Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia IUTAM 22 (2017) 251 – 258

IUTAM
M Symposiuum on Nonllinear and D
Delayed Dyn
namics of Mechatronic
M c Systems

Analysiss of Dynnamic Sttability oof Car-trrailer Co

ombinatioons with
h
Nonlin
near Dam mper Pro operties
Ningg Zhang1*,, Guo-dong
g Yin1, Tiaan Mi1, Xiaao-gao Li1 and Nan C
Chen1
1. Vehiccle Engineering Laboratory,
L Schoo
ol of Mechanical Engineering, Sou
utheast University
y, Nanjing 2111889, China

Absttract

The dampers (shockk absorbers) installed in the su uspensions of tthe towing car have some non nlinear propertyy in road tests, like a
practtical piecewise--linear propertyy. Its influence ono the dynamicc stability of carr-trailer combin
nations are invesstigated in this paper.
This nonlinearity is modeled by a Magic Formulaa damper modeel and then inteegrated into an extended singlee-track model with w a
tandeem-axle trailer.. Both the systtem local stabiility and globall stability are analyzed with different theorretical methodss. The
resullts of system phhase portrait shoow a limit cyclee and the corressponding longitudinal velocity is identified ass the system dyn namic
criticcal speed vcrit, w
which is ca. 1477.2 km/h.
©©2017
20017TheTheAuthors.
Authorrs. Published
Published byy Elsevier
by Elsevier B.V.B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer--review under rresponsibility of organizing co ommittee of the IUTAM Symp posium on Nonlinear and Delayyed Dynamics of o
Peer-review
Mech under
hatronic responsibility
System ms. of organizing committee of the IUTAM Symposium on Nonlinear and Delayed Dynamics of
Mechatronic Systems
Keyw
words: car-trailer ccombinations, noonlinear damper property,
p system ddynamic stability
y, phase portrait.

1. In
ntroduction

1.1. Background

Every
E car-trailler combination (CTC) haas a dynamic critical speed vcrit (ca. 10 00 km/h) by which the sy ystem
dynaamic stability boundary is determined.
d However,
H the v crit of a norm
mal passenger car
c is relativeely too high (aabove
250 km/h) and itss dynamic stabbility problemm can be negleected in norm mal driving situ
uations. A traiiler introduces one
moree pair of systeem conjugate characteristicc roots by whhich the vcrit iss redefined an nd decreases ssignificantly, while
w
the normal
n pair off system conjuugate characteeristic roots, ssame as that of
o a normal passenger car, iss not crucial tot the
systeem dynamic sstability anymore.

* Corresponding
C autthor. Tel.: +86-1558-5069-3769;
mail address: nzhaang_cn@seu.edu.cn
E-m

2210-9838 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the IUTAM Symposium on Nonlinear and Delayed Dynamics of Mechatronic Systems
doi:10.1016/j.piutam.2017.08.033
252 Ning Zhang et al. / Procedia IUTAM 22 (2017) 251 – 258

This dynamic critical speed vcrit is a nature for a CTC. It has a close relationship with the system yaw damping
ratio. The vcrit indicates a zero yaw damping ratio with a steady state yaw oscillation in the horizontal plane. Such a
system under its critical stable state is very sensitive to any disturbance. Therefore, the potential dynamic instability
is a challenging problem in the stability investigation of car-trailer combinations (CTCs).
The research on this topic can be traced back to 1960s. Kurtz and Anderson1 presented a state-of-the-art survey
on the handling characteristics of car-trailer systems in that time period. Theoretical fundamentals were established
at this stage. Then a number of analytical models, which contained from 3-DOF to 24-DOF2,3, were developed and
with commercial software highly sophisticated system models were available. Later Sagan4 performed a
comprehensive study on the handling characteristics of CTCs and the sensitivity of some system parameters to the
dynamic stability were achieved as well. However, they were obtained with a simple linear model in the horizontal
plane and influence from the vertical dynamics was not considered. Recently abundant research work can be found
in the area of improving the handling and stability of CTCs with Driver Assistance Systems (DAS)5, which are not
instructive to our problem.
Because of the complexity and less practical demand for normal passenger cars, few contributions are found on
the topic of dynamic coupling between the vertical dynamics and horizontal dynamics, especially for CTCs. Most
studies are performed only in the horizontal plane and normally the horizontal dynamics and vertical dynamics are
modeled and analyzed separately4. Recently Bedük et al.6 have published a research on “Effect of damper failure on
vehicle stability” and point out that damper failure might lead to vehicle instability in some critical driving situations
without ESP control. But no contribution is conducted on this aspect for CTCs.

