Development of a multi-body simulation model of the DAF Dakar rally truck

G.R. Siau T.L. Spijkers
Report No. DCT 2006.092

Internal Traineeship
Supervisors: Dr. Ir. I.J.M. Besselink Prof. Dr. H. Nijmeijer

Eindhoven University of Technology Department of Mechanical Engineering Dynamics and Control Technology Group Eindhoven, Aug 2006

Summary
Jan de Rooy has a well established reputation within the toughest rally in the world, the notorious Dakar rally. Before a new rally truck can be built, the last rally is meticulously evaluated to make the new truck better than the last one. To assist in this evaluation, a multi-body vehicle model of the truck is made. The objective of this report is to give an overview of how a vehicle model is made of the present Dakar truck by means of the simulation program SimMechanics and what the effects will be of altering vehicle parameters such as wheelbase shortening and moving the centre of gravity to the rear of the vehicle, on the dynamic behaviour of the vehicle. And which of these configurations has the most favourable dynamic behaviour. This baseline vehicle model is a simple representation of the rally truck that allows us to examine the suspension geometry, kinematics and dynamic behaviour. Because of this assumption, the cabin and cargo compartment are “fixed” to the chassis. The model consists of four wheels, two axles, a chassis, a cabin and a cargo compartment at the rear end. The suspension and steering mechanism consists of two lower tie rods, two leaf springs, four spring damper combinations (2 per wheel) including a fast rebound system, a pitman arm, a steering rod, a steering shaft and two bumpstops on each side of the axle. The front suspension includes a triangle connecting the differential housing to the chassis to maintain the centre of the axle on the centre line of the vehicle. The rear suspension includes an anti-roll bar. Simulation of all possible scenarios of the Dakar rally is not only a lot of work but is also highly inefficient. Therefore, only the most extreme and difficult scenario’s will be used as a reference to be simulated. The baseline vehicle is first exposed to some static simulations to check the parameters of the vehicle given by the engineers at DAF such as ride height and axle loads. Subsequently, this baseline vehicle is exposed to a one meter high road bump, a road with camelgrass, a road with a deep gap on the left side of the truck and a pavé road. Subsequently, some changes in parameters are made to evaluate the effects on the dynamic behaviour. To be efficient in examining the truck only the road bump scenario will be examined. The baseline vehicle model with a wheelbase of 4400 [mm] will be the first to be examined. Other variants are the change in wheelbase and the change in the longitudinal position of the centre of gravity. For this scenario the centre of gravity is shifted to the back by 10%. All vehicle configurations will be submitted to an altered stroke ratio of the front axle. The total stroke of both axles is 400 [mm] which is 200 [mm] inward and 200 [mm] outward. Only the stroke ratio of the front axle is altered from 50/50% to 65/35%. That is a 260 [mm] inward and a 140 [mm] outward stroke. Furthermore, the influence of the fast rebound system will be examined. In general it can be said that altering the stroke ratio of the front axle will give a better pitch behaviour of the vehicle and the rear axle will be less inclined to lose contact with the road after landing, but will result in higher vertical tyre forces of the front axle. Moving the centre of gravity 10% to the rear does not give much difference in effects in comparison with the baseline vehicle. In conclusion, a wheelbase of 4000 [mm] and altering the stroke ratio of the front axle, to 260 [mm] of inward and 140 [mm] of outward stroke with respect to its static position, gives the best results with respect to the pitch behaviour of the vehicle. Furthermore, this configuration reaches its static state in the shortest period of time after the bump, which is favourable for the driver. A downside to this configuration is that the vertical tyre force of the front axle is higher, about 10000 [N] with respect to the baseline vehicle with a wheelbase of 4400 [mm]. High tyre forces can wreck a tyre in certain conditions. The main reason of these effects is the fact that the fast-rebound system is not active after the vehicle has landed. Both of the axles use the full damper travel and the collision with the bumpstops is not so intense.

/w

1

The results show that the fast rebound system has a big influence on the dynamic behaviour of the vehicle. However, there is no realistic data available for comparison so designing an accurate fastrebound system in the vehicle model would be a good recommendation. Other recommendations are: spreading the pre-loads over the leaf springs and coil springs, investigation of the bumpsteer effect and attaining realistic data of the rally truck for model validation.

/w

2

Samenvatting
Jan de Rooy heeft binnen de welbekende Dakar rally een zeer goede reputatie weten op te bouwen. Voordat een nieuwe truck kan worden gebouwd, wordt de vorige rally nauwkeurig onderzocht en nabesproken om verbeteringen in de nieuwe truck te implementeren. Om in dit onderzoek hulp te bieden is er een multibody voertuigmodel van de truck gemaakt. Het doel van dit rapport is een overzicht te geven van hoe een model van de huidige Dakar truck gemaakt is met behulp van SimMechanics, wat de effecten zullen zijn van het veranderen van voertuigparameters met betrekking tot het dynamische gedrag van het voertuig en welke van deze configuraties het meest gunstige dynamisch gedrag vertoont. Hieronder valt het verkorten van de wielbasis en het naar achteren verleggen van het zwaartepunt. Deze ‘baseline’ voertuig model is een simpele representatie van de rally truck dat ons in staat stelt om de geometrie van de ophanging, de kinematica en het dynamische gedrag te onderzoeken. Deze aanname heeft als gevolg dat de cabine en laadruimte vastzitten aan het chassis. Het model bestaat uit vier wielen, twee assen, een chassis, een cabine en een laadruimte op de achterzijde. De ophanging en stuurinrichting bestaan uit twee asgeleiders, twee bladveren, vier veerdemper combinaties (twee per wiel) inclusief een ‘fast rebound systeem’, een pitman arm, een stuurstang, een spoorstang en twee ‘bumpstops’ aan elke zijde van de as. De voorwielophanging bevat tevens een triangel verbinding van het differentieel met het chassis om zo het centrum van de as op de middellijn van het voertuig te houden. De achterwielophanging bevat tevens een anti-rol bar. Het simuleren van alle mogelijke scenario’s van de Dakar rally is niet alleen veel werk, maar is ook zeer inefficiënt. In dit rapport worden alleen de meest extreme en moeilijke scenario’s gebruikt om zo efficiënt mogelijk te simuleren. Het basis voertuigmodel wordt eerst blootgesteld aan enkele statische simulaties om de voertuigparameters te controleren die zijn gegeven door de ingenieurs van DAF. Onder deze parameters worden de rijhoogte en aslasten verstaan. Achtereenvolgens wordt deze basis voertuigmodel blootgesteld aan een één meter hoge afstap (road bump), een wegdek met kamelengras, een wegdek met een diep gat aan de linkerzijde van het voertuig en een pavé wegdek. Vervolgens worden er enkele parameters verandert om de effecten van het voertuig model te onderzoeken met betrekking tot het dynamische gedrag ervan. In dit rapport wordt alleen de ‘road bump’ onderzocht. Het basis voertuigmodel met een wielbasis van 4400 [mm] zal als eerste worden onderzocht. Verder worden een verandering in wielbasis en een verandering in de x-positie van het zwaartepunt onderzocht. Voor het tweede geval wordt het zwaartepunt 10% meer naar achteren verschoven. Alle voertuig configuraties zijn onderhevig aan een verandering in slagverhouding van de vooras. De totale slag van beide assen is 400 [mm], dat is 200 [mm] ingaande slag en 200 [mm] uitgaande slag. Alleen de ratio van de vooras wordt veranderd van 50/50% naar 65/35%. Dit komt overeen met 260 [mm] ingaande slag en 140 [mm] uitgaande slag. Verder wordt de invloed van het fast rebound systeem onderzocht. In het algemeen kan er gezegd worden dat het veranderen van de slagverhouding van de vooras een betere domp gedrag vertoont en dat de achteras minder neigt om contact te verliezen met het wegdek na de landing. Echter, deze configuratie resulteert in hogere verticale bandkrachten van de vooras. In vergelijking met het basis voertuigmodel geeft het naar achteren verschuiven van het zwaartepunt met 10% niet veel verschil. Ter conclusie kan gezegd worden dat een wielbasis van 4000 [mm] inclusief een verandering van de slagverhouding van de vooras (260 [mm] ingaande slag en 140 [mm] uitgaande slag met betrekking tot de statische positie) het beste resultaat geeft. Verder bereikt deze configuratie zijn statische positie na de sprong in het kortste tijdbestek wat gunstig is voor de bestuurder. Een nadeel van deze configuratie is echter dat de verticale bandkrachten op de vooras groter zijn, zo’n 10000 [N] in vergelijking tot het basis voertuigmodel. Hoge bandkrachten kunnen in bepaalde situaties een band verwoesten. De hoofdreden van deze effecten is het feit dat het fast rebound systeem niet actief is nadat het voertuig is geland. Beide assen maken gebruik van de volledige demperslag en het botsen met de bumpstops is niet zo intens.

/w

3

De resultaten geven aan dat het fast rebound systeem veel invloed heeft op het dynamisch gedrag van het voertuig. Er is echter geen realistische meetdata beschikbaar ter vergelijking dus het ontwerpen van een nauwkeurige fast rebound systeem in het voertuig model zal een goede aanbeveling zijn. Andere aanbevelingen zijn: het verdelen van de pre-loads over de bladveren en de schroefveren, het onderzoeken van het bumpsteer effect en het verkrijgen van realistische data van de rally truck om zo het model te kunnen valideren.

