See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330863767

Dynamic Analysis of Electric Vehicle with Battery PackSwinging Chassis

Article  in  DEStech Transactions on Environment Energy and Earth Science · February 2019

DOI: 10.12783/dteees/iceee2018/27850

CITATION READS

1 226

4 authors, including:

Mengjian Tian
Jilin University
10 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mengjian Tian on 31 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Design and Handling Dynamic Analysis of Electric Vehicle Chassis
with Yaw Direction Oscillatable Battery Pack

Mengjian Tiana,b , Qiyuan Huc , Bingzhao Gao*a,b , Haitao Ding*a and Hong Chend,a
a
State Key Laboratory of Automotive Simulation and Control, Jilin University, Changchun,
P. R. China
b
Qingdao Automotive Institute, Jilin University, Qingdao, P. R. China
c
New Energy Development Institute, FAW Group Corpration, Changchun, P. R. China
d
Clean Energy Automotive Engineering Center, Tongji University, Shanghai, P. R. China

ARTICLE HISTORY
Compiled November 16, 2020

ABSTRACT
As the energy storage device of an electric vehicle (EV) , in order to meet the mileage
requirements, a battery pack always has large volume and mass and is responsible
for a considerable portion of the yaw rotational inertia of the entire vehicle. As the
yaw rotational inertia has a negative impact on the vehicle cornering response, a
new type of EV chassis structure is proposed herein, which is equipped with a yaw
direction oscillatable battery pack. This battery pack can reduce the yaw rotational
inertia of the vehicle to improve handling performance while meeting the mileage and
spatial layout requirements. Based on this chassis structure, a linear 3-degrees-of-
freedom (DOF) mathematical dynamic model and an ADAMS multi-body dynamics
model are built. Then, the lateral dynamic characteristics are estimated for different
typical test conditions by simulation. The comparative results and analysis between
the new type of chassis and the conventional chassis are presented. The new type of
chassis is shown to have advantages in terms of handling performance.

KEYWORDS
Electric vehicle chassis structure; Yaw direction oscillatable battery pack; Yaw
rotational inertia; Handling performance; Vehicle lateral dynamics

1. Introduction

In the past few decades, with the surge in fossil fuel consumption and the intensification
of environmental problems, electric vehicles (EVs) have become an important part
of the automotive industry because of their advantages in energy conservation and
environmental protection [1]. Furthermore, EVs offer more advantages in handling
performance, which determines their maneuverability and safety at high speeds. This
is because the EV has the ability to provide fast torque responses owing to the equipped
electric drive motor(s). For example, a distributed drive electric vehicle that has the
drive motors mounted directly in the wheels is able to control the driving torques of
the four wheels independently. As a result, unequal drive forces acting on the wheels
are converted to a direct yaw moment acting on the vehicle, and that offers this type
of EV considerable advantages in controlling handling performance [2,3].

*Corresponding authors. E-mail: gaobz@jlu.edu.cn (Bingzhao Gao) and dinght@jlu.edu.cn (Haitao Ding)
 However, as the primary energy storage device for the EV propulsion system, owing
to current technological limitations, a battery pack must have considerable weight
and volume to ensure sufficient power and mileage [4,5]. Some scholars have noticed
that, and carried out researches on the effect of the battery pack’s inertia on vehicle
safety and dynamics [6–8]. Besides the battery pack, other devices fixed to the chassis,
such as the motor controller (inverter), on-board charger, and DC-to-DC converter,
also increase the yaw rotational inertia. In fact, in terms of handling performance,
from the basic vehicle lateral dynamics model, i.e., the 2-degrees-of-freedom (DOF)
one-track vehicle model, we observe that the inertia of the vehicle is one of the main
factors affecting maneuverability of the vehicle because the large yaw rotational inertia
has adverse effects on the improvement of cornering response.
In recent years, some scholars have proposed the concept of “vehicle agility” to
evaluate vehicle mobility. This concept was primarily based on research on aircraft.
Essentially, this term implies extension of the vehicle handling performance and mainly
investigates the control capability of driver operation [9,10]. In the literature on aircraft
research [11], the agility factor (AF ) is defined by the experimental method: the initial
state is the steady-state at zero input, aircraft performs positive and negative loading
and returns to the zero input. The ratio of the manipulation time to the response time is
defined as the agility factor. In the automotive research field, the investigators of [12]
use the agility concept of aircraft in [13] on vehicles, agility metrics include lateral
jerk and relative lateral acceleration. However, the evaluation is based on closed-loop
tests and depends on the vehicle driving path, speed, and driver skill, instead of the
parameters of the vehicle. In the literatures of [14] and [15], the agility factor az is
defined as a dimensionless quantity using the yaw rotational inertia, vehicle mass, and
wheelbase, this indicator reveals that yaw rotational inertia is an important factor
restricting vehicle handling performance.
Although the influence of the yaw rotational inertia on cornering response is impor-
tant, various compromises have to be made on the vehicle yaw rotational inertia from
the initial stage of EV development because of the necessity of using equipment with
large mass. For a long time, the yaw rotational inertia and reduction of its negative
impact on cornering response were improved by means of light weighting or achieving
improved yaw response by electronic control [16–20].
Unlike these approaches, we focus on the basic mechanical structure of the EV
chassis and propose a solution to improve handling performance. Although it is difficult
to directly reduce the yaw rotational inertia in this manner, it is possible to equivalently
reduce the influence of the yaw rotational inertia on the cornering response.
Based on this idea, in this work, we propose a new structure of the EV chassis
wherein the battery pack is “suspended” on the vehicle body in the yaw direction.
Based on this new structure, a 3-DOF vehicle model is derived, and a multi-body
dynamics vehicle model is built using the software ADAMS. Using these models, we
design the important parameters of the new type of chassis. For several typical test
conditions according to the ISO standard [21,22], some cornering response behaviors
are determined by simulation; then, we provide the comparative results and anal-
ysis between the novel chassis and the conventional chassis. Finally, we prove that
the new type of chassis equipped with yaw direction oscillatable battery pack has a
wider bandwidth and more stability in high speed obstacle avoidance; therefore, it has
better handling performance. The preliminary version of this work for evaluating the
theoretical effectiveness of the novel chassis is presented in [23] and [24].
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the struc-
ture of the new type of chassis. Section 3 presents the derivation of the mathematical