1.2. Motivation

The analysis of dynamic stability of CTCs with nonlinear damper properties is the focus here. The coupling
between the vertical dynamics and lateral dynamics has to be considered and understood. Here, the model of the
nonlinear damper is of special concern. In this process, system roll characteristic deserves special attention, because
nonlinear damper property induces different wheel load difference, which influences the roll behavior and vcrit.
Through this way, the dynamic coupling between the vertical dynamics and horizontal dynamics can be revealed.
The result can serve as a guideline for a robust damper design considering the variations of its structural components.

2. Modeling of car-trailer combinations with nonlinear damper properties

2.1. An extended single-track model for car-trailer combinations

Normally a single-track model (STM)5 is frequently utilized in the stability investigation of CTCs. It has 3
degrees of freedom (DOFs) and the roll, pitch or heave is not considered. However, it is useless when the influence
of the damper characteristic is considered. Different from the STM proposed above, an extended single-track model
(ESTM) with a tandem-axle trailer is built to represent the real experimental system accurately. The dynamic
coupling between the roll motion and the yaw motion is taken into account as well. The reference coordinate system
is a body-fixed coordinate system of the towing car XcOYc. The aerodynamics and its effect on lateral dynamics are
ignored. The tire cornering behavior is assumed to be linear and all the angles, e.g. wheel steering angle įw, side-slip
angle Įi and hitch angle șh, are assumed to be small (no more than 5°). Under such condition accompanied by the
small angle approximation (sin x § x, cos x § 1) and a constant longitudinal velocity (vx,1=vx,2=vx), the ESTM of a
CTC is accomplished with 5 DOFs. A schematic diagram of the model is shown in Figure 1 below.
In the model, m1 and m2 denote the masses of the towing car and the trailer while Iz,1 and Iz,2 denote their yaw
moments of inertia respectively. The sprung masses of towing car and the trailer are represented by ms,1 and ms,2.
Their unsprung masses are denoted by mus,1 and mus,2 respectively. Ixs,1 and Ixs,2 denote the roll moments of inertial of
the towing car and the trailer respectively. Ixz,1 and Izx,1 are moments of inertia for the product of inertia for the
towing car. c1 and c2 are the suspension spring stiffness coefficients for the towing car and the trailer respectively.
Fd,1 and Fd,2 are the damping forces of the suspension shock absorbers for the towing car and the trailer respectively.
 Ning Zhang et al. / Procedia IUTAM 22 (2017) 251 – 258 253

The front wheel steering anglee is įw, Įf,1 and a Įr,1 are thhe front and rear r axle sidee-slip angles oof the towing g car,
respectively. CĮf,1 and CĮr,1 dennote the front and rear axle cornering stifffness of the towing car. Fyyf,1 and Fyr,1 deenote
the front
f owing car. ߰ଵ , ߰ሶଵ denote the
and rear axle lateral foorces of the to t yaw angle and yaw ratee of the towing g car.
߮ଵ ,߮ሶ ଵ  denote thhe roll angle and
a roll rate of the towing ccar. vy,1, ay,1 denote
d the lateeral velocity aand acceleratiion at
centrre of gravity ((COG) of the towing car. l1, lf,1 and lr,1 ddenote the wheeel base, the distance
d from front axle to COG
and the distance ffrom rear axlee to COG of th he towing carr. lh,1 and lhr,1 denote the distance from hhitch point to COG
and the distance ffrom hitch poiint to rear axlee of the towinng car. h1 deno otes the distan
nce from COG G to the roll axxis of
the towing
t car. Otther parameterrs with subscrript “2” insteaad of “1” deno ote the relevannt parameters oof the trailer.