/w

4

......2 Spring damper combination ......................................................................................................29 4............................................1 Front and rear axle .................................................................................................................................2...........................................3..............................3 Sprung mass inertia............................7 3.......3...........26 Road gap .2 Wheels .................................................2 Vehicle 65/35 stroke Fast-rebound On vs Off .............25 Camel grass.......3............................................................................................................................2 1...17 2.....................................24 Static analysis ......3 Baseline vehicle 50/50 vs 65/35 ..........9 2................................30 4......3...................................................3 3...................5 Mass moments of inertia......................................14 2..........................................................27 Pavé road ..................................................................................33 /w 5 .......2 Wheelbase 4000 [mm]...............1 Leaf spring .....................1 Leafspring ..................................................................1 Vehicle components.............Summary......2 3....................................................1 Steering system........................................1..........................1 3....................................................5............18 2......................................................1...........................2 Vehicle 65/35 stroke Fast-rebound On vs Off .............................................................................................................................................32 4...9 2....................................................3...............................2 Front suspension ...................................17 2........................7 Objective/aim.......................................................................3.....................................3 Lower tie-rods.............................3 Vehicle 50/50 vs 65/35 Fast-rebound On ..........................................................................................................................2.24 3............13 2...........................................31 4..................................................................24 Road bump ....................................4 Anti-roll bar ................................................................................................4 3..................29 4...............23 3 Analysis of the baseline vehicle model..........................................20 2....5 3............................................................................3...................................14 2........................................................7 2 The Rally truck ...................................................................................................... 13 2........3 Model parameters ....28 4 Parameter study ....30 4...............1 1.....................................19 2....................................................5.........................................18 2..............................................................33 4..............1 Baseline vehicle Fast-rebound On vs Off ...........................15 2..1.....................................................................2...3 Background/motivation ...........................3..........................................................5.........................3 Rear suspension .................................................7 Contents of report ...............2 Fast Rebound system .............3...........................................................................3 Triangle and lower tie-rods ........................................................................................... 17 2....................27 Variation anti-roll bar stiffness.....2 Spring damper combination ..........11 2.......................1 Vehicle 50/50 stroke Fast-rebound On vs Off ..............................................................8 Simulation conditions ................2............................................................2.................................................................................1 Samenvatting.......22 2...............................................................................................................................................................3..........................................................3...............................................................................................................................................16 2........................................2 Vehicle dimensions and parameters ..................................7 1....................8 2.........................................4 Total stiffness of the front and rear axle ..................1 The Vehicle model...................................................1......12 2................................................2........................................................20 2.....................................................3...............3....................................................................................28 Simulation criteria .................3...............................................................................................................................................3 1 Introduction ...........................................................1.............................................32 4......1 Wheelbase 4400 [mm]..........6 3................................................................................

........................1..................................................... A....................................................................1...... Vehicle 50/50 vs 65/35 Fast rebound On.....1....................47 B.....1...............48 B..43 Pavé road ..............................................1 Vehicle 50/50 stroke Fast-rebound On vs Off ..... Vehicle 50/50 stroke Fast rebound On vs Off ............... Road bump ...............34 4............................................. Vehicle 65/35 stroke Fast rebound On vs Off ...................................................................54 B. A...1................37 5................................ A........................ A...................3.....................39 A Simulation results of the baseline vehicle model.....................34 4......................2 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................3.......36 5 Conclusions and recommendations ....2......................................38 References .............................................2....................................41 A......................................................................................... Vehicle 65/35 stroke Fast rebound On vs Off .........................................2..50 B............................................. Baseline vehicle 50/50 vs 65/35 ...........................................................................................................................50 B...3.2.......................................................4 Evaluation of the different configurations ................................. Wheelbase 4400 [mm] and CG 10% to rear ................5............................................................3...........2 Vehicle 65/35 stroke Fast-rebound On vs Off ...............................................................3......................51 B..................................................1.............................3........................................3......... Vehicle 50/50 vs 65/35 Fast rebound On..... Baseline vehicle Fast rebound On vs Off.......3....................44 Variation in anti-roll bar stiffness ....................................3......1 5..............4......................................................................................... Wheelbase 4400 .......47 B...............................1............................................................4............2...........53 B.....................47 B.3 Wheelbase 4400 [mm] and CG 10% to rear ................................................... Vehicle 65/35 stroke Fast rebound On vs Off ..........................35 4........................................................53 B..................................37 Recommendations ...................................................................................42 Road gap .........................................................................................................55 /w 6 ..............................41 Camelgrass......1............... Wheelbase 4000 ....45 B Parameter study ............3....3 Vehicle 50/50 vs 65/35 Fast-rebound On .........................................2...........2...2................................35 4..........................49 B..3...52 B................ Vehicle 50/50 stroke Fast rebound On vs Off ................................

This research is completed by means of Matlab version 7. If a SimMechanics vehicle model is properly constructed in accordance with the real rally truck a lot of information from simulations can be used to decide what the best configuration of the new rally truck will be. The second configuration is almost the same as the first configuration except for the wheelbase. The wheelbase is set to 4 [m] instead of 4. camel grass at a low speed and very big gap on the left side of the road with a relatively high speed. The centre of gravity is shifted to the back of the vehicle by 18 [mm]. for determining the parameters for the new rally truck. this is the model with the parameters similar to the real vehicle.2 Objective/aim The objective of this report is to give an overview of how a vehicle model is made of the Dakar truck of 2006 by means of the simulation program SimMechanics and what the effects will be of altering vehicle parameters such as wheelbase shortening and shifting the centre of gravity to the rear of the vehicle. To help decide what the rally truck configuration for the next Dakar rally will be. objective end contents of this report will be discussed. Before a new rally truck can be built the last rally is meticulously evaluated to make the new truck better than the last one. Chapter 4 will deal with the analysis of different types of vehicle configurations and a comparison will be made. The third and last configuration is again almost the same as the first except for the centre of gravity. /w 7 .1 (R14) Service pack 3 1. These scenarios include a jump at high speed. especially for determining its dynamic behaviour. 1. will be evaluated while driving on different types of road surfaces. This can save both al lot of time and money.1 Introduction In this chapter the background. Every year a new rally truck is built in cooperation with some of the most experienced DAF engineers.1 Background/motivation Jan de Rooy has a well established reputation within the toughest rally in the world. For the simulations a few extreme scenarios have been selected in accordance with the DAF engineers. All the dimensions used for the different parts are taken from original drawings from DAF or are given by DAF engineers.3 Contents of report The outline of this report is as follows. Such a software package can be of great importance for the development of new products. because no prototypes have to be built. a vehicle model in SimMechanics has been made. Nowadays a lot of different manufacturers make use of multi-body software packages like SimMechanics for instance. In the last chapter of this report conclusions and recommendations will be given. In chapter 3 the baseline vehicle model. Chapter 2 gives an overview of the vehicle model as it is constructed in SimMechanics. the notorious Dakar rally.4 [m] for the baseline model. on the dynamic behaviour of the vehicle. the configuration with the most favourable dynamic behaviour will be selected. can be a multi-body software package. The first configuration is called the baseline model and is a model with parameters similar to the current rally truck of 2006. A very useful tool. Furthermore. In this report a comparison will be made between three different configurations. 1.

/w 8 . Because the visualisation of SimMechanics is very poor the model is coupled to the Virtual Reality toolbox. Within this Virtual Reality toolbox these motions and orientations can be coupled to geometric primitives like a box or cylinder. The motion and orientation of a tyre can be coupled to a cylindrical geometry in the toolbox. This Virtual Reality toolbox allows for better conception of the vehicle model. points of suspension and parameters listed in this chapter have been checked by DAF engineers. s_time Clock Steering angle Throttle Brake DAF Rally Truck Figure 1 The DAF Rally truck For better conception of the rally truck in question a vehicle model is constructed. If this is done for more bodies like the axles and the cabin. All the dimensions of parts. In SimMechanics the actual simulation is done and subsequently the motion and orientation of several bodies can is exported to the Virtual Reality toolbox. This model is created using the MATLAB/Simulink multibody toolbox SimMechanics. a virtual reality representation is created.2 The Rally truck This chapter discusses the vehicle as it is modelled in SimMechanics.

2. the centre of the rear axle is set at x =-4. y = 0 [m] and z = 0. The x-axis is the centre line of the vehicle so y = 0 is the middle of the vehicle.6 [m].5 inch) which leads to the chosen height of the front axle. • • • Origin: • • • x = 0 (Front axle) y = 0 (Plane of symmetry) z = 0 (Road level) Positive x pointing forward Positive y pointing to the left Positive z pointing upwards A right handed coordinate system has been used to model the vehicle. The vehicle model consists of the following rigid bodies: • • • • • 4 wheels Front and rear axle Chassis Cabin Loading space Figure 3 Graphical representation using the Virtual Reality toolbox /w 9 . Furthermore. Figure 2 Graphical representation using SimMechanics In figure 3 is the graphical representation depicted of the vehicle model in using the Virtual Reality toolbox.1.1 Vehicle components The vehicle model is created in a 3 dimensional space. The centre of the front axle is positioned at x = 0 at a height of 0. The outer diameter of the tyres 0.6286 [m] (49.6 [m]. 2.1 The Vehicle model This paragraph shows the different components that are used in the vehicle model. The system orientation is defined as shown in figure 2. The projection of the centre of the front axle on the z = 0 plane is the model reference point.4 [m].

