping; new
CAE-models for accelerated vehicle dynamics development. PhD-Thesis,
Tech. Univ. Eindhofen, Eindhofen 2000, ISBN 90-386-2552-9 NUGI 834.
[6] Matschinsky, W.: Radführungen der Straßenfahrzeuge. Springer,
Berlin 1998.
[7] Neureder, U.: Untersuchungen zur Übertragung von
Radlastschwankungen auf die Lenkung von Pkw mit Federbeinvorderachse
und Zahnstangenlenkung. Fortschritt-Berichte VDI, Reihe 12, Nr. 518.
Düsseldorf: VDI Verlag 2002.
[8] Rauh, J.: Virtual Development of Ride and Handling Characteristics
for Advanced Passenger Cars. Vehicle System Dynamics, 2003, Vol. 40,
Nos. 1-3, pp. 135-155.
[9] Rill, G.: Demands on Vehicle Modeling. In: The Dynamics of
Vehicles on Road and on Tracks. Ed.: Anderson, R.J., Lisse: Swets-
Zeitlinger 1990.
[10] Rill, G.; Rauh, J.: Simulation von Tankfahrzeugen. In: Berechnung
im Automobilbau, VDI-Bericht 1007. Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag 1992.
[11] Rill, G.: Modeling and Dynamic Optimization of Heavy
Agricultural Tractors. In: 26th International Symposium on Automotive
Technology and Automation (ISATA). Croydon: Automotive Automation
Limited 1993.
[12] Rill, G.: Simulation von Kraftfahrzeugen. Vieweg, Braunschweig
1994.
[13] Rill, G.: A Modified Implicit Euler Algorithm for Solving Vehicle
Dynamics Equation. To Appear In: Multibody System Dynamics, 2004.
[14] Seibert, Th.; Rill, G.: Fahrkomfortberechnungen unter
Einbeziehung der Motorschwingungen. In: Berechnung und Simulation im
Fahrzeugbau, VDI-Bericht 1411. Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag 1998.
[15] tesis: www.tesis.de.
ABCM