Fig. 1. An extended single-track

s modeel for a CTC with
h a tandem-axle trrailer
Considering
C the lateral and yaw
y motions of o the car, thesse equations are Newton’s law. Here
a obtained based on the N
Fyh,1 denotes the lateral force accting on the hiitch point of thhe towing carr.
݉ଵ ܽ௬ǡଵ ൅ ݉௨௦ǡଵଵ ݄ଵ ߮ሷ ଵ ൌ ‫ܨ‬௬௙ǡଵଵ ൅ ‫ܨ‬௬௥ǡଵ െ ‫ܨ‬௬௛ǡଵ
௬ (1)
‫ܫ‬௭ǡǡଵ ߰ሷଵ െ ‫ܫ‬௭௫ǡଵ ߮ሷ ଵ ൌ ‫ܨ‬௬௙ǡଵ ݈௙ǡଵ െ ‫ܨ‬௬௥ǡଵ ݈௥ǡଵ ൅ ‫ܨ‬௬௛ǡଵ ݈௛ǡଵ (2)
‫ܫ‬௫௦ǡଵ ሷ
௫ ߮ሷ ଵ െ ‫ܫ‬௫௭ǡଵ ߰ଵ ൌ ݉௦ǡଵ ܽ௬ǡଵ ݄ଵ ൅݉௦ǡଵ ݄݃ଵ߮ଵ െ ܿଵ ‫ݓ‬ଵଶ ߮ଵ െ ʹ‫ܨ‬ௗǡଵ ‫ݓ‬ଵ (3)
Regarding
R the dynamic couupling between n the roll mootion and the yaw motion, a parameter ddefined as thee roll
steerring coefficiennt7,8 is introduuced and deno
oted by İf,1, İr,11 for the front and rear axles of the towinng car respectiively.
The lateral force aat the front or rear axle of th
he towing car can be expresssed as follow ws,
௩೤ǡభ టሶభ ௟೑ǡభ
ߙ௙ǡଵ ൌ ߜ௪ െ ൅ ߝ௙ǡଵ߮ଵ
െ
௩ೣ
௩ೣ
൞ టሶభ ௟೑ǡభ
(4)
௩೤ǡభ
‫ܨ‬௬௙ǡଵ ൌ ‫ܥ‬ఈ௙ǡଵ ߙ௙ǡଵ ൌ ‫ܥ‬ఈ௙ǡଵ ൬ߜ
ߜ௪ െ െ ൅ ߝ௙ǡଵ ߮ଵ ൰
௩ೣ ௩ೣ

௩೤ǡభ టሶభ ௟ೝǡభ

ߙ௥ǡଵ ൌ െ ൅ ൅ ߝ௥ǡଵ ߮ଵ
௩ೣ ௩ೣ
ቐ (5)
௩೤ǡభ టሶ ௟
‫ܨ‬௬௥ǡଵ ൌ ‫ܥ‬ఈ௥ǡଵ ߙ௥ǡଵ ൌ ‫ܥ‬ఈ௥ǡଵ ቀെ
െ ൅ భ ೝǡభ ൅ ߝ௥ǡଵ ߮ଵ ቁ
௩ೣ ௩ೣ

Also
A for the traailer, lateral and
a yaw motioons are repres ented in the same
s tes the lateral force
way. Here Fyh,2 denote
actin
ng on the hitchh point of the trailer.
254 Ning Zhang et al. / Procedia IUTAM 22 (2017) 251 – 258

݉ଶ ܽ௬ǡଶ ൅ ݉௨௦ǡଶ ݄ଶ ߮ሷ ଶ ൌ ‫ܨ‬௬௙ǡଶ ൅ ‫ܨ‬௬௥ǡଶ ൅ ‫ܨ‬௬௛ǡଶ  (6)