2 combinations per wheel including the fast rebound system (not visible in the figure) See paragraph 2. 2 on each side of the axle (not visible in the figure) See paragraph 2.4 Anti-roll bar (not visible in figure) Some of the suspension components of the real rally truck are not included in this basic model. The bump dampers above the leafspring are not included as well as the steering damper.2 Figure 6 Rear suspension front view Figure 6 shows the rear suspension of the vehicle model: 1 2 3 4 5 2 Leaf springs 2 Lower tie rods 4 Spring damper combinations. /w 10 .2 4 Bumpstops. 2 combinations per wheel including the fast rebound system (not visible in the figure) See paragraph 2.1. Triangle connection of the differential to the chassis Steering shaft 4 Bumpstops (not visible in the figure) See paragraph 2.4 4 spring damper combinations.Figure 4 Front suspension and steering system side view Figure 5 Front suspension and steering system rear view Figure 4 and 5 show the front suspension and components of the steering system of the vehicle model: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pitman arm Steering rod (attached to pitman arm) 2 Leafsprings 2 Lower tie rods Front axle control rods.1.

/w 11 . Within the damper there’s a mechanical valve that opens during a certain drop of the axle or outward stroke of the damper. This causes the axle to remain contact with the road for a longer period of time which will lead to more traction on bumpy roads. When this sum is below the 1100 [N] the damping constant will be reduced to 5% of its original value. how and at what conditions the valve opens is not known.1. The damper fluid is now diverted through a different channel what results in a much lower outgoing damping value. A simple model is used within SimMechanics which is based on the sum of the spring and damper force. When.2 Fast Rebound system The dampers that are used by the rally truck are equipped with a so called fast rebound system.2. The system originates from the world of motocross and found its way to the Dakar Rally.

2. engine.2 • • • • Vehicle dimensions and parameters Vehicle length Vehicle width Wheelbase Axle clearance = 6603 mm = 2500 mm = 4400 mm = 450 mm (distance centre axle to bottom chassis beam) To determine the centre of gravity a static calculation is made. The stiffness and damper constants of the vehicle suspension are given below. By taking the sum of these vertical forces the distance of the centre of gravity with respect to the front axle is calculated. /w 12 . fuel) C. loading space.O. These damping constants are a good representation of the damper constants used on the real truck.G. • • • • • • • • • Vehicle mass = 8500 kg Axle load front = 4900 kg Axle load rear = 3600 kg Wheel mass = 150 kg (rim and tyre) Front axle mass = 700 kg (exclusive rims and tyres) Rear axle mass = 600 kg (exclusive rims and tyres) Sprung mass = 6600 kg (chassis.G. with respect to front axle = 1800 mm (horizontal distance) C. • • Stiffness coil spring front Stiffness coil spring rear Damping constant instroke front Damping constant outstroke front Damping constant instroke rear Damping constant outstroke rear Stiffness leaf spring Roll stiffness anti-roll bar Vertical tyre stiffness (front) Vertical tyre stiffness (rear) Vertical tyre damping (front) Vertical tyre damping (rear) = 35 N/mm = 10 N/mm = 7000 Ns/m = 11200 Ns/m = 7000 Ns/m = 11200 Ns/m = 35 N/mm = 201823 Nm/rad. cabin. with respect to road surface = 1260 mm (vertical distance) The vertical distance of the C. The damping constants used for the in and out-stroke are an average value within their range and are the same for the front and rear axle.G with respect to the road surface can not be calculated and is a relatively good estimate of DAF engineers.O.O. 3522 Nm/deg = 600000 N/m = 450000 N/m = 500 Ns/m = 500 Ns/m • • • • • • • • • • The instroke damping constant varies within the range of 6000 [Ns/m] and 8000 [Ns/m]. The outstroke damping constant varies within the range of 8200 [Ns/m] and 18000 [Ns/m]. The loads on the front axle and rear axle are known as well as the total vehicle mass.

wheel hub steering is applied. Side view 7 Pitman arm Chassis 6 Steering-rod 5 Center-frontaxle Rear view 7 Chassis 6 5 Center-frontaxle Figure 7 Steering system In the model wheel hub steering is applied instead of steering with the steering mechanism depicted in figure 7.3 Model parameters A few AutoCAD drawings have been made to give an overview of all the mounting coordinates of the suspension.1 Steering system The mounting and hinge points of the steering system are depicted as nodes in figure 7. To avoid this effect. /w 13 . 2. All suspension rods of the front and rear axle are expected to be mass less. Node 6 and 5 refer to the hinge points of the steering rod. This is due to the fact that the model shows a small amount of bumpsteer effect with the current geometry.2.3. Node 7 refers to the hinge point of the pitman arm.

but the outward damper travel is at best 160 [mm] if a spring shackle length of 130 [mm] is used. To attain 200 [mm] of outgoing damper travel a spring shackle length of 160 [mm] is used instead of 130 [mm]. Giving this degree of freedom to one mounting point is a simple way of modelling this movement in longitudinal direction. The stretched length of the leaf spring is 2000 [mm]. as given by the DAF engineers. to allow some motion of the front attachment point. in order to avoid over constraining the suspension system.2. /w 14 . Furthermore. a horizontal degree of freedom in longitudinal direction on the front mounting point of the leaf spring is added by means of a non-linear spring. A model using this approach is called an SAE 3-link model [1].2 Front suspension In this paragraph AutoCAD drawings are shown of the suspension parts of the front axle. 2. This results in a leaf spring as shown in figure 8.3. Chassis Center-axle Figure 8 Leafspring The leaf springs are modelled as three bodies interconnected by revolute joints with an associated torsion stiffness that provides equivalent force-displacement characteristics as found in the actual leaf springs. In reality a leaf spring has some movement in longitudinal direction through rubber bushings.1 Leaf spring The coordinates of the leaf spring can be seen in figure 8.2.3. The inward damper travel of 200 [mm] is attainable. The leaf springs used in our simulations are not in accordance with the leaf spring specifications of DAF.

2. The distance of the centre of the axle with respect to the bottom of the chassis is 450 [mm] in the static state. Front view 12+13 Side view 12 13 Chassis Chassis 14 14+15 Center-frontaxle 15 Center-frontaxle Figure 9 Spring damper combination /w 15 . Each side of the axle has 2 spring damper combinations. Node 12 and 13 refer to the mounting points with respect to the chassis.2 Spring damper combination The mounting points of the spring damper combination of the front axle are depicted as nodes in figure 9.3. Node 14 and 15 refer to the mounting points of the spring damper combination to the front axle.2.

3.2. Nodes 10 and 11 refer to the mounting points which connect the lower tie-rod to the chassis.3 Triangle and lower tie-rods The mounting point of the triangle and the lower tie-rods are depicted as nodes as can be seen in figure 10. Nodes 8 and 9 refer to the mounting points which connect the triangle to the chassis and axle respectively. Figure 11 Front axle control rods (triangle) /w 16 . Figure 11 shows this solid body and clarifies the connection of these 2 rods to the differential of the front axle. axle respectively.2. Side view Chassis 8 Triangle 9 10 Lower-tierod Center-frontaxle 11 Front Chassis 8 8 10 9 Center-frontaxle 10 11 11 Figure 10 Triangle and lower tie-rods The triangle is modelled as 2 bodies whereas in reality these front axle control rods consist of one solid body.

16+17 16 17 Front Side view Chassis Chassis 18+19 Center-rearaxle 18 19 Center-rearaxle Figure 13 Spring damper combination /w 17 .3. Node 16 and 17 refer to the mounting points with respect to the chassis.2 Spring damper combination The mounting points of the spring damper combination of the rear axle can be seen in figure 13.3.2.3. The distance between the centre of the axle and the bottom of the chassis is also 450 [mm] in the static state which means that the vehicle has a zero degree of pitch angle.1 Leafspring The coordinates of the leaf spring can be seen in figure 12. Node 18 and 19 refer to the mounting points to the rear axle. The leafspring used at the rear suspension is has exactly the same dimensions and characteristics as the leaf spring at the front.3.3 Rear suspension In this paragraph AutoCAD drawings are shown of the suspension parts of the rear axle.3. 2. Chassis Center-axle Figure 12 Leafspring 2. The rear axle also has 2 spring damper combinations on each side of the axle.

2 “Vehicle dimensions and parameters”. rear axle respectively Front Side view Chassis Chassis 20 21 Center-rearaxle 20 Center-rearaxle 21 Figure 14 Lower tie-rods 2.2.4 Anti-roll bar For modelling simplification the anti-roll bar is modelled as a joint with a rotational stiffness around the x-axis. The stiffness is given in paragraph 2. Nodes 20 and 21 refer to the mounting points which connect the lower tie-rod to the chassis.3.3.3 Lower tie-rods Figure 14 shows the mounting points and its coordinates which are depicted as nodes. It is not depicted in the virtual reality model however.3. /w 18 .3.