2
3-DOF lateral dynamic model and the multi-body dynamic model in ADAMS/Car.
Section 4 describes the design of the rotation stiffness and damping coefficient between
the yaw direction oscillatable battery pack and the vehicle body. Section 5 introduces
the simulation test processes and presents the comparison of the test results, which
indicate the transient response characteristics. Section 6 presents the conclusions of
this work.

2. Structure of the new type of chassis

Figure 1. Structural diagram of the new type of chassis

The parameters of the battery pack related to the lateral dynamic response, vehicle
layout and mileage are listed in Table 1. The design is based on the dimensional
parameters of the battery pack. As can be seen from the table, the battery pack
capacity should be 95.52 kWh. In order to avoid motion interference caused by motion
of the battery pack, the space along the width is not utilized sufficiently, but this
smaller width can help improve the safety from a lateral crash.
An alternative specific structure of the mounted battery pack is shown in Figure 1.
The first step in the design process is that the DOFs except the yaw rotation of the
battery pack should be constrained. A pair of cylindrical roller bearings are coaxially
mounted on the top and bottom of the battery pack. The axis of this bearing pair
is near the geometric center of the battery pack and is parallel to the z axis of the
vehicle coordinate system. The pair of bearings function as a cylindrical joint, and the
rotational DOFs about the x and y axes and the movement DOFs along the x and y

3
 Table 1. Parameters of battery pack

Parameter Value

Battery pack mass mb (kg) 597

Battery pack dimension l ∗ w ∗ h(m) 2.42*1.45*0.15

Cell energy density (Wh/kg) 220

Battery pack energy density (Wh/kg) 160

Rotational Inertia Izb (kgm2 ) 328

axes are hereby constrained. To constrain the vertical movement DOF, six upper rollers
and twelve lower rollers are installed in the mounting cavity to support the battery
pack. These support rollers are equivalent to a pair of thrust bearings. Therefore, the
radial cylindrical roller bearing pair and the support rollers collaborate to constrain
the motions of the battery pack except the yaw oscillation.

Figure 2. Structural layout

Moreover, a rotation spring-damper set should be used to “suspend” the battery

pack in the yaw direction. But in application and implementation, we use a pair
of linear spring-damper sets to couple the oscillation between the battery pack and
the vehicle body. As shown in Figure 2, in the initial resting state, the axes of the
linear spring-damper sets are parallel to the XOY plane; the projections of the axes
in the XOY plane is symmetric about the x axis; both of the axes are perpendicular
to the radial direction of the battery pack oscillation. Because springs can only be
compressed, this pair of springs should be set to certain preload to ensure that they
are always kept compressed in the range of the battery pack oscillation stroke which
we design as ±8◦ .
For the battery pack, the noncoplanar spring-damper sets act forces on the mounting
seats. The two mounting forces can be equivalent to a radial force and a moment.
Among them, the component of the moment in the vertical direction makes the battery
pack oscillate, and the component perpendicular to the vertical direction twists the
battery pack. Through the shaft, the torsion moment and the radial force are both
resisted by the radial bearing pair. On the other hand, correspondingly, for the vehicle

4
body, the mounting seats balance against the bearing forces through the frame, and
generate the yaw moment acted on the body.
Furthermore, the rotation stiffness Kb and damping coefficient Cb need to be con-
verted to the linear stiffness and damping coefficient. Assuming that the springs and
the dampers have the same characteristics respectively, kb and cb could be used to
represent the single linear spring stiffness and damping coefficient. To determine the
conversion relationship, the rotational moment between the battery pack and the ve-
hicle body Mb should be investigated.