‫ܫ‬௭ǡଶ ߰ሷଶ െ ‫ܫ‬௭௫ǡଶ ߮ሷ ଶ ൌ ‫ܨ‬௬௙ǡଶ ݈௙ǡଶ െ ‫ܨ‬௬௥ǡଶ ݈௥ǡଶ ൅ ‫ܨ‬௬௛ǡଶ ݈௛ǡଶ (7)
‫ܫ‬௫௦ǡଶ ߮ሷ ଶ െ ‫ܫ‬௫௭ǡଶ ߰ሷଶ ൌ ݉௦ǡଶ ܽ௬ǡଶ ݄ଶ ൅݉௦ǡଶ ݄݃ଶ ߮ଶ െ ܿଶ ‫ݓ‬ଶଶ ߮ଶ െ ʹ‫ܨ‬ௗǡଶ ‫ݓ‬ଶ (8)
The lateral force at the front or rear axle of the trailer can be expressed below. Here the roll steering coefficients
are denoted by İf,2, İr,2 for the front and rear axles of the trailer respectively.
௩೤ǡమ టሶమ ௟೑ǡమ
ߙ௙ǡଶ ൌ െߠ௛ െ ൅ ߝ௙ǡଶ ߮ଶ െ
௩ೣ ௩ೣ
൞ టሶమ ௟೑ǡమ
(9)
௩೤ǡమ
‫ܨ‬௬௙ǡଶ ൌ ‫ܥ‬ఈ௙ǡଶ ߙ௙ǡଶ ൌ ‫ܥ‬ఈ௙ǡଶ ൬െߠ௛ െ െ ൅ ߝ௙ǡଶ ߮ଶ ൰
௩ೣ ௩ೣ

௩೤ǡమ టሶమ ௟ೝǡమ

ߙ௥ǡଶ ൌ െߠ௛ െ ൅ ߝ௥ǡଶ ߮ଶ ൅
௩ೣ ௩ೣ
ቐ (10)
௩೤ǡమ టሶ ௟
‫ܨ‬௬௥ǡଶ ൌ ‫ܥ‬ఈ௥ǡଶ ߙ௥ǡଶ ൌ ‫ܥ‬ఈ௥ǡଶ ቀെߠ௛ െ ൅ మ ೝǡమ ൅ ߝ௥ǡଶ ߮ଶ ቁ
௩ೣ ௩ೣ

The steering system is assumed to be rigid with a steering ratio is. įH is the steering wheel angle by hand.
ఋಹ
ߜ௪ ൌ (11)
௜ೞ

To build the kinematic and dynamic relationships between the towing car and the trailer, yaw rates, velocities,
forces and accelerations are connected considering the coupling at the hitch point with the following equations. Here
vy,h denotes the lateral velocity at the hitch point.
߰ሶଵ െ ߰ሶଶ ൌ ߠሶ௛ (12)
‫ݒ‬௬ǡ௛ ൌ ‫ݒ‬௬ǡଵ െ ߰ሶଵ ݈௛ǡଵ ൌ ‫ݒ‬௬ǡଶ ൅ ߰ሶଶ ݈௛ǡଶ (13)
‫ܨ‬௬௛ǡଵ ൌ ‫ܨ‬௬௛ǡଶ (14)
ܽ௬ǡଵ ൌ ‫ݒ‬ሶ ௬ǡଵ ൅ ‫ݒ‬௫ ߰ሶଵ
ቊ (15)
ܽ௬ǡଶ ൌ ‫ݒ‬ሶ ௬ǡଶ ൅ ‫ݒ‬௫ ߰ሶଵ
Combining the 15 equations above, a nonlinear system written in state space form is obtained:
‫ۯ‬ሺ‫ݒ‬௫ ሻ࢞ሶ ൅ ۰࢞ ൌ ࢂሺ‫ݑ‬ǡ ࢞ሻ (16)
A, B are the system matrices. While the matrix B only contains the constant system parameters, matrix A also
contains the system longitudinal velocity vx. V(u,x) is a function which contains the system state vector x and the
system input u. The system state vector x and the system input u are given by
࢞ ൌ  ሾ‫ݒ‬௬ǡଵ ǡ ߰ሶଵ ǡ ߠ௛ ǡ ߠሶ௛ ǡ ߮ଵ ǡ ߮ሶ ଵ ǡ ߮ଶ ǡ ߮ሶ ଶ ሿ (17)
‫ ݑ‬ൌ ߜு (18)
Further, to obtain the eigenvalues, Eq. (16) is rewritten into the following form. The system state-space equation
is obtained as
࢞ሶ ൌ ۱ሺ‫ݒ‬௫ ሻ࢞ ൅ ۲ሺ࢞ǡ ‫ݑ‬ሻ (19)
Here Matrix C is a function of system longitudinal velocity vx while matrix D also contains the system input u. So
the CTCs can be represented by the ESTM which is described by Eq. (19). And it has a same form as a
corresponding STM but with more DOFs.
 Ning Zhang et al. / Procedia IUTAM 22 (2017) 251 – 258 255