4 14 12 Vertical tyre force [N] x 10 Vertical stiffness front axle 14 12 Vertical tyre force [N] x 10 4 Vertical stiffness rear axle 10 8 6 4 2 0 −0. In the upward movement there are a few sudden changes in slope in the graph.1 0 0.16 [m] in contradiction with the 0.2 Figure 15 Vertical stiffness of the axles The vertical movement of the axles is restricted by the leafspring at the bottom and the chassis beam at the top.13 [m] that is given by the engineers at DAF.1 Coilspring deflection [m] 0.20 [m] of ingoing damper travel there is the restriction of the chassis beam and this restriction is modelled as a very high stiffness (900 [N/mm]). Notice that the spring shackle length used in this model is 0.16 [m] of ingoing damper travel the second set of bumpstops come into operation and the stiffness will then be 100 [N/mm] each.2 [m] of upward and 0.09 [m] of ingoing damper travel the first two bumpstops come into operation and their stiffness will be 50 [N/mm] each. At 0.2 −0. Then at 0. The slope of these graphs is the stiffness of the concerning axles. The outgoing damper travel is restricted by the geometry of the leafspring. In static position there is 0.2 10 8 6 4 2 0 −0. Figure 16 show the bumpstops mounted on the real rally truck.2 −0.1 Coilspring deflection [m] 0.2 [m] of downward movement.4 Total stiffness of the front and rear axle In figure 15 the vertical tyre force is plotted against the coil spring deflection for the front and rear axle of the vehicle model. At 0.2. Figure 16 Bumpstops /w 19 .1 0 0.

Figure 17 Ixx and Izz plane I xx = I zz = 700 1. 2.1) In this case the moment of inertia in the x – plane equals the inertia in the z plane: Ixx = Izz. In this model. Figure 18 Iyy plane /w 20 .7552 = 179.67 kgm 2 12 (2. we use rigid bodies and describe the moment of inertia of these bodies using the mass moment of inertia tensors.755 m M 2 L 12 (2.5 Mass moments of inertia To accomplish a realistic behaviour of the masses we need the mass moment of inertia..2. A rod is taken as a representation and the corresponding formula is: I xx = I zz = Where: • M = 700 kg • L = 1.1 Front and rear axle To compute the inertia of the front axle an assumption is made for the solid shape of the axle.5. Only the concerned plane is different as is shown in figure 18. Figure 17 illustrates the concerned plane.2) For Iyy the same formula is used.

310m h = 2*0.75 kgm 2 12 (2.350m Which leads to an inertia of: (2.4) (2.3502 ) = 12.155 = 0.5) I yy = The inertia tensor then becomes: 700 (0. The plane of the cross section is not rectangular but will be assumed so.755 m This leads to the inertia tensor: I rear _ axle 0 ⎤ ⎡155 0 ⎢ 0 11 0 ⎥ =⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 155⎥ ⎣ ⎦ (2.8) /w 21 . Where: • • M = 600 kg L = 1.3) l = 2*0.7) For the rear axle the same method is used for calculating the mass moment of inertia tensor.6) I front _ axle 0 ⎤ ⎡180 0 = ⎢ 0 13 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 180 ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ (2.3) is used to compute the Iyy: I yy = Where: M 2 (l + h 2 ) 12 (2.3102 + 0.175 = 0. Equation (2.The length is not a simple parameter here.

254 m (radius) h = 0.10) The mass moment of inertia tensor becomes: I rim ⎡2 0 0⎤ = ⎢ 0 2.5.4 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢0 0 2⎥ ⎣ ⎦ (2.tir”. To determine the mass moment of inertia of the rim.11) /w 22 .9) I yy = Where: • • • M = 75 kg r = 0.2 Wheels The inertia of the tyre is given in the “Michelin XZL.file.2.384 m (width) (2. we use the inertia formula for a solid cylinder [2]: I xx = I zz = 1 M (3r 2 + h 2 ) 12 1 Mr 2 2 (2.

603 m (length) = 2.3 Sprung mass inertia The inertia of the chassis will include the inertia of the engine and cabin plus loading space.13) (2.2. the formula for a homogeneous body [3] is used. For the width w the rear width is used.14) Where: • • • • M w l h = 6600 kg (including cabin = 800 kg.0 m (height) The front of the chassis is less wide as the rear of the chassis.3 m (width) = 6. The height h of the so called ‘chassis’ used in the computations is the height of the cabin: The mass moment of inertia tensor then becomes: I chassis 0 0 ⎤ ⎡3130 ⎢ 0 =⎢ 26180 0 ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 24910 ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ (2.15) /w 23 . fuel = 500 kg) = 1. I xx = M 2 (w + h2 ) 12 M 2 I yy = (l + h 2 ) 12 M 2 2 I zz = (w + l ) 12 (2. engine =1000 kg.12) (2. For calculating the inertia of this chassis.5.

446 0.2 2 1.4 2.1 Simulation conditions To simulate all known possible scenarios of the Dakar rally is not only a lot of work but is also highly inefficient.6 1.452 0. These different scenarios consist of different types of road surfaces.456 0. 3. 3. The simulations in this chapter are done for the baseline vehicle. there are a few aspects which need to be checked. The results of the simulations are included in the appendix A.454 0.8 mm = 450.2 mm = 449. Figure 19 represent the axle clearance and the vertical tyre force of the model in the static state.2 distance bottom chassis − center axle [m] 0. Therefore.458 0. To determine the most extreme and difficult conditions during the Dakar rally.448 0.46 2.3 Analysis of the baseline vehicle model In this chapter the different simulation scenarios will be discussed. only the most extreme and difficult scenarios will be used as a reference to be simulated as efficient as possible.0 mm Axle load front Axle load rear = 4900 kg = 3600 kg /w 24 .4 1. At first the axle loads of the model have to be compared with the calculated axle loads (see 1. both De Rooy drivers gave their thoughts on what they experience as being the most extreme and difficult circumstances. The axle clearance is the distance between the bottom of the chassis beam and axle centre.45 0.6 Front Rear 2. x 10 4 0.444 Front Rear 0 2 4 time [s] 6 8 10 vertical tyre force [N] 0 2 4 time [s] 6 8 10 Figure 19 Static analysis Axle clearance front Axle clearance rear Actual = 450.2 Static analysis Before doing any simulations.2 “Vehicle dimensions and parameters”) and the second aspect is the axle clearance.8 1.

After one period of full in and outstroke. it almost reaches the point of maximum negative damper travel (-200 [mm]). In figure 20 is a sketch given of the road bump as used in the simulations. The damper travel is zero in steady state.2. /w 25 .The axle clearance can be adjusted by altering the pre-load on the coil springs. reacts differently compared to the front axle. there is not much fluctuation of damper travel. Negative damper travel indicates a greater distance than 450 [mm] and positive damper travel indicates a shorter distance than 450 [mm] between the chassis bottom and the axle centre. Because the tyres have no road contact. After passing the point where the damper travel is zero. which almost leads to lifting the rear axle. for reaching steady state. This means that there is no pre-load on the leaf springs. therefore the response of the right side is the same as the left side of the vehicle. At about 8 [s] the front axle leaves the bump and 0. During this stroke the vertical tyre force reaches its maximum value of about 90 [kN] for the front and rear axle.2 [s] later the rear axle leaves the bump. In the second graph the vertical tyre force [N] is plotted against time [s]. At about 8. The rear axle however. This explains why the damper velocity is relatively high on the outstroke after leaving the bump.5 [s] the truck touches the ground again and the compression stroke begins. In this model the coil springs account for 100% of the pre-load. The truck will drive up a small hill while driving in a straight line with a velocity of 100 [km/h] and drops 1 [m] down onto the road. This means that if there is no road contact. one can see that the front is damped very strongly. Both axles make full use of the mounted bumpstops. this means the distance between the bottom of the chassis and the centre of the axle is 450 [mm]. is nearly the same for both the front and rear axle. During this “air time”. These values are in accordance with paragraph 2. there will be no damping on the outstroke of the damper. the fast-rebound feature of the damper comes in action. 3. This can suggest that the spring stiffness does not match the damper coefficient on the outstroke of the damper on the rear axle.3 Road bump The first scenario is a drop of the rally truck. The axle almost utilizes its maximum vertical displacement (400 [mm]). Directly after leaving the bump the damper travel is negative. The vertical force for the rear tyres is 17658 [N] and that is 1800 [kg] for each tyre. After passing the point where the damper travel is zero. The results can be seen in appendix A1. the vertical tyre force is zero because of the lack of road contact and the damper reaches its maximum outstroke. After this the rear axle gradually reaches its steady state again. The vertical tyre force of the front tyres is 24035 [N] and that is 2450 [kg] for each tyre. the dampers move in the outstroke direction. In the base model the axle clearance is set to 450 [mm] for both the front and rear axle. The overall time. 1 [m] 170 [m] Figure 20 Road bump Both tracks of the vehicle encounter the road obstacle at the same time.