Mb = Kb ψb + Cb ψ̇b = 2(kb ∆x + cb ∆ẋ)lc (1)

where ψb is the battery pack oscillation angle, ψ̇b is the angular velocity, lc is the
distance from the rotation center to each mounting seat of the battery pack, ∆x is the
spring deformation from the equilibrium position.
Because ψb is small, the movement conversion can be calculated approximately by

∆x = lc · ψb (2a)
∆ẋ = lc · ψ̇b (2b)

The stiffness and damping coefficient conversions can be derived as

Kb
kb = (3a)
2lc2
Cb
cb = 2 (3b)
2lc

This brief structure can also be considered as a mass-spring-damper system that

is mounted on the vehicle body. The problem of reducing the effect of yaw rotational
inertia can now be discussed.

3. Vehicle model and mathematical analysis

To analyze the lateral dynamics of the new type of chassis, an effective dynamics model
is essential. In this section, a linear 3-DOF vehicle dynamics model is formed using the
Euler-Lagrange method to evaluate the performance elementarily [25]. Moreover, as
the main work of this paper is the chassis mechanical structure, a multi-body dynamics
model is established based on the simulated structure in the software ADAMS/Car. We
can evaluate the performance in extreme conditions in this simulation environment.

3.1. Mathematical linear 3-DOF dynamic model

For the 2-DOF one-track vehicle model, some assumptions (cf. [26]) have been made
as follows:
• No chassis or suspension compliance effects
• No rolling or pitch motions
• No lateral or longitudinal load transfers
• Direct front wheel steer angle control

5
 • Constant longitudinal velocity
• No aerodynamic effects
• Horizontal flat road surface

Figure 3. 3-DOF vehicle model with yaw direction oscillatable battery pack
β – vehicle sideslip angle; Cm – vehicle mass center (battery pack removed); Cmb – battery
pack mass center; O – vehicle coordinate origin; Orb – battery pack rotation center; vy –
vehicle lateral velocity; vx – vehicle longitudinal velocity; v – vehicle velocity; Fyf,r –
front/rear axle lateral force; αf,r – front/rear axle sideslip angle; δ – wheel steer angle; ψ̇ –
vehicle yaw rate; a – distance from vehicle mass center to the front axle; b – distance from
vehicle mass center to the rear axle; l – wheelbase; ψb – battery pack oscillation angle; k, c –
total linear spring stiffness and damping coefficient; e1 – offset distance between battery pack
rotation center and vehicle mass center; e2 – offset distance between battery pack rotation
center and battery pack mass center; lc – rotation stiffness and damping coefficient
conversion moment arm.

In addition to these assumptions, in the 3-DOF dynamic model as shown in Figure 3,

other assumptions should be made:
• The vehicle coordinate origin O is located at the vehicle mass center Cm that
the battery pack has been removed
• The coordinate origin of the frame fixed to the battery pack is located at its
mass center Cmb
• The battery pack rotation center Orb is located on the x axis of the battery pack

6
 frame
• The x axis of the battery pack frame coincides with the x axis of the vehicle
body frame in the initial state
If Cm , Cmb , and Orb do not coincide, it results in two offsets e1 and e2 .
According to this precondition, the form of Euler-Lagrange equation used is

d ∂T ∂T ∂V ∂D
− + + = Qi (4)
dt ∂ q̇i ∂qi ∂qi ∂ q̇i

where T is the kinetic energy of the vehicle system, V is the potential energy, and D
is the dissipative energy. qi are generalized coordinates, and Qi are the corresponding
external forces.
The generalized coordinates are Cartesian global coordinates X and Y , ψ (the yaw
angle between the x axis and the vehicle forward direction), and ψb (oscillation angle
of the battery pack, it defined as the angle between the battery pack fixed x axis and
the vehicle forward direction), i.e.,
 T
q= X Y ψ ψb (5)

Since the generalized coordinates in the global ground-fixed coordinate system

should be changed in a vehicle-fixed frame by coordinate change, the vehicle-fixed
coordinates are more likely to be available as measurements or estimates in an actual
vehicle. In the vehicle-fixed frame, independent variables are determined as
T
q ∗ = vx vy ψ̇ ψb

(6)

This coordinate change is obtained from:

    
Ẋ cos ψ − sin ψ vx
= (7)
Ẏ sin ψ cos ψ vy

The external forces acting on the vehicle in the vehicle-fixed frame have the rela-
tionship with Qi as follows:

Qx =ΣFx cos ψ − ΣFy sin ψ (8a)

Qy =ΣFx sin ψ + ΣFy cos ψ (8b)
Qψ =ΣMz (8c)

The resulting equations of motion in the vehicle frame are found as

d ∂T ∂T
− ψ̇ = ΣFx (9a)
dt ∂vx ∂vy
d ∂T ∂T
+ ψ̇ = ΣFy (9b)
dt ∂vy ∂vx
d ∂T ∂T ∂T
+ vx − vy = ΣMz (9c)
dt ∂ ψ̇ ∂vy ∂vx
d ∂T ∂T ∂V ∂D
− + + =0 (9d)
dt ∂ ψ̇b ∂ψb ∂ψb ∂ ψ̇b

7
 The kinetic energy of vehicle (after removing batter pack) T1 and the kinetic energy
of the battery pack T2 as described in different coordinate systems are given by

1   1 1
1
2 2
T1 = mv Ẋ + Ẏ + Izv ψ̇ 2 ≡ mv vx2 + vy2 + Izv ψ̇ 2 (10a)
2 2 2 2
1   1 1
1
T2 = mb Ẋb2 + Ẏb2 + Izb (ψ̇ + ψ̇b )2 ≡ mb vxb
2 2
+ vyb + Izb (ψ̇ + ψ̇b )2 (10b)
2 2 2 2

where mv and Izv is the mass and the yaw rotational inertia of the vehicle after
removing the battery pack respectively, mb and Izb is the mass and the yaw rotational
inertia of the battery pack respectively.
Then, the kinetic energy of the whole system is

T = T1 + T2 = T (vx , vy , ψ̇, ψ̇b , ψb ) (11)

Notice that T is a function of vx , vy , ψ̇, ψ̇b and ψb .