2.2. A nonlinear damper model

Damper means the shock absorber installed in the vehicle suspension. Its practical characteristic is nonlinear, e.g.
a piecewise-linear property, a low damping phenomenon due to cavitation or aeration. Here, only the piecewise-
linear property is considered at the first step. In order to describe this type of damper nonlinear characteristic, a
special so-called Magic Formula damper model9 is adopted to represent the damper behavior:

‫ܨ‬ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻ ൌ ‫݊݅ݏ ܦ‬ሾ‫݊ܽݐܿݎܽ ܥ‬ሼ‫ ݔܤ‬െ ܴሺ‫ ݔܤ‬െ ܽ‫݊ܽݐܿݎ‬ሺ‫ݔܤ‬ሻሻ ൅ ‫ ଻݊ܽݐܿݎܽܭ‬ሺ‫ݔܤ‬ሻሽሿ ൅ ‫ܩܦ‬ሺ‫ ݔܤ‬െ ܽ‫݊ܽݐܿݎ‬ሺ‫ݔܤ‬ሻሻு (20)

Here, F(x) denotes the damper force and x denotes the damper velocity. This model has the following advantages:
• Only a few parameters are needed to get a very good curve fit.
• The parameters represent typical quantities of a shock absorber characteristic.
• The fitted curves are very smooth, which implied that the change of the slope is realistic.
• The function behaves well beyond the fitted range.
• The function can be treated analytically, so we can calculate directly properties such as dissipated energy.

Main parameters in the Magic Formula damper model in Eq. (20) and their potential physical meanings are
illustrated in Figure 2(a) below. The damping characteristic of the shock absorbers in the towing car is shown in
Figure 2(b) with this model.

(a) (b)
Fig. 2. (a) Main parameters in the Magic Formula damper model; (b) Damping characteristic of the shock absorbers in the towing car.

3. Analysis of system local stability

The CTC system becomes nonlinear due to the existence of nonlinear damper model. Because the system
dynamic stability is of particular concern, its local stability around the equilibrium point (EP) deserves attention.
The system EPs can be determined by the equation below,
ௗ࢞
ቚ ൌ Ͳ(21)
ௗ௧ ࢞ୀ࢞ࢋ ǡ௩ೣ ୀ௩ೣ ೐

System Jacobian Matrix at the EPs can be determined by the equation below,
ࡹࡶ ൌ ൣ࡭࢏࢐ ሺ࢞ࢋ ǡ ‫ݒ‬௫ ௘ ሻ൧݅ǡ ݆ ൌ ͳǡʹǡ͵ǡͶǡͷǡ͸ǡ͹ǡͺ (22)
డࢌ࢏ ሺ࢞ǡ௩ೣ ሻ
Here, ࡭࢏࢐ ሺ࢞ࢋ ǡ ‫ݒ‬௫ ௘ ሻ ൌ ቚ .
డ࢞ሺ࢐ሻ ࢞ୀ࢞ࢋ ǡ௩ೣ ୀ௩ೣ ೐

Jacobian Matrix ࡹࡶ determines the system local stability at its EP’s neighborhood. The system eigenvalues are
the roots of the corresponding characteristic equation.
ߣ଼ ൅ ܿଵ ߣ଻ ൅ ܿଶ ߣ଺ ൅ ܿଷ ߣହ ൅ ܿସ ߣସ ൅ ܿହ ߣଷ ൅ ܿ଺ ߣଶ ൅ ܿ଻ ߣ ൅ ଼ܿ ൌ Ͳ (23)
The system characteristic roots determine system response at its EP’s neighborhood. Ȝ1,2=m±jn are defined as one
pair of conjugate roots of the characteristic equation, its corresponding damping ratio can be described as below,
256 Ning Zhang et al. / Procedia IUTAM 22 (2017) 251 – 258