high values of vertical tyre forces are unwanted because of the relatively low tyre pressure there is a great risk of wrecking the tyre. This makes detailed modelling like cabin suspension redundant. The rally truck will drive at a velocity of 40 [km/h]. because of the compression stroke of the dampers on the rear axle. In the damper travel graph one can see that the maximum damper stroke for the front is about 300 [mm] and for the rear 200 [mm]. This assumption is made because modelling the cabin suspension in SimMechanics would require too much time and is currently of secondary concern because of the other assumptions. The height of the camel grass is set on 0.05 [m] and the rear about -0. After the front axle touches the ground. The equilibrium points are different as well. After leaving the ramp the angle is about 9 [deg]. The last graph represents the pitch angle of the truck in its centre of gravity. Before leaving the bump the pitch angle is slightly negative which is due to the fact that the truck is driving on the slope of the bump.The graph with the cabin acceleration represents the acceleration of a point in the cabin at the position of the head of the driver. the z-position of the wheel centres. The highest values of acceleration are in the z – direction which is due to the impact of the truck touching the ground. A positive angle means that the front side of the truck is lower than the rear side. When driving in such terrain. In the z – position graph one can clearly distinguish the different responses of the sprung and unsprung masses. 4 [m] 0.4 [m] Figure 21 Camelgrass The results of the camel grass simulation can be seen in appendix A2.10 [m] of damper travel. the pitch angle decreases and reaches a small negative value.4 Camel grass The second scenario is camel grass. The real cabin accelerations are probably lower than the accelerations measured in the model of the truck. The obstacles in this scenario are said to be as hard as concrete. One of the assumptions taken is that the cabin is rigidly mounted on the chassis. Namely that the chassis. 3. The highest values of cabin acceleration are in the z-direction due to the impact of the truck. This indicates that the distance between the axle centre and chassis bottom is slightly greater at the rear than at the front and is confirmed by the positive value of the chassis pitch angle in the last graph. the centre of gravity and the chassis pitch angle. The high negative damper velocities are due to the fast-rebound dampers. The peak values for the vertical tyre forces are 60 to 70 [kN]. /w 26 . Unlike the road bump simulation.4 [m] as can be seen in figure 21. for the front -0. Every time the tyre loses road contact there is no damping on the outward stroke of the damper and the axle drops down generating high velocities. The last two graphs show respectively. cabin and body are modelled as being one body. there is acceleration in the lateral direction because of the shift in wavelength of the left and right track.

the truck has absolutely no difficulty in driving over this type of road surface. The average speed for normal trucks on this type of road surface is about 50 [km/h] and has a big impact on the suspension. The road surface of pavé has been given by DAF engineers. The rally truck will drive at a velocity of 120 [km/h]. the result of the low tyre pressure used in the simulation. 0. There is very little damper travel.The z-direction graph shows that the movement of the centre of gravity is very little compared to the movement of the front and rear axle. The simulation results can be seen in appendix A4. The cabin accelerations and the chassis pitch angle are not worthy of mentioning because their peak values are relatively low compared to the previous simulations. For the rally truck is 50 [km/h] on this type of road surface not a major challenge so the velocity for the rally truck is set to 120 [km/h]. After entering the gap.3 [m] 3 [m] Figure 22 Road gap The first thing that attracts the attention is the high level of vertical tyre force on the front left tyre. damper velocities and vertical tyre forces between the front and rear is. Figure 22 shows that the gap is 3 [m] long and 0. This is. the front left tyre loses road contact and just like the preceding simulations the fastrebound feature on the damper tries to restore this contact by strongly reducing the damping coefficient on the outward stroke of the damper. The tyre pressure is indirectly implemented in the model by means of the vertical tyre stiffness and damping.5 Road gap This scenario is a road surface with a rectangular gap.3 [m] deep and will be applied to the left track only. This is favourable because the roughness of the road surface is absorbed by the suspension. The high positive peak in the damper velocity is caused by the tyre being forced upwards at the end of the gap what results in high vertical tyre forces. The most critical aspect in this simulation is by far the vertical tyre force. The simulation results can be seen in appendix A3. This explains the relatively high negative damper velocity. among other things.6 Pavé road The last scenario is a paved road surface. One look at the simulation results confirms what could be expected in advance. The rally truck will drive at a velocity of 120 [km/h]. The difference in damper travel. With the frequency spectrum of the pavé road surface of the DAF test track in St. due to the difference in axle loads. high vertical tyre forces can destroy a tyre. among other things. As said in the previous paragraph. 3. low damper velocities and cabin accelerations are kept to a minimum. Oedenrode is a road file created for use in SimMechanics. Normally DAF uses this type of road surface for suspension durability tests. 3. /w 27 .

like the real truck. In the fifth graph the vertical tyre force for each wheel is plotted against the lateral vehicle acceleration for 100% of the anti-roll bar stiffness. The converted spring stiffness of the torsion spring is listed in paragraph 2. According to equation (3. This anti-roll bar has been simplified in SimMechanics and has been modelled as a torsion spring. this difference in vehicle roll angle is very small as well.1) the lateral vehicle acceleration is dependent on the cornering speed and the cornering radius: ay = V2 R (3. the difference is very small.7 Variation anti-roll bar stiffness The truck model is equipped with an anti-roll bar on the rear axle. solid blue line.The overall impression of this type of road condition is that it absolutely poses no threat for the suspension of the rally truck and is not one of the most extreme conditions that can be encountered during the Dakar rally. What can be concluded from these simulation results is that the variation of anti-roll bar stiffness does not have a great impact on the vehicle roll angle and the resulting vertical tyre force variations. one can draw the conclusion that the road bump has by far the greatest impact on the suspension because of the high vertical tyre forces and the maximum use of the available damper travel. and for 60% of the anti roll-bar stiffness. The anti-roll bar stiffness is varied in the range of 60% to 100% of the original stiffness. between 60% and 100% of the original stiffness. Jan de Rooy himself also agreed that this scenario can occur in a real Dakar rally. What could be concluded from the former results is being confirmed by this last graph. with steps of 10%. 3. /w 28 . does not have major effects on the vertical tyre force.2. This graph elucidates the difference in tyre forces between 100% and 60% of anti-roll bar stiffness and as said before. dotted red line. 3. In the first five graphs the vertical tyre forces are plotted against the lateral vehicle acceleration ay [m/s2]. For the next chapter the road bump scenario is used to compare the different vehicle configurations and ride heights. the variation of the anti-roll bar stiffness.8 Simulation criteria Looking at the results of the simulations done in this chapter. The vehicle configuration used for the simulation is the baseline vehicle configuration. The last graph shows the vehicle roll angle for the different values of anti-roll bar stiffness on the rear axle. The simulation results can be seen in appendix A5.1) As can be seen in the graphs of the simulation results. The vertical distance between the centre of gravity and the roll centre is relatively small and probably the main reason for this behaviour.

That is 260 [mm] of inward and 140 [mm] of outward stroke.] 3 2.5 4 3. All vehicle configurations will also be submitted to an altered stroke ratio of the front axle.5 vehicle roll angle [deg. the influence of the fast-rebound system will be examined.5 1 0. Other examinations are the change in wheelbase and the change in the longitudinal position of the centre of gravity.1 Wheelbase 4400 [mm] The vertical loads on the wheels are given in table 1. The stroke ratio of the front axle is altered from 50/50 % to 65/35 %. The roll angle of the vehicle model is shown in figure 23. The baseline vehicle model with a wheelbase of 4400 [mm] will be the first to be examined.5 0 0 1 2 3 ay [m/s2] 4 5 6 7 Figure 23 Vehicle roll angle /w 29 . The total stroke of the axle is 400 [mm] which is 200 [mm] inward and 200 [mm] outward. Furthermore.4 Parameter study To be efficient in examining the truck only the road bump scenario will be examined. 4.5 2 1. For this scenario the centre of gravity is shifted backwards by 10%. Tyre Vertical load [kg] Front left 2450 Table 1 Front right 2450 Vertical load Rear left 1800 Rear right 1800 vehicle roll angle 5 4.

6 [s]. After touchdown of both the axles. Except for the rear axle. The damper travel of the front axle starts with a negative value.1 the results of the baseline vehicle with and without the fast-rebound system is shown.6 [s] can be seen. The peak value of the z acceleration at about 8. the force at the front axle builds up again. This means that the bumpstops are not colliding with the leaf springs anymore.6 [s]. This collision can also be seen in the figure of the vertical tyre force. that remains in contact with the road after touchdown.1. This increase is not high enough to give a substantial impact however. This is due to the extra clearance the system provides during the drop of the axle. This is not an effect of the fast-rebound system however. The front of the vehicle has more ground clearance and therefore starts with a negative value of damper travel. the vehicle pitches forward and the rear axle tends to lose contact with the road. The vertical tyre force figure shows not much difference between the system being activated or not.2 Vehicle 65/35 stroke Fast-rebound On vs Off Next.4. The higher damper velocities when airborne verify that the system is active. Both axles manage to reach the 400 [mm] as in reality.1. The vehicle still remains pitching substantially after landing when the fast-rebound system is activated. This is due to the fact that the rear axle doesn’t have an outward damping value. Looking at the damper travel we can see that the fast-rebound system makes a big difference. With this system activated there’s a higher positive value after touchdown.2 the results of the vehicle with and without the fast-rebound system is shown. In this figure one can also see the rapidly falling axles due to the fast-rebound system. In the figure of the damper velocity it can also be seen that the fast-rebound system is working correctly. one can see the peaks in z and x accelerations when the vehicle is airborne. We can also see a peak value in the z-acceleration of the cabin at about 8.1. When looking at the cabin accelerations.6 [s] is not visible anymore.1. In appendix B. This is a result of the new 65/35 ratio. 4. This means that the weight of the rear axle doesn’t generate enough vertical force to pitch the vehicle back as it would do when the outward damping would be non zero. The rear axle doesn’t reach the bumpstops hard enough. In the figure of the vertical tyre force a big difference can be seen between the fastrebound system being on and off. This is a result of the leaf springs colliding with the bumpstops. /w 30 . The rear axle stays in contact with the road for as long as possible while the vehicle keeps building up positive pitch. At 8. When looking back at the vertical tyre force a slight increase of the force on the front axle at 8. With the fast-rebound system on. .1 Baseline vehicle Fast-rebound On vs Off In appendix B. the stroke ratio of the front axle is altered and the effects of the fast-rebound are examined. we can see that the axle tends to lose contact somewhat later. A significant difference between the fast-rebound system on or off is noticeable in the pitch of the vehicle.