The other energy terms are given by

1
V = Kb ψb2 = V (ψb ) (12a)
2
1
D = Cb ψ̇b2 = D(ψ̇b ) (12b)
2
where Kb and Cb are the equivalent rotation stiffness and damping coefficient from the
pair of linear spring-damper sets which couple the battery pack to the vehicle body.
The partial derivatives in Equation 9 must first be calculated as follows:

d ∂T
=(m + mb )v̇x (13a)
dt ∂vx
d ∂T
=(m + mb )v̇y (13b)
dt ∂vy
d ∂T 
=mb v̇y e1 − (v̇x + vy ψ̇b )e2 sin ψb + (v̇y − vx ψ̇b )e2 cos ψb
dt ∂ ψ̇
− (2ψ̇ + ψ̇b )ψ̇b e1 e2 sin ψb + ψ̈(e21 + e22 + 2e1 e2 cos ψb ) (13c)

+ ψ̈b (e1 cos ψb + e2 )e2 + (Izv + Izb )ψ̈ + Izb ψ̈b
d ∂T 
=mb − (v̇x + vy ψ̇)e2 sin ψb + (v̇y − vx ψ̇b )e2 cos ψb + ψ̇ ψ̇b e1 e2 sin ψb
dt ∂ ψ̇b (13d)

+ ψ̈e1 e2 cos ψb + (ψ̈b + ψ̈)e22 + Izb (ψ̈ + ψ̈b )
∂T
=0 (13e)
∂ψ
∂T
=mb (−vx cos ψb − (vy + ψ̇e1 )sinψb )(ψ̇b + ψ̇)e2 (13f)
∂ψb
∂V
=Kb ψb (13g)
∂ψb
∂V
=Cb ψ̇b (13h)
∂ ψ̇b

8
 In terms of this 3-DOF model, v̇x should be 0 as it is assumed that the forward ve-
locity vx is constant. To simplify the expression and calculation, linear approximations
are valid for small ψb , which means that sin ψb is ψb and cos ψb is 1. The products of
vy and ψb , ψ̇ and ψb , and the derivative of ψb2 ( ψ̇b ψb , as well as equivalent to ψ̇b sin ψb )
can be neglected.
Thus, simplified expressions can be obtained as:

d ∂T
=(mv + mb )v̇x (14a)
dt ∂vx
d ∂T
=(mv + mb )v̇y (14b)
dt ∂vy
d ∂T  
=(Izv + Izb )ψ̈ + Izb ψ̈b + mb (e1 + e2 ) v̇y + ψ̈(e1 + e2 ) + ψ̈b e2
dt ∂ ψ̇ (14c)
− mb vx e2 ψ̇b
d ∂T  
=mb e2 −vx e2 ψ̇b + v̇y + ψ̈e1 + (ψ̈b + ψ̈)e2 + Izb (ψ̈ + ψ̈b ) (14d)
dt ∂ ψ̇b
∂T
= − vx mb (ψ̇ + ψ̇b )e2 (14e)
∂ψb

The slip angles of the front and rear axle centers αf and αr can be approximated
as:

vy + aψ̇
αf = −δ (15a)
vx
vy − bψ̇
αr = (15b)
vx

where δ is the steering angle.

Simple expressions for the front and rear lateral forces by linear approximations can
be obtained as:

Fyf =Cf αf (16a)

Fyr =Cr αr (16b)

where Cf , Cr are the cornering stiffnesses of front and rear axles respectively.
The external forces acting one the vehicle can be written as

ΣFx =0 (17a)
ΣFy =Fyf + Fyf (17b)
ΣMz =aFyf − bFyf (17c)

Let

m =mv + mb (18a)
e =e1 + e2 (18b)
Iz =Izv + Izb (18c)

9
 After substituting the above equations into the Euler-Lagrange equations and ar-
ranging them, the system may be written in state-space form as:

P Ẋ = QX + Rδ (19)

where
 
vy
 ψ̇ 
X = 
ψ̇b  (20a)
ψb
 
m + mb 0 0 0
 mb e I + m e2 I + mb ee2 0
vz b zb
P =  (20b)
 mb e2 Izb + mb ee2 Izb + mb e2 2 0
0 0 0 1
 
Cf +Cr aCf −bCr
− vx mv 0 0
 aCfv−bC
x vx
a2 Cf +b2 Cr 
 v r m b vx e 2 0 
Q = x vx  (20c)
 0 −vx mb e2 −Cb −Kb 
0 0 1 0
 
−Cf
−aCf 
R =
 0 
 (20d)
0

3.2. Multi-body dynamics model in ADAMS/Car

The ADAMS/Car model is shown in Figure 4. The vehicle body subsystem is remod-
eled by building the battery pack into it and then assembled in the vehicle model,
which contains conventional chassis subsystems related to the lateral dynamic signif-
icantly, such as tire, suspension, and steering. The powertrain is not the necessary
subsystem to be considered for investigating handling performance.

Figure 4. Multi-body dynamics model in ADAMS/Car

To remodel the vehicle body subsystem, the original template needs working on.
Based on the scheme, the part representing the battery pack should be built and
connected with the body by a revolute joint, which is equivalent to the support rollers
and the radial bearing pair kinematically as mentioned in Section 1. Then, the pair of

10
 Spring & damper

Hooke Piston rod Cylindrical Cylinder Hooke

Battery pack Revolute Body

Hooke Piston rod Cylindrical Cylinder Hooke

Spring & damper

Figure 5. Components connection relationship in remodeled body template

spring-damper sets should be built. When building each spring-damper set, two parts,
representing the piston rod and the cylinder of the shock absorber respectively, should
be built beforehand to be subjected to the spring and damping forces. The battery
pack is coupled with the body by the relationship as shown in Figure 5.

3.3. Parameters of the models

The parameters of the models for the EVs with yaw direction oscillatable battery pack
and fixed battery pack are as summarized in Table 2. The values of Cf,r should not be
derived from doubling the cornering stiffness of single tire simply. Instead, to deter-
mine them, the steady-state steering test at small lateral acceleration and high speed
is performed on the ADAMS/Car model. Using the values of lateral acceleration ay ,
yaw rate ψ̇, and vehicle sideslip angle β (or lateral velocity vy ) in steady-state, and
substituting them into the equations of Fyf (or r) = ay m b(orl a) , Equation 15, and Equa-
tion 16, the values of Cf,r can be calculated. These values are used in the calculation
of the mathematical model.

4. Design of rotation stiffness and damping coefficient

In this section, the calculation of the undetermined parameters Kb and Cb in Table 2

is presented. The new type of chassis can be considered as a 3-DOF vibration system.
According to Equation 19, to avoid the coupling between the vehicle lateral motion
and the battery pack oscillation, e2 should be taken as 0. Moreover, to simplify the
problem further, e1 could be ignored. The mathematical dynamic model hence can be
rewritten as Equation 21.

M Ÿ + C Ẏ + KY = Bδ (21)

11
 Table 2. Parameters of the new type of chassis and the conventional chassis

Parameter Oscillatable Fixed

m (kg) 1570 1570

l (m) 2.56 2.56

a (m) 1.25 1.25

b (m) 1.31 1.31

Cf (N/rad) -124896 -124896

Cr (N/rad) -197736 -197736

Iz (kg· m2 ) 2230 2230

mb (kg) 597 597

Izb (kg· m2 ) 328 N/A

lc (m) 1.28 N/A

Kb Undetermined N/A

Cb Undetermined N/A
m – total vehicle mass (battery pack included); Cf,r – front/rear axle cornering stiffness; Iz –
total vehicle rotational inertia (battery pack included); mb – battery pack mass; Ib – battery pack
rotational inertia; Kb – rotation stiffness between battery and body; Cb – rotation damping
coefficient between battery and body.

where
 T
Y = xy ψ ψ b (22a)
 
m 0 0
M =  0 Iv Izb  (22b)
0 Izb Izb
 
aCf −bCr
− Cfv+C
x
r
− vx + v x mv 0
C = − aCf −bCr
 a2 Cf +b2 Cr 
(22c)
vx − vx 0
0 0 Cb
 
0 0 0
K = 0 0 0  (22d)
0 0 Kb
 
−Cf
B = −aCf  (22e)
0

In terms of this 2-order vibration system, notice that the combination of the second

12
and the third subequation of Equation 21 are

a2 Cf + b2 Cr aCf − bCr
Iz ψ̈ − ψ̇ − Cb ψ̇b − Kb ψb − vy = −aCf δ (23)
vx vx
2 2
According to the parameters in Table 2, it can be calculated that − a Cfv+b x
Cr
is
positive; therefore, Equation 23 reveals that the yaw motion of the vehicle body has
negative correlation with the battery pack yaw motion. In other words, for the vehicle
yaw response, the smaller that both Kb and Cb are, the larger is the amplitude gain
and shorter is the response time.
However, it is necessary to verify Kb and Cb by ψbmax , which indicates the maximum
value of ψb . Limited by the dimensions of the battery pack and the cavity space, the
value of |ψbmax | should be less than 8◦ . Considering that in the step steering test
condition, large ψb always results at low longitudinal speed and large target steady-
state lateral acceleration. To design valid values for Kb and Cb , the ADAMS/Car model
is tested in this typical nonlinear condition. Setting the target steady-state lateral
acceleration (s.s. ay ) as 8 m/s2 , the parameters of the test conditions are shown in
Table 3.
Table 3. Simulation condition for step steering test (s.s. ay = 8m/s2 )

parameter value

Longitudinal speed u (km/h) 40

Steering wheel angle (◦ ) 180

Table 4. ψbmax under different combination of Kb and Cb (s.s. ay =8 m/s2 )

Kb
(Nm/◦ )
0 20 40 60 80 100
Cb
(Nm/(◦ /s))

0 - 21.616 15.140 11.977 9.952 8.562

5 19.325 15.743 11.808 9.518 8.085 7.158

10 16.174 12.248 9.333 7.739 6.798 6.144

15 12.658 9.655 7.544 6.533 5.864 5.373

20 11.951 8.531 6.372 5.845 5.152 4.767

25 9.399 6.365 5.826 5.658 4.624 4.323

30 7.139 5.684 5.416 4.845 4.419 3.925

By changing different combinations of Kb and Cb , simulation tests are performed.

The test start points of Kb and Cb are both set to 0. Taking Cb (or Kb ) as 0, when
changing Kb (or Cb ), once |ψbmax | reaches its maximum permissible value, correspond-

13
ingly, the value of Kb (or Cb ) can be hence determined as the upper extremum. The
values taken at regular intervals of Kb and Cb can be spanned to a series of combina-
tions. Hence a series of ψbmax values can be obtained as listed in Table 4.
The potential combination that satisfies the requirement of both response and layout
best can be chosen by the combinations that make ψbmax smaller than and closest to
8◦ in principle. Visually, the time-domain responses of ψb are shown in Figure 6, and
the frequency-domain responses of ψ̇ are shown in Figure 7 (the transfer function is
given in Section 5.1).

Figure 6. Time-domain responses of ψb under different combination of Kb and Cb

Figure 7. Frequency-domain responses of ψ̇ under different combination of Kb and Cb

In Figure 6, we focus on ψb peak time and settling time. In Figure 7, we focus on the
fluctuation of the amplitude/phase-frequency curves, the consistency of the amplitude-
frequency response, and the phase level. Although it is not in Table 4, comprehensively
considering these indicators, the combination of Kb and Cb is finally chosen as Kb = 25
Nm/◦ , Cb = 18 Nms/◦ . The ψbmax value is 7.79◦ , and the damping ratio of the battery

14
pack oscillation is 0.75. The response curves are drawn in the two figures as red solid
lines. The parameters of the linear spring and damper are determined as kb = 437.13
N/m and cb = 314.74 Ns/m by Equation 3.

5. Simulation tests and results

In this section, several comparative test results between the new type of chassis and
the conventional chassis are presented. Frequency domain analysis results are given
first. The time-domain results of the step steering test in the nonlinear region and
double lane change test results are then presented.

5.1. Results in frequency-domain

In the frequency-domain analysis, the response of yaw rate to the steering input in the
linear test condition (lateral acceleration less than 4 m/s2 ) is focused on. This can be
obtained easily using the analysis method based on the linear mathematical dynamic
model. According to Equation 21, the transfer function of the yaw rate to the steering
input for the new type of chassis is:

Ω(s) −saCf m − aCf C11 + C21 Cf

= 2
s3 Izb (sm+C11 )
(24)
∆(s) s2 Iz m + s(Iz C11 + C22 m) + C22 C11 − C21 C12 − s2 Izb +sCb +Kb

where Cij is the element of C in Equation 22c.

3 2
Comparing the transfer functions with the novel chassis, the term − ss2 IIzb (sm+C11 )
zb +sCb +Kb
does not exist in the denominator of the conventional chassis.

Figure 8. Frequency-domain response of yaw rate

The longitudinal speed vx is set to 100 km/h, and the frequency response charac-
teristic curve of the yaw rate is plotted in Figure 8.

15
 The main evaluation indicators include amplitude ratio at zero frequency af =0 Hz ,
resonant frequency fr , gain at resonant frequency arf , phase lag angle at the frequen-
cies of 0.1 Hz and 1 Hz, i.e., ∠φf =0.1 Hz , ∠φf =1 Hz and frequency at the phase lag of
45◦ , f∠φ=45◦ [27].

Table 5. Key evaluation indicators in frequency-domain

Indicator Oscillatable Fixed

af =0 Hz (dB) 15.7 15.7

fr (Hz) 1.04 0.95

af r (dB) 16.1 16.3

∠φf =0.1 Hz (◦ ) -1.61 -1.58

∠φf =1 Hz (◦ ) -18.5 -22.5

f∠φ=45◦ (Hz) 2.05 1.75

From the results, it can be observed that the new type of chassis ∠φf =1Hz is smaller
than that of the conventional chassis, and fr is higher than that of the conventional
chassis, f∠φ=45◦ , which indicates that the bandwidth is 0.3 Hz wider than that of the
conventional chassis.

(a) Change rotational inertia (b) Change mass

Figure 9. Equivalent inertia reduction

16
 Using bandwidth as the indicator, we can evaluate the equivalent inertia reduction
of the new type of chassis. For the battery pack fixed chassis, as shown in Figure 9(a),
when Iz as a single variable is reduced from 2 230 kgm2 to 1 840 kgm2 (390 kgm2
reduced), the bandwidth increases from 1.75 Hz to 2.05 Hz, which is the level of the
new type of chassis. Simultaneously, however, the resonant amplitude ratio increases
from 16.1 dB to 16.5 dB. On the other hand, as shown in Figure 9(b), the bandwidth
cannot be improved remarkably by changing the value of m.

5.2. Step steering test

The simulation test parameters for this test are shown in Table 6. The test is in a
nonlinear condition such that the s.s. ay is 6 m/s2 .

Table 6. Simulation conditions of step steering test (s.s. ay =6 m/s2 )

Parameter Value

Longitudinal speed (km/h) 100

Steering wheel angle (◦ ) 54

Steering wheel rotation time (s) 0.1

The time-domain responses to steering input including yaw rate, lateral acceleration
and vehicle sideslip angle are shown in Figures 10 – 12. The key evaluation indicators
are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Key evaluation indicators in step steering test (s.s. ay =6 m/s2 )

Parameter Oscillatable Fixed

Tψ̇ (s) 0.149 0.162

Tψ̇,max (s) 0.306 0.354

Tψ̇,settle 0.529 0.690

σψ % (%) 9.69 13.45

|β|max (◦ ) 1.66 1.74

From the simulation results, it can be concluded that contrary to the conventional
chassis, each yaw rate transient response indicator of the novel chassis is improved,
and the vehicle sideslip angle can be controlled better in the transient process.

5.3. Double lane change test

To investigate the handling performance further, a double lane change (DLC) test that
is commonly adopted to simulate emergency maneuvers is used [28]. The two chassis
are tested in the ADAMS/Car environment.

17
 Figure 10. Response of yaw rate in step steering test (s.s. ay =6 m/s2 )

Figure 11. Response of lateral acceleration in step steering test (s.s. ay =6 m/s2 )

Figure 12. Response of sideslip angle in step steering test (s.s. ay =6 m/s2 )

18
 We focus on the comparisons of steering wheel operation and sideslip angle in the
time-domain in the DLC test wherein the vehicle mass center is made to track a
specified trajectory. The actual paths of the two types of chassis are shown in Figure 13.
The vehicle longitudinal speed is set as 100 km/h and road friction coefficient is 0.8.

Figure 13. Driving path in the DLC test (u=100 km/h)

These test results are as shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15.

It is observed that the variation ranges for the sideslip angle and steering wheel angle
of the new type of chassis are less than those of the conventional chassis. This means
that the path tracking is easier, and the steering wheel operation is less cumbersome
for the driver with the new type of chassis.
An additional DLC simulation test at a higher speed is also performed, where the
new type of chassis passes the test while the conventional chassis does not. This situa-
tion arises when the vehicle longitudinal speed is set to 145 km/h. From Figure 16 and
Figure 17, it is noted that the yaw rate of the conventional chassis is not able to track
the steering wheel input operation, however, the new type of chassis can maintain
stability and thereby pass the test.
Based on these results, it can be concluded that the new type of chassis has safety
advantages in terms of emergency obstacle avoidance.

Figure 14. Steering angle in the DLC test (u=100 km/h)

6. Conclusion

For vehicles, the yaw rotational inertia has a negative impact on the cornering response.
In the process of investigating the volume, mass and energy capacity of the EV battery

19
 Figure 15. Sideslip angle in the DLC test (u=100 km/h)

Figure 16. Yaw rate vs. steering angle in u=145 km/h DLC test

Figure 17. Yaw rate in u=145 km/h DLC test

20
pack, it is observed that the battery pack has to retain a large volume and mass in
order to meet the mileage requirements. Therefore, the EV handling performance is
also affected accordingly.
In this paper, a new type of chassis for an EV that is equipped with an oscillatable
battery pack is proposed. Using this chassis system, the vehicle yaw rotational inertia
can be reduced equivalently. The oscillatable battery pack has only one yaw DOF
relative to the vehicle body and is coupled to the vehicle body by a pair of linear
spring-damper sets. Under the premise of meeting the requirements of the vehicle
layout and mileage, the detailed structure is designed and presented. For elementary
qualitative analysis, the 3-DOF dynamic model is derived using the Euler-Lagrange
method. In addition, the multi-body dynamics model is established in ADAMS/Car
to evaluate the cornering response behaviors in nonlinear conditions. These models are
used to design the dynamic parameters of the system to obtain the complete vehicle
parameters. Then, the new type of EV chassis is compared and analyzed for simulation
results of typical test conditions with the conventional chassis, and it is concluded that
owing to the equivalent reduction of the vehicle yaw rotational inertia, certain negative
effects on the cornering response are reduced. This means that the novel chassis has
better handling performance and that the mileage can be guaranteed.
However, we note that improving the lateral dynamics by this method has a limited
impact because of the limited yaw rotational inertia that the battery pack is responsible
for. In the future work, we expect to focus on active control of the oscillatable battery
pack or its combination with other active control subsystems to further improve the
handling performance.

7. Acknowledgement

This work was supported by China Automobile Industry Innovation and Development
Joint Fund (U1664257, U1864206), National Natural Science Foundation of China
(61520106008), and Innovation and Entrepreneurship Leading Talent Program of Qing-
dao, China (18-1-2-17-zhc).

References

[1] Ding N, Prasad K, Lie T. The electric vehicle: a review. International Journal of Electric
and Hybrid Vehicles. 2017;9(1):49–66.
[2] Binggang C, Chuanwei Z, Zhifeng B, et al. Technology progress and trends of electric
vehicles. Journal-Xian Jiaotong University. 2004;38(1):1–5.
[3] Shino M, Nagai M. Yaw-moment control of electric vehicle for improving handling and
stability. JSAE review. 2001;22(4):473–480.
[4] Feng X, Ouyang M, Liu X, et al. Thermal runaway mechanism of lithium ion battery for
electric vehicles: A review. Energy Storage Materials. 2018;10:246–267.
[5] Pollet BG, Staffell I, Shang JL. Current status of hybrid, battery and fuel cell electric
vehicles: From electrochemistry to market prospects. Electrochimica Acta. 2012;84:235–
249.
[6] Li G, Fu X, Yang Y. Anti-vibration safety performance research of battery pack based
on finite element method in electric vehicle. In: 2017 36th Chinese Control Conference
(CCC); IEEE; 2017. p. 10281–10285.
[7] Liu Y, Zhao J, Jiang F. Study on the influence of the arrangement of battery pack on the
steering characteristics of electric vehicle. Mechanika. 2016;22(6):537–545.

21
 [8] Fan Y, Sun J. Study on the interaction of electric vehicle roll and battery pack stability.
Mechanika. 2017;23(1):92–99.
[9] Yamakado M, Takahashi J, Saito S, et al. Improvement in vehicle agility and stability by
g-vectoring control. Vehicle System Dynamics. 2010;48(S1):231–254.
[10] Acosta M, Kanarachos S, Blundell M. Vehicle agile maneuvering: From rally drivers to
a finite state machine approach. In: 2016 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational
Intelligence (SSCI); IEEE; 2016. p. 1–8.
[11] Charlton M, Padfield G, Horton R. Helicopter agility in low speed manoeuvres. In: 13th
European Rotorcraft Forum, At Arles, France; 09; 1987.
[12] Yi J, Li J, Lu J, et al. On the stability and agility of aggressive vehicle maneuvers: a
pendulum-turn maneuver example. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology.
2011;20(3):663–676.
[13] Avanzini G, Matteis Gd, de Socio LM. Analysis of aircraft agility on maximum perfor-
mance maneuvers. Journal of Aircraft. 1998;35(4):529–535.
[14] Heijnen P. The co-development of the bridgestone ologic tires for the bmw i3: new chal-
lenges given by the integration of revolutionary vehicle and tire technologies. In: 5th
International Munich Chassis Symposium; Springer; 2014. p. 657–676.
[15] Wimmer C. The electronic chassis of the new bmw i8–influence and characterization of
driving dynamics. In: 5th International Munich Chassis Symposium; Springer; 2014. p.
57–73.
[16] Cheah LW. Cars on a diet: the material and energy impacts of passenger vehicle weight
reduction in the us [dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2010.
[17] Van Zanten AT. Bosch esp systems: 5 years of experience. SAE Technical Paper; 2000.
[18] Klier W, Reimann G, Reinelt W. Concept and functionality of the active front steering
system. SAE Technical Paper; 2004.
[19] Sakai Si, Sado H, Hori Y. Motion control in an electric vehicle with four independently
driven in-wheel motors. IEEE/ASME Transactions on mechatronics. 1999;4(1):9–16.
[20] Ghoneim YA, Lin WC, Sidlosky DM, et al. Integrated chassis control system to enhance
vehicle stability. International Journal of Vehicle Design. 2000;23(1-2):124–144.
[21] Road vehicles–lateral transient response test methods–open-loop test methods. ISO 7401:
2011. 2011;.
[22] Passenger cars–test track for a severe lane-change manoeuvre: Part 1: Double lane-change.
ISO 3888-1: 2018. 2018;.
[23] Hu Q, Tian M, Gao B, et al. Dynamic analysis of electric vehicle with battery packswing-
ing chassis. In: International Conference on Energy, Ecology and Environment (ICEEE)
/ International Conference on Electric and Intelligent Vehicles (ICEIV); DEStech Trans-
actions on Environment, Energy and Earth Sciences; 2018.
[24] Pang B, Tian M, Lyu J, et al. Enhancement of integrated chassis system of electric
vehicles on cornering maneuvers. In: International Conference on Energy, Ecology and
Environment (ICEEE) / International Conference on Electric and Intelligent Vehicles
(ICEIV); DEStech Transactions on Environment, Energy and Earth Sciences; 2018.
[25] Pacejka H. Tire and vehicle dynamics. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2012.
[26] Milliken WF, Milliken DL. Race car vehicle dynamics. Warrendale, PA: Society of Auto-
motive Engineers; 1995.
[27] Allen RW, Rosenthal TJ, Szostak HT. Steady state and transient analysis of ground
vehicle handling. SAE Technical Paper; 1987.
[28] Peng Y, Yang X. Comparison of various double-lane change manoeuvre specifications.
Vehicle system dynamics. 2012;50(7):1157–1171.

22

View publication stats