௠
ߞൌെ (24)
ඥ௠మ ା௡మ

• n=0, the roots of the characteristic equation are real. When m<0, the system state is convergent. When m>0, the
system state is divergent, the CTC system is divergently unstable.
• n0, the roots of the characteristic equation are complex values. When m<0, the system state is dynamically
oscillatory but still convergent. While m>0, the system state is dynamically oscillatory and divergent, the CTC
system is dynamically unstable with oscillations.
The STM of a CTC has a 4th-order characteristic equation and two pairs of complex conjugate roots with one yaw
damping ratio for each pair. They are either real or complex occurring in conjugate pairs. The ESTM of a CTC in
which the roll motion is also considered has an 8th-order characteristic equation and is relatively more complex. It
has four pairs of complex conjugate roots. Two pairs are related to the system two yaw damping ratios, while the
other two are related to the system two roll damping ratios. Therefore, the system represented by the ESTM can
reveal its yaw instability and roll instability in the same way. Because the system matrix C is a function of the
longitudinal velocity vx, the system characteristic roots and the corresponding damping ratios also depend on the vx.
The system damping ratios in dependence on the longitudinal velocity vx (36-220 km/h) is illustrated in Figure 3
below. The operating point (OP) of system parameters delivered from the real experimental system is listed in Table
1 in Appendix A. It is clear that when the vx exceeds 113.2 km/h, one yaw damping ratio ȗyaw,1 becomes negative
and it indicates that the CTC system will become dynamically unstable. This longitudinal velocity is defined as the
system dynamic critical speed vcrit, which indicates the boundary of system dynamic stability. Besides, one roll
damping ratio ȗroll,1 is always around zero and deserves attention once the system roll instability is focused.

Fig. 3. System damping ratios in dependence on the longitudinal velocity vx

(a) (b)
Fig. 4. (a) Sensitivity of the system dynamic critical speed vcrit to the distance from the hitch point to the COG of trailer;
(b) Sensitivity of the system dynamic critical speed vcirt to the trailer mass
Some other parameters affect the system dynamic critical speed vcrit as well. Figure 4 (a) shows the sensitivity of
the vcrit to the lh,2, the distance from the hitch point to the COG of the trailer. The vcrit increases dramatically with an
 Ning Zhang et al. / Procedia IUTAM 22 (2017) 251 – 258 257

increasing lh,2. It indicates that the system becomes more stable when the parameter lh,2 increases. Figure 4 (b) shows
the sensitivity of the vcrit to the m2, the trailer mass. When the m2 increases continuously, the vcrit increases at first
and then decreases rapidly. It indicates either a too big or a too small trailer mass makes the system stability worse.

4. Analysis of system global stability

(a) vx =35.0 m/s (b) vx =40.9 m/s (c) vx =45.0 m/s

Fig.5. Comparison of the system phase portraits under three different longitudinal velocities vx

(a) vx =35.0 m/s (b) vx =40.9 m/s (c) vx =45.0 m/s

Fig. 6. Comparison of the system responses in the time domain under three different longitudinal velocities vx
The analysis of system local stability provides mainly information near the system EP, i.e. the steady state
response of the system is more concerned. However, the system dynamic stability is closely related to its transient
response. Therefore, the analysis of system global stability has to be considered as well. Because the state space
expression of the system is first-order and nonlinear, the phase portrait method is adopted in the analysis of system
global stability. Figure 5 shows the system phase portraits between the state variables of the towing car under three
different longitudinal velocities vx. When vx=35.0m/s (see Fig. 5(a)), the system phase portrait converges at the
258 Ning Zhang et al. / Procedia IUTAM 22 (2017) 251 – 258

system EP. When vx=40.9m/s (147.2 km/h, see Fig. 5(b)), the system phase portrait shows a limit cycle and this
velocity is defined as the system dynamic critical speed vcrit. Furthermore, this limit cycle appears in the system
phase portrait between the roll rate and the lateral velocity of the towing car as well (see Fig. 5(b) above). In the
analysis of the system local stability, the limit cycle cannot be identified. And the roll damping ratio behaves
differently as the yaw damping ratio. But here, they behave similarly. When vx=45.0m/s (see Fig. 5(c)), the system
phase portrait starts from the initial point (origin), then reaches to the limit cycle, finally leaves and becomes
divergently unstable. Figure 6 shows the system responses in the time domain under three different longitudinal
velocities vx. The results match the analysis of system global stability with the phase portrait well.