Also. the pitch angle of the 65/53 configuration when it is airborne is lower. The vertical tyre force figure shows a higher peak for the 65/35 configuration when the front axle touches the road. /w 31 .3 Baseline vehicle 50/50 vs 65/35 Subsequently a comparison is made between the baseline vehicle and the altered stroke ratio. After touchdown of both the axles. The front axle of the 65/35 configuration however doesn’t reach the total inward stroke of 200 [mm].acceleration of the cabin.1.1.4. In appendix B. we can also see a decrease of positive pitch. Of course the ride height of the vehicle is slightly higher than the baseline vehicle. This can also be derived from the z . Conversely.3 is the comparison results given. The first thing to be noticed is the same behaviour of the rear axle due to the ratio not being altered. the collision of the leafspring with the bumpstop is less intense.

5 1 0. A high negative pitch after landing results in the rear leaf springs to collide with the bumpstops as well as the front axle. /w 32 . The fast-rebound system therefore has a significant impact on the behaviour of the vehicle.1 the results of the vehicle with a wheelbase of 4000 [mm] with and without the fastrebound system is shown. Shortening of the wheelbase results in a decrease of the load on the front axle. but an increase of the load on the rear axle.5 2 1.2 Wheelbase 4000 [mm] The vertical loads on the wheels are given in table 2. The fast-rebound system being active can be seen in the figure of the damper travel and damper velocity.5 4 3.2. However. Of course this will lead to a higher positive z-acceleration of the cabin. The roll angle of the vehicle model is shown in figure 24 and this configuration doesn’t show much difference with respect to the baseline vehicle Tyre Vertical load [kg] Front left 2314 Table 2 Front right 2314 Vertical load Rear left 1936 Rear right 1936 vehicle roll angle 5 4.2. This high negative pitch is a result of the front dampers having no outward damping due to the fast-rebound system.1 Vehicle 50/50 stroke Fast-rebound On vs Off In appendix B.] 3 2.5 vehicle roll angle [deg. now the front axle loses contact with the road after landing.4.5 0 0 1 2 3 ay [m/s2] 4 5 6 7 Figure 24 Vehicle roll angle 4.

Another positive result is the fast stabilisation of the vehicle pitch.3 Vehicle 50/50 vs 65/35 Fast-rebound On Next we are going to investigate the comparison between the configurations with a wheelbase of 4000 [mm] with the normal 50/50% stroke ratio and the 65/35% stroke ratio. /w 33 . When we look at the vertical tyre force at about 9. neither of the axles loses contact for the second time.3 are the comparison results given.2. 4. the altered version of the front stroke ratio is examined but now with a wheelbase of 4000 [mm]. As said before. The front axle doesn’t collide so intensely with the bumpstops.2. In appendix B. This leads to a less intense collision with the bumpstops. the vertical force on the front axle when touching the road is slightly increased and the front axle of the 65/35 ratio doesn’t reach the maximum inward stroke. the 65/35 ratio has much more stable pitch behaviour.2 Vehicle 65/35 stroke Fast-rebound On vs Off Subsequently.2. However. After both the axles have touched the road.2 the results of this vehicle with and without the fast-rebound system is shown. The front axle of this ratio configuration doesn’t lose contact with the road anymore in comparison with the 50/50 ratio. Also in this configuration the full damper travel is reached.0 [s] we can see that the forces on both the axles are high enough for the fast-rebound system not to be active.2. The fast-rebound is not active the second time which can be seen in the figure of the damper velocity.4. but are a result of shortening the wheelbase of the model. These important advantages are not a result of the fast-rebound system. In appendix B.

3.5 0 0 1 2 3 ay [m/s2] 4 5 6 7 Figure 25 Vehicle roll angle 4.5 4 3.3 Wheelbase 4400 [mm] and CG 10% to rear The vertical loads on the wheels are given in table 3.5 2 1. The roll angle of the vehicle model is shown in figure 25 and also this configuration doesn’t show much difference with respect to the baseline vehicle Tyre Vertical load [kg] Front left 2314 Table 3 Front right 2314 Vertical load Rear left 1936 Rear right 1936 vehicle roll angle 5 4. This is exactly the opposite when compared to the simulation results of the configuration with a wheelbase of 4000 [mm]. Also in this figure the effect can be seen of the obvious active fast-rebound system.5 vehicle roll angle [deg. Shifting the centre of gravity to the rear will result in a decrease of the load on the front axle.1 Vehicle 50/50 stroke Fast-rebound On vs Off The last configuration to be examined is the baseline vehicle with a wheelbase of 4400 [mm] with the centre of gravity shifted to the back with 10%.4. The fast-rebound system is again responsible for the rear axle to decrease its vertical tyre force somewhat later. /w 34 . but an increase of the load on the rear axle. The positive pitch of the vehicle at this time is also a result of the fast-rebound system.5 1 0. In appendix B. where the front axle lifts.1 the results of this vehicle with and without the fast-rebound system is shown. after the vehicle touches the road with both axles. What directly attracts the attention when looking at the results is that the rear axle lifts after landing.3.] 3 2.

has not been modelled fully in accordance with the real fast-rebound system. The fastrebound system in the model is based on the sum of the spring and damper forces. The main difference between the vehicle with and the vehicle without the fast-rebound system is the behaviour of the rear axle. A main difference is the fast-rebound system of the vehicle with the altered stroke ratio. When this sum is below 1100 [N] the damping constant will be reduced to 5% of its original value. the stroke ratio of the front axle is altered to 65/35%.3. 4. This difference in behaviour between fast-rebound on and off is due to the fact the fast-rebound system used in the model.3 the results of this vehicle with and without the fast-rebound system is shown. None of the configurations lose contact with the road after landing.2 the results of this vehicle with and without the fast-rebound system is shown.3. After the vehicle has landed. The main consequence is that the fast-rebound system is now dependent on the pre-load of the spring. a comparison is made between the vehicle including a wheelbase of 4400 [mm] with a 10% offset of the CG and this same vehicle with the altered stroke ratio of 65/35%. The vertical force on the front axle of the vehicle with a 65/35% ratio has a higher peak value but does not collide so intense with the bumpstops. In appendix B.3. The overall pitch of the vehicle is lower and also the positive pitch after the vehicle has landed is lower. /w 35 . what makes it differ from the real system. In appendix B.2 Vehicle 65/35 stroke Fast-rebound On vs Off Next. the damper velocity of both axles do not show the same peak values in comparison with the vehicle with a 50/50% stroke ratio.3 Vehicle 50/50 vs 65/35 Fast-rebound On Subsequently. The positive pitch angle after the vehicle has landed is still present.4.3.

The 65/35% stroke ratio configuration has a higher vertical force on the front axle.4. The overall pitch angle of the vehicle is similar except for the negative pitch angle which is more negative when the centre of gravity is shifted to the back. However. the axles incline less towards loosing contact with the road when the centre of gravity is shifted to the back. If now the stroke ratio of the front axle is set to 65/35% (wheelbase 4400 [mm]) a higher value of the vertical tyre force on the front axle can be seen. Next. The vertical tyre forces are quite similar except for the fact that the altered configuration does not collide so hard with the bumpstops in comparison with the baseline vehicle. The fast-rebound system at the front axle is not active anymore during this timeframe. To make an insight of the advantages of these parameter changes. centre of gravity 10% shifted to the back. but has a less intense collision with the bumpstops due to the longer inward damper travel. such as wheelbase shortening and moving the centre of gravity to the rear of the vehicle. Subsequently. The collision with the bumpstops is less intense as can seen before with this stroke ratio. First the baseline vehicle is compared with the configuration: wheelbase 4400 [mm] and a stroke ratio of 65/35%. on the dynamic behaviour of the vehicle. the baseline vehicle is compared with the configuration wheelbase 4000 [mm]. the peak in the z-acceleration of the cabin (as can be seen in the results of the baseline vehicle) is not visible anymore. This leads to a small collision of also the rear axle with the bumpstops. As a result. A result of this fast-rebound system not being active is the higher vertical force on the front axle which leads to a less intense collision with the bumpstops. The configuration where the centre of gravity is shifted to the back does not show great differences with the baseline vehicle model.4 Evaluation of the different configurations One of the objectives of this report is to see what the effects will be of altering vehicle parameters. the negative pitch angle is substantial. Both axles remain in contact with the road. the baseline vehicle is compared with all these different configurations. there is no realistic data available to check this event. the baseline vehicle is compared with the configuration: wheelbase 4400 [mm]. The amount of pitch of the vehicle during the jump is lower as well as the positive pitch angle after landing. After the vehicle had landed. /w 36 . The vehicle pitch angle during the jump is lower and there is no high negative pitch angle anymore. Unfortunately. Shortening the wheelbase to 4000 [mm] results in a different behaviour of the front axle. If now the stroke ratio of the front axle is set to 65/35% (wheelbase 4000 [mm]) a better behaviour of the front axle after landing can be seen.