5. Conclusion

The dynamic stability of CTCs with a practical nonlinear damper property is analyzed in this paper. An extended
single-track model with a tandem-axle trailer, in which the roll characteristic is also considered, is derived and the
practical piecewise-linear damper property is modeled by a Magic Formula damper model. Both the system local
stability and global stability are analyzed with different methods. The system phase portrait shows a limit cycle and
the corresponding longitudinal velocity vx (ca. 147.2 km/h) is identified as the system dynamic critical speed vcrit.

Appendix A. System parameters including the values used in the ESTM.

Table 1. System parameters including the values used in the ESTM.

Parameter Description Value Unit
݉ଵ ǡ ݉ଶ Mass of towing car or trailer 1955, 1880 kg
݉௦ǡଵ ǡ ݉௦ǡଶ Sprung mass of towing car or trailer 1785, 1803 kg
݉௨௦ǡଵ ǡ ݉௨௦ǡଶ Unsprung mass of towing car or trailer 170, 77 kgm2
‫୸ܫ‬ǡଵ ǡ ‫୸ܫ‬ǡଶ Yaw moment of inertia of towing car or trailer 2690, 10350 kgm2
‫ܫ‬௫ǡଵ ǡ ‫ܫ‬௫ǡଶ Sprung yaw inertia of towing car or trailer 470.6, 5436 kgm2
݈୤ǡଵ ǡ ݈୤ǡଶ Distance from front axle to COG of towing car or trailer 1.302, 0.124 m
݈୰ǡଵ ǡ ݈୰ǡଶ Distance from rear axle to COG of towing car or trailer 1.383, 0.526 m
݈୦ǡଵ ǡ ݈୦ǡଶ Distance from hitch point to COG of towing car or trailer 2.166, 5.073 m
݈୦୰ǡଵ Distance from rear axle to hitch point of towing car 0.783 m
݈୦୤ǡଶ Distance from front axle to hitch point of trailer 4.949 m
݄ଵ ǡ ݄ଶ Distance between roll axis and mass center of sprung mass 0.3, 0.3 m
of towing car or trailer
‫ݓ‬ଵ ǡ ‫ݓ‬ଶ Wheel track of towing car or trailer 1.55, 2.13 m

References

1. Kurtz EF, Anderson RJ. Handling Characteristics of Car-Trailer Systems; A State-of-the-Art Survey, Vehicle System Dynamics: International
Journal of Vehicle Mechanics and Mobility, 1977, 6:4, 217-243.
2. Bevan BG, Smith NP, Ashley C. Some factors influencing the stability of car/caravan combinations, IMechE Conference Publication C123,
London, UK, 1983, 221-228.
3. Fratila D, Darling J. Simulation of coupled car and caravan handling behaviour, Vehicle System Dynamics, 1996, 26, 397-429.
4. Sagan E, Mitschke M. Fahrdynamik von Pkw-Wohnanhängerzügen, 1988, Verlag TUEV Rheinland.
5. Hac A, Fulk D, Chen H. Stability and Control Considerations of Vehicle-Trailer Combination, SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars-Mech. Syst.,
1(1):925-937, 2009.
6. Bedük MD, ÇalÕúkan K, Henze R & Küçükay F. Effects of damper failure on vehicle stability, Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering,
2013, 227(7): 1024-1039.
7. Wu DH. A theoretical study of the yaw/roll motions of a multiple steering articulated vehicle, Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering,
2001, 215: 1257-1265.
8. Pacejka HB. Tire and Vehicle Dynamics, 3rd Edition, Oxford, UK, Butterworth-Heinemann, p9-12, 2012.
9. Richard van Kasteel. A New Shock Absorber Model with an Application in Vehicle Dynamics Studies. SAE Technical Paper, 2003-01-3411.