Altering the stroke ratio of the front axle of this configuration. gives the best results with respect to the pitch behaviour of the vehicle. Wheelbase shortening gives a different behaviour of the front axle which results in undesirable pitch movements of the vehicle. wheelbase shortening to 4000 [mm] with a stroke ratio of 65/35 of the front axle is the best configuration. The configuration with the most favourable dynamic behaviour will be selected. which is favourable for the driver. but will result in higher vertical tyre forces of the front axle. A downside to this configuration is that the vertical tyre force on the front axle is about 10000 [N] higher.1 Conclusions This report gives an overview of how the vehicle model is constructed within the SimMechanics multibody toolbox of MATLAB and which assumptions are done to make the behaviour of the model as realistic as possible. The main reason of these effects is the fact that the fast-rebound system is not active after the vehicle has landed. In general it can be said that altering the stroke ratio of the front axle will give a better pitch behaviour of the vehicle and the rear axle will be less inclined to lose contact with the road after landing. This chapter deals with the conclusions that can be drawn on the basis of simulation results and the recommendations for future work. on the dynamic behaviour of the vehicle. This is an increase of 11% with respect to the baseline vehicle. Both of the axles use the full damper travel and the collision with the bumpstops is not so intense.5 Conclusions and recommendations One of the objective of this report is what the effects will be of altering vehicle parameters. High tyre forces can destroy a tyre in certain conditions. Moving the centre of gravity 10% to the rear does not give much difference in effects in comparison with the baseline vehicle. /w 37 . Therefore. Judging the results of the simulations on the basis of what de driver feels or thinks what happens with the suspension is very difficult and to make a realistic model validation real-time vehicle data is needed and therefore the rally truck has to be equipped with sensors. Furthermore this configuration reaches its static state in the shortest period of time after the bump. such as wheelbase shortening and shifting the centre of gravity to the rear of the vehicle. 260 [mm] of ingoing and 140 [mm] of outgoing damper travel. 5.

/w 38 . Other recommendations concern attaining real data of the rally truck: • • • • The real outgoing damper travel of rally truck has to be checked. The current model has no pre-load on the leaf springs. There is little to no measurement data or technical drawings available and the small amount we have is not available in any database.5. Therefore.2 Recommendations To improve the current vehicle model there are some recommendations. A more detailed construction has to be made. In general. Therefore the bumpsteer effect has to be investigated. Damper tests should be carried out to learn more about the characteristics of the dampers and perhaps the fast rebound system. The communication with DAF could be improved. modelling an accurate fast-rebound damper in SimMechanics is of great importance. the chassis cabin and cargo compartment are modelled as rigid bodies with one mass and one mass moment of inertia. For example. realistic data of the rally truck has to be attained for model validation. The pre-loads of the vehicle have to be spread over one leafspring and two coil springs. The shackle length of the leaf spring used in the model is 160 [mm] instead of 130 [mm] to attain 200 [mm] of outgoing damper travel as claimed by DAF engineers. Early simulations with this vehicle model showed bumpsteer effects and to avoid these effects wheel hub steering has been used. • • • • The results show that the fast-rebound system has a significant influence on the behaviour of the vehicle for certain configurations.

2006 http://prt.2006 /w 39 .html. 2004 http://scienceworld. Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann. Multibody systems approach to vehicle dynamics.de/lehre/KURSE/PRT001/course_main/node25.fernuni-hagen. 07 . D.wolfram.. M.References [1] [2] [3] Harty. (2004).html. 07 .com/physics/MomentofInertiaCylinder. ISBN 0-7506-5112-1. Blundell.

Appendix /w 40 .

5 0 7 8 9 time [s] 10 11 /w 41 . Road bump 0.1 0 −0.1.5 2 10 chassis pitch in CG [deg] 12 z−position [m] Front Rear CG 8 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 7 8 9 time [s]] 10 11 12 1.1 −0.A Simulation results of the baseline vehicle model A.3 4 damper velocity [m/s] 0.5 1 0.2 Front Rear Front Rear 2 damper travel [m] 0.2 7 8 9 time [s] x 10 4 0 −2 10 11 12 −4 7 8 9 time [s] 10 11 12 12 40 vertical tyre force [N] 10 8 6 4 2 0 7 8 9 time [s] 10 11 cabin acceleration [m/s2] Front Rear X Z 20 0 −20 12 −40 7 8 9 time [s] 10 11 12 2.

2.2 1 2 3 4 5 time [s] 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 time [s] 6 7 8 8 x 10 4 100 6 cabin acceleration [m/s2] vertical tyre force [N] Front left Front right Rear left Rear right 50 X Y Z 4 0 2 −50 0 1 2 3 4 5 time [s] 6 7 8 Front right Front left Rear right Rear left CG −100 1 2 3 4 5 time [s] 6 7 8 2 6 chassis pitch in CG [deg] 4 2 0 −2 −4 −6 1 2 3 4 5 time [s]] 6 7 8 z−position [m] 1.5 1 0.1 damper velocity [m/s] Front left Front right Rear left Rear right 2 0 −2 −4 −6 Front left Front right Rear left Rear right 0 −0.2 4 damper travel [m] 0. Camelgrass 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 time [s] 6 7 8 /w 42 .1 −0.A.

05 4 damper travel [m] 0 damper velocity [m/s] Front left Front right Rear left Rear right 2 Front left Front right Rear left Rear right −0.5 0 −0.1 −2 −0.A.5 3 3.15 2 3 4 time [s] 5 6 −4 2 3 4 time [s] 5 6 15 x 10 4 15 cabin acceleration [m/s2] vertical tyre force [N] 10 Front left Front right Rear left Rear right 10 5 0 −5 −10 −15 2.3.5 1.5 1.5 time [s] 4 X Y Z 5 0 2 3 4 time [s] 5 6 4.5 0 2 3 4 time [s] 5 2 3 4 time [s]] 5 6 /w 43 .5 −1 0.05 0 −0. Road gap 0.5 chassis pitch in CG [deg] 6 z−position [m] 1 Front right Front left Rear right Rear left CG 1 0.

4 chassis pitch in CG [deg] 10 z−position [m] 1 0.4. Pavé road 0.5 8 9 10 −1 5 6 7 time [s] 8 9 10 5 10 vertical tyre force [N] 4 3 2 1 0 cabin acceleration [m/s2] Front left Front right Rear left Rear right 5 X Y Z 0 −5 5 6 7 time [s] 8 9 10 −10 5 6 7 time [s] 8 9 10 1.01 0 −0.8 0.02 5 6 7 time [s] x 10 4 Front left Front right Rear left Rear right 0.4 Front right Front left Rear right Rear left CG 0.4 1.2 5 6 7 time [s] 8 9 −0.01 −0.5 Front left Front right Rear left Rear right 0 −0.2 0.04 1 damper velocity [m/s] 0.4 5 6 7 time [s]] 8 9 10 /w 44 .03 damper travel [m] 0.02 0.6 0.2 0 −0.A.

5 0 2 4 ay [m/s ] 2 6 2 0 2 4 ay [m/s ] 2 6 8 2 x 10 4 Rear left tyre 3. Variation in anti-roll bar stiffness 2.5 100 90 80 70 60 x 10 4 Rear right tyre 100 90 80 70 60 1.5 3 Fz tyre [N] 1 Fz tyre [N] 8 2.5 0.5 Fz tyre [N] 8 3 1 2.5 Fz tyre [N] 1.5 0 2 4 2 ay [m/s ] 6 8 /w 45 .5 0.5.5 2 0 0 2 4 2 ay [m/s ] 6 1.A.5 x 10 4 Front left tyre 4 100 90 80 70 60 x 10 4 Front right tyre 100 90 80 70 60 2 3.

4 x 10 4 3.5 0 0 1 2 3 ay [m/s ] 2 4 5 6 7 vehicle roll angle 6 100 90 80 70 60 5 4 vehicle roll angle [deg.5 Fz tyre [N] 2 1.5 3 2.5 1 0.] 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 ay [m/s2] 4 5 6 7 /w 46 .

5 9 time [s] 9.5 12 vertical tyre force [N] x 10 4 40 cabin acceleration [m/s2] 10 8 6 4 2 0 7.5 8 8.5 Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 4 2 Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 0 −2 10 10.5 9 time [s]] 9.3 0.1.5 9 time [s] 9.5 9 time [s] 9.5 10 10.1 0 −0.5 2.5 9 time [s] Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 20 X FastR off Z FastR off X FastR on Z FastR on 0 −20 9.1. Baseline vehicle Fast rebound On vs Off 0.5 9 time [s] 9.5 1 0.5 /w 47 .1 −0.1.5 10 10.5 8 8.5 8 8.5 2 z−position [m] chassis pitch in CG [deg] Front FastR off Rear FastR off CG FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on CG FastR on 10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 7.B Parameter study B.5 10 10.5 0 7.5 10 10.2 7.5 8 8.5 8 8.5 −40 7.2 damper travel [m] damper velocity [m/s] 0.5 8 8.5 −4 7. Wheelbase 4400 B.5 FastR off FastR on 1.5 10 10.

1 −0.2 damper velocity [m/s] damper travel [m] 0.5 /w 48 .5 9 time [s] 9.5 9 time [s] 9.3 0.2.5 9 time [s] cabin acceleration [m/s2] Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 20 X FastR off Z FastR off X FastR on Z FastR on 0 −20 9.5 −4 7. Vehicle 65/35 stroke Fast rebound On vs Off 0.5 9 time [s]] 9.1 0 −0.5 10 10.5 8 8.2 7.5 10 10.B.5 8 8.5 9 time [s] 9.5 9 time [s] 9.5 −40 7.5 8 8.5 FastR off FastR on 1.5 1 0.5 10 10.5 2 chassis pitch in CG [deg] z−position [m] Front FastR off Rear FastR off CG FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on CG FastR on 10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 7.5 10 10.5 8 8.5 Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 4 2 Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 0 −2 10 10.5 8 8.5 2.1.5 12 x 10 4 40 vertical tyre force [N] 10 8 6 4 2 0 7.5 8 8.5 10 10.5 0 7.

5 10 10.5 9 time [s] 9.5 10 10.5 12 x 10 4 40 vertical tyre force [N] 10 8 6 4 2 0 7.5 9 time [s] 9.5 0 −2 −4 7.5 10 10.5 9 time [s] 9.5 8 8.5 cabin acceleration [m/s2] Front base Rear base Front 65/35 Rear 65/35 20 X base Z base X 65/35 Z 65/35 0 −20 10 10.5 0 7.5 10 10.2 damper velocity [m/s] damper travel [m] Front base Rear base Front 65/35 Rear 65/35 4 2 Front base Rear base Front 65/35 Rear 65/35 0.5 Front base Rear base CG base Front 65/35 Rear 65/35 CG 65/35 10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 7.3 0.5 9 time [s] 9.5 /w 49 .1.5 8 8.5 8 8.5 8 8.5 2.5 −40 7.5 2 chassis pitch in CG [deg] z−position [m] 1.2 7.5 8 8.1 0 −0.5 1 0. Baseline vehicle 50/50 vs 65/35 0.1 −0.5 9 time [s] 9.B.5 9 time [s]] 9.5 10 10.3.5 base 65/35 8 8.

5 Front FastR off Rear FastR off CG FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on CG FastR on 10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 7.5 8 8.1 −0.5 10 10. Vehicle 50/50 stroke Fast rebound On vs Off 0.5 9 time [s]] 9.5 9 time [s] 9.2 damper velocity [m/s] damper travel [m] Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 4 2 Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 0.5 1 0.5 10 10.2 7.5 10 10.5 FastR off FastR on 8 8.5 /w 50 .5 8 8.5 10 10.5 −40 7.5 8 8.5 2.3 0.2.5 10 10.1 0 −0.5 10 10.2.5 0 −2 −4 7.B.5 8 8.5 9 time [s] 9.5 9 time [s] 9.1.5 9 time [s] cabin acceleration [m/s2] Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 20 X FastR off Z FastR off X FastR on Z FastR on 0 −20 9. Wheelbase 4000 B.5 2 chassis pitch in CG [deg] z−position [m] 1.5 12 x 10 4 40 vertical tyre force [N] 10 8 6 4 2 0 7.5 9 time [s] 9.5 0 7.5 8 8.

3 0.5 10 10.5 10 10. Vehicle 65/35 stroke Fast rebound On vs Off 0.5 8 8.5 1 0.5 FastR off FastR on 1.5 9 time [s] 9.2.5 2.5 8 8.5 9 time [s]] 9.5 /w 51 .5 10 10.5 8 8.5 8 8.5 Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 0 −2 −4 7.2.2 damper velocity [m/s] damper travel [m] Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 4 2 0.2 7.5 12 x 10 4 40 vertical tyre force [N] 10 8 6 4 2 0 7.B.5 10 10.5 9 time [s] 9.5 10 10.5 9 time [s] cabin acceleration [m/s2] Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 20 X FastR off Z FastR off X FastR on Z FastR on 0 −20 9.1 −0.5 9 time [s] 9.5 9 time [s] 9.5 10 10.5 8 8.5 8 8.5 0 7.5 −40 7.5 2 chassis pitch in CG [deg] z−position [m] Front FastR off Rear FastR off CG FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on CG FastR on 10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 7.1 0 −0.

1 0 −0.5 8 8.5 8 8.5 −40 7.1 −0.2.2 damper travel [m] damper velocity [m/s] Front 40 Rear 40 Front 40 65/35 Rear 40 65/35 4 2 Front 40 Rear 40 Front 40 65/35 Rear 40 65/35 0.5 9 time [s] 9.5 0 7.B.5 /w 52 .3 0.5 8 8.5 12 vertical tyre force [N] x 10 4 40 cabin acceleration [m/s2] 10 8 6 4 2 0 7.5 9 time [s] 9.5 8 8.5 8 8.5 10 10.5 0 −2 −4 7.5 2 z−position [m] chassis pitch in CG [deg] Front 40 Rear 40 CG 40 Front 40 65/35 Rear 40 65/35 CG 40 65/35 10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 7. Vehicle 50/50 vs 65/35 Fast rebound On 0.5 10 10.3.5 10 10.2 7.5 1 0.5 10 10.5 9 time [s] 9.5 10 10.5 9 time [s]] 9.5 2.5 8 8.5 40 40 65/35 1.5 10 10.5 9 time [s] Front 40 Rear 40 Front 40 65/35 Rear 40 65/35 20 X 40 Z 40 X 40 65/35 Z 40 65/35 0 −20 9.5 9 time [s] 9.

5 9 time [s] 9.3 0.5 8 8.5 10 10.5 2 chassis pitch in CG [deg] z−position [m] 1.5 8 8.5 10 10.5 9 time [s]] 9.5 /w 53 .5 9 time [s] 9.5 FastR off FastR on 8 8.3.5 1 0.1.5 −4 7.5 10 10.5 10 10.2 7.5 Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 4 2 Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 0 −2 10 10.5 9 time [s] cabin acceleration [m/s2] Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 20 X FastR off Z FastR off X FastR on Z FastR on 0 −20 9.5 9 time [s] 9.5 10 10.5 8 8.2 damper velocity [m/s] damper travel [m] 0.3.5 Front FastR off Rear FastR off CG FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on CG FastR on 10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 7.1 −0.5 0 7.5 2.1 0 −0.5 8 8.5 −40 7. Wheelbase 4400 [mm] and CG 10% to rear B.B. Vehicle 50/50 stroke Fast rebound On vs Off 0.5 12 x 10 4 40 vertical tyre force [N] 10 8 6 4 2 0 7.5 8 8.5 9 time [s] 9.

5 9 time [s] 9.5 FastR off FastR on 1.5 2 chassis pitch in CG [deg] z−position [m] Front FastR off Rear FastR off CG FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on CG FastR on 10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 7.5 9 time [s] 9.5 10 10.5 1 0.5 8 8.5 0 7.5 10 10.5 10 10.5 12 x 10 4 40 vertical tyre force [N] 10 8 6 4 2 0 7.5 8 8.5 8 8.5 8 8.5 10 10.5 9 time [s] 9.1 −0.5 /w 54 .3 0.5 10 10.5 −40 7.5 9 time [s] 9.5 8 8.5 8 8.3.5 9 time [s] cabin acceleration [m/s2] Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 20 X FastR off Z FastR off X FastR on Z FastR on 0 −20 9.5 10 10. Vehicle 65/35 stroke Fast rebound On vs Off 0.2.2 7.5 9 time [s]] 9.B.5 2.5 0 −2 −4 7.2 damper velocity [m/s] damper travel [m] Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 4 2 Front FastR off Rear FastR off Front FastR on Rear FastR on 0.1 0 −0.

5 8 8.5 9 time [s] 9.5 9 time [s] cabin acceleration [m/s2] Front 10pct Rear 10pct Front 10pct 65/35 Rear 10pct 65/35 20 X 10pct Z 10pct X 10pct 65/35 Z 10pct 65/35 0 −20 9.5 8 8.5 −40 7.5 /w 55 .5 10 10.5 1 0.2 7.5 12 x 10 4 40 vertical tyre force [N] 10 8 6 4 2 0 7. Vehicle 50/50 vs 65/35 Fast rebound On 0.3.5 Front 10pct Rear 10pct Front 10pct 65/35 Rear 10pct 65/35 4 2 Front 10pct Rear 10pct Front 10pct 65/35 Rear 10pct 65/35 0 −2 10 10.5 10 10.5 9 time [s] 9.5 10 10.3 0.5 10 10.5 10pct 10pct 65/35 8 8.B.5 8 8.2 damper velocity [m/s] damper travel [m] 0.1 0 −0.5 10 10.5 Front 10pct Rear 10pct CG 10pct Front 10pct 65/35 Rear 10pct 65/35 CG 10pct 65/35 10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 7.5 2.5 9 time [s] 9.5 −4 7.3.1 −0.5 8 8.5 9 time [s]] 9.5 2 chassis pitch in CG [deg] z−position [m] 1.5 0 7.5 9 time [s] 9.5 8 8.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful