POLITECHNIKA WROCŁAWSKA

WYDZIAŁ MECHANICZNY
KIERUNEK: MECHANIKA I BUDOWA MASZYN w j. angielskim
SPECJALNOŚĆ: AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING

PRACA DYPLOMOWA
MAGISTERSKA

Analiza wpływu regulacji parametrów amortyzatora na dynamikę

poprzeczną pojazdu typu Formula Student

Influence analysis of the damper parameters adjustment to the

Formula Student vehicle lateral dynamic performance

AUTOR:
Łukasz Kostrzewski

PROMOTOR:
dr hab. inż. Artur Iluk
Wydział Mechaniczny
Katedra Konstrukcji i Badań Maszyn
i Pojazdów
W10/K57

OCENA PRACY:

WROCŁAW 2021
 ABSTRACT
The need of the study was to find an objective assessment of the vehicle's behavior in the corner,
to determine the influence of dynamic damper parameters on the lateral dynamic performance
of the Formula Student vehicle. The first step was to study the literature on vehicle dynamics
and damper fundamentals. Further part of the work focuses on selecting driving scenarios
appropriate for examining vehicle response behavior on steering wheel angle input. Common
tests used in the industry were discussed and a set of manoeuvres applicable for this class of
vehicle was specified. The vehicle handling behavior is characterised by the metrics that were
proposed for each scenario separately. The selected tests were carried out with the use of a
computational model built in the multi-body dynamics simulation software. Results of this
study are meant to be used as a reference, optimising the time of adjusting the setup for
competitions.

-1-
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... - 3 -

2. LITERATURE STUDY ............................................................................................. - 4 -

2.1. SUSPENSION SYSTEM DYNAMICS ................................................................. - 4 -

2.2. DAMPER FUNDAMENTALS .............................................................................. - 9 -

3. DESIGN OF LATERAL TRANSIENT TESTS ...................................................... - 11 -

3.1. ISO 7401 TEST .................................................................................................... - 11 -

3.2. FORMULA STUDENT TRACKS CHARACTERISTIC ................................... - 11 -

3.3. DRIVING SCENARIOS ...................................................................................... - 13 -

3.3.1. STEP STEER ................................................................................................ - 13 -

3.3.2. RAMP STEER .............................................................................................. - 15 -

3.3.3. PULSE STEER ............................................................................................. - 15 -

3.3.4. FREQUENCY SWEEP ................................................................................. - 16 -

3.3.5. DOUBLE LINE CHANGE ........................................................................... - 17 -

4. COMPUTATIONAL MODEL ................................................................................ - 17 -

4.1. VEHICLE PARAMETERS .................................................................................. - 19 -

4.2. DAMPER CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................ - 23 -

5. SIMULATION ......................................................................................................... - 26 -

5.1. TEST EVENTS SETUP ....................................................................................... - 26 -

5.2. MODEL VALIDATION ...................................................................................... - 28 -

5.3. RESULTS ............................................................................................................. - 31 -

6. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... - 38 -

FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ - 39 -

TABLES .............................................................................................................................. - 40 -

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... - 41 -

-2-
1. INTRODUCTION

The aim of the thesis is to determine influence of dynamic damper parameters characteristics
to the vehicle lateral dynamic performance of the Formula Student vehicle. Lateral transient
test methods can provide data to establish its response to steering wheel angle input and impact
on lap times. Those methods are implemented into the three-dimensional numerical model, to
be later compared to the real case on track.

The need of the study is to find an objective assessment of the vehicle’s behavior in the corner,
in which we know that PWR Racing Team is losing the most time. In previous years, the vehicle
development was growing constantly optimizing all processes. In the context of adjusting
damper parameters, which is a very complex issue, no major progress has been made. Until
then, they were set based on the driver’s feelings and basic analysis of sensor data collected
during runs on the track.

The first step of this work deals with selecting driving scenarios appropriate for evaluating
proper damper adjustments. The object of the research is a specific class of the vehicle and for
this reason range of the selection is narrowed by reviewing the Formula Student tracks and
determining its characteristics. Designed set of maneuvers must be sufficient to determine
dynamic characteristics of vehicle behavior in most important sections of all competitions,
while simply enough to execute it during test phase of the car, which is limited to only few
months. Moreover, the driver needs to be able to recreate this scenario, to validate the
simulation. The process of developing the scenarios was based on literature review. The vehicle
behavior during described scenarios were characterized with the metrics that were proposed for
each maneuver separately, giving an objective assessment of the handling quality.

The study was carried out on the RT12e, which is a project designed by PWR Racing Team. It
is a Formula Student class race car with very specific construction applicable only in race
competition of this vehicle class. RTX, one of the previous projects built by this team, is an
example of a such construction (Figure 1). Computational model of the vehicle was built with
use of multi-body dynamics simulation. It is a CAE tool that gives a possibility to examine
vehicle dynamic behavior precisely. MotionView software, provided by Altair Engineering
company, was used for this purpose.

The results of this study are meant to be used as a reference, while testing the car in real
environment, shortening the time needed to find optimal adjustments.

Figure 1. Renders of RTX race car

-3-
2. LITERATURE STUDY
2.1. SUSPENSION SYSTEM DYNAMICS

Vibrations are of general interest in vehicle construction for many reasons:

• Influence on the wheel load fluctuations and thus on the road contact and grip,
• Vehicle body response behavior,
• Vibrations acting on the driver,
• Ground clearance fluctuations influence on aerodynamic downforce.

In this section the spring-mass-damper system is reviewed to clarify the concept of damping
and frequency. Many systems can be simplified by this model. One of the applications is vehicle
suspension system, where vehicle body lateral response behavior to steering inputs can be
approximated. It can be used to determine the ride comfort and handling. To keep optimal ride
comfort damper isolates the unsprung body form the road inputs. This can be achieved by
minimizing the vertical acceleration of the sprung mass. Whereas ride handling can be
improved by reducing vertical wheel load variations. However, by introducing suspension
additional structural compliance is added, which may lead to handling deterioration.

The most simplified basic idea is a system consisted of a mass and damped spring (Figure 2).
Its dynamic behavior is determined by three forces that acts on the system [5]:

Figure 2. System consisted of spring, damper, and mass [5]

1. The inertial force is caused by acceleration of the mass.

𝑑2 𝑥
𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑎 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 = 𝑚 ( 𝑑𝑡 2 ) [𝑁] (1)

2. The damping force is a function of damping coefficient and damper velocity.

𝑑𝑥
𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 = 𝐶 ( 𝑑𝑡 ) [𝑁] (2)

3. The spring force is a function of spring rate and spring displacement.

𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 = 𝑘𝑥 [𝑁] (3)

Where: m – mass
C – damping coefficient
k – spring rate
x – displacement of the body
t – time

-4-
Having these equations above further calculations of system behavior can be made. Its resonant
frequency is defined as [5]:

1 𝑘
𝜔𝑛 = √ [𝐻𝑧] (4)
2𝜋 𝑚

While analysing the behavior of damped system, it is crucial to define one specific value of
damping coefficient, which is called critical damping 𝐶𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 . For this level of damping, it is the
quickest way for the mass to reach steady state, while step displacement of mass is applied.

The mathematical expression of critical damping is shown below [5]:

𝐶𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 = 2√𝑘𝑚 (5)

As 𝐶𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 is a function of spring rate and mass of the body it can be concluded that the proper
damping differs for each system. Therefore, the ratio of the damping coefficient to its value
described above as critical damping is important, while adjusting the damper. This relation is
the damping ratio ζ.
𝐶
𝜁 =𝐶 (6)
𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡

Its influence on the system’s dynamic behavior can be shown on the step input of the steer angle
in the time domain (Figure 3). The undamped periodic motion would theoretically never decay
in frictionless state because of the kinetic energy of the mass in motion and the potential energy
of the spring remains constant in total. When damping is considered in the system, part of the
energy is transformed into heat in the damper and oscillation decreases over time [5]. The
damping ratios shown below are in the range from 0.3 to 1.2. It can be noticed that for the level
of the critical damping the steady state is reached the quickest with no overshoot. For the ζ
values <1 overshoot occurs, which decrease the driver’s comfort. Above ζ=1, further increasing
value of damping ratio results in extending the system response time.

-5-
 Figure 3. Behavior of the system in time domain for different damping ratios [5]

For racing purposes damping ratio at 0.7 level is considered as a good compromise between
damping and system response (Figure 4). At this level the wheel moves faster through the initial
position being responsive for next external input faster and at the same time can be damped to
reach steady state quickly [5].

Figure 4. Comparison of different damping ratios influence on vibrations [6]

-6-
Quarter car model is a more complex definition of the vehicle dynamic behavior. In this model,
not only sprung mass of the vehicle body is taken into consideration, but also unsprung mass
of the suspension is added (Figure 5). This added mass includes all components which are not
supported by the springs.

Figure 5. Spring-damper-mass system with two degrees of freedom [7]

The vertical acceleration levels of the body in frequency domain at constant velocity input
applied to the system show the importance of damping ratio on the ride comfort and the vehicle
grip (Figure 6), (Figure 7). Lower acceleration levels mean higher comfort and lower
fluctuations of acceleration results in better grip. For the system with one degree of freedom
(Figure 6), where the unsprung mass is not included, there is one local peak value, which is at
resonant frequency of the system. For the presented example it is at about 1.5 Hz. The higher
the damping coefficient is, the lower is the peak value, so the performance is increased for low
frequencies, but results in higher accelerations above 2 Hz.

Figure 6. Vertical accelerations on simplified quarter car model [5]

For road vehicles examination of more complex system is inevitable, since the suspension mass
is significant and the tire that supports the unsprung mass has its own spring rate and damping
coefficient. The behavior of this additional mass has to be included.

The resonant frequency of the added mass, which in the example is at about 12 Hz, results in
an additional peak value of the body vertical acceleration (Figure 7). At low frequencies
behavior is similar as in simplified example.

-7-
 Figure 7. vertical accelerations on quarter car model [5]

Hitting a bump, can result in different body movement even having the same suspension setup.
Vertical movement of the vehicle body, that receives an input from the bump is strongly related
to its wavelength. In frequency domain it appears that at low frequency there are larger
amplitudes and high frequencies come with smaller amplitudes.

The parameter that describes this effect is the transmissibility. It defines the relation between
the amplitude of the body vertical movement to the amplitude do the wheel vertical movement,
which is the input [5].
𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒
𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒 (7)

Transmissibility is a function of mass, spring rate and damping ratio. To maximize grip, the
lowest transmissibility is needed. The cause of this is that body movement in relation to the
wheel, decrease the grip by varying forces acting on spring [9].

Examination of transmissibility in frequency domain for different damping ratios (Figure 8)

shows, that at low frequencies high damping ratios are desired, as it results in lower peak value.
Then, at the certain value, there is a crossover point, where all damping ratio curves intersect.
It means that on the other side of this point, we want the lowest possible damping ratio. This
phenomenon is important while designing damper characteristic. Additionally, it can be seen
that at frequencies close to 0 Hz, the transmissibility is near value of 1.

Figure 8. Influence of different damping ratios on transmissibility [8]

-8-
 2.2. DAMPER FUNDAMENTALS

The damper can be characterised on many ways depending on what we want to analyse. One
method is to define the damping ratio (Chapter 2.1). This parameter can be used further in the
relation of the damper characteristic to the acceleration of the unsprung mas of the vehicle [5]:
𝑉
𝐺 = 4𝜋 ∗ 𝜁 ∗ 𝜔 ∗ 𝑔 [𝑔] (8)

Where: G – body acceleration caused by damper

ω – resonant frequency
V – velocity
g – acceleration of gravity

Example that visualises this relation is shown below (Figure 9). In real life, this correlation
would not be optimal, and several modifications can be implemented. Most of them were
introduced thanks to many measurements on the dyno tests. Firstly, it was observed that wheel
velocities during a bump are about twice higher in most cases than in rebound [5]. The damper
manufacturers have taken advantage of this tests and nowadays asymmetry in damper
characteristics is used with the coefficient in rebound equal about two and the average value of
those slopes is equal the value before asymmetry was added (Figure 10).

Figure 9. Simplified damper characterisitcs [5]

Figure 10. Asymmetry in damper characteristics [5]

-9-
Damper characteristics, which are called damper curves are presented on force in velocity of
the damper domain. Presented above, damper curve can be further optimized. According to the
transmissibility effect (Chapter 2.1) it is desirable to keep its value as low as possible for the
whole working range of frequencies. To achieve this requirement different damping coefficient
for low and high velocities of the damper should be chosen and their separation should be at
the velocity level of crossover point (Figure 8). This point on the damper curve is referred as
knee (Figure 11) [8]. To increase the readability of the visualisation, curves are defined in the
absolute velocity domain.

Figure 11. Complete damper curve [8]

For racing purposes, it is suggested to use as a baseline damping ratio close to 0.7 at lower
velocities and for higher frequencies it should be much lower [8]. Many damper manufacturers
give a possibility to tune damping coefficient for low and high speed independently, both for
compression and rebound and thus damper characteristics is described by four separate linear
damping coefficients.

- 10 -
3. DESIGN OF LATERAL TRANSIENT TESTS

There are standardized methods to determine the complete vehicle transient behavior. Number
of different tests need to be carried out to get accurate description. In case of setting the damper
parameters only few of them are important to determine optimal characteristics. Among them
are lateral transient response tests, which are the main object of the study.

3.1. ISO 7401 TEST

It is an international standardized method for road vehicles, used for obtaining measures of
vehicle transient response behavior under specified steer inputs. It briefly describes test
conditions and processes. The response is linear as the assumption. During on-track test, it is
not possible to keep such characteristic, until autonomous systems are implemented. To deal
with this limitation the output data can be limited to the range, which can be assumed as linear.
A set of tests have to be performed to cover the total range of needed data. The output data is
presented as functions in time and frequency domains, depending on the test type and goal. All
driving scenarios from Section 3.3 except the double line change are described according to the
guidelines of this standard. [1] This standard is also mentioned in the work Race car vehicle
dynamics [5] as also relevant for racing cars industry.

3.2. FORMULA STUDENT TRACKS CHARACTERISTIC

The object of this study is optimised for best performance at Formula Student competitions,
which are the ultimate test of design quality. Every competition in Europe, in terms of types of
dynamic events and track layout, follows the guidelines described by Formula Student Germany
organization [12]. There are always 4 types of dynamic events, which are: acceleration, skidpad,
autocross and endurance. Acceleration is simply straight-line acceleration, not relevant to this
study.

Autocross
It is time attack type race, which length is less than 1.5 km. It is built on the following
guidelines [12]:
• “straights: No longer than 80m,
• constant turns: up to 50m diameter,
• hairpin turns minimum of 9m outside diameter,
• slaloms: cones in a straight line with 7.5m to 12m spacing
• miscellaneous: chicanes, multiple tuns, decreasing radius turns, etc. The minimum track
width is 3m” [12]

Endurance
Endurance is closed lap circuit, much longer than autocross, with similar restrictions regarding
track layout. Only one difference are faster slaloms and chicanes, where cones are placed with
9 m to 15 m spacing.

Path and track

The radius range of turns is already defined, but in reality, it is quite different. Track design
does not necessarily use whole range. In addition, this is a description of the geometric shape
of the track, but the path of the vehicle motion can be completely different. Track is the
geometric shape limitation on which vehicle can move. It is defined strictly by the designers of
the track, but each driver passing it may take his own path. In motorsport, in order to lose as
little speed as possible, a driver chooses a path that will allow him to pass a corner with the

- 11 -
widest possible turning radius. This method is known as geometric apex. The second method
involves taking a trajectory, which gives the highest possible speed at the exit of the turn. In
Formula Student competitions, drivers are very inexperienced, and the analysis of the ideal line
is not relevant here.

In order to characterize drivers’ behavior on the Formula Student Germany track, the analysis
of the steered wheel angle during few laps of endurance event was carried out (Figure 12). It
shows that most corners are wide, where front wheel angle is lower than 15°, which corresponds
approximately to a turning radius equal 9 m. Values over 20° till the maximal operational range
of wheel equal 32°, which was calculated for the minimal turning radius of 4m, defined in event
rules, occurs only a few times during the race.

Figure 12. Position of steered wheels during endurance event

Skidpad
This dynamic event consists of two pairs of concentric circle in a figure of eight pattern. The
centers of these circles are 18.25m apart [12], (Figure 13). The inner circle of each of them is
15.25m in diameter. As the driver want to keep the distance as low as possible, his driving path
is close to this inner circle with the turning radius of approximately 8m.

Figure 13. Skidpad track layout [12]

- 12 -
 3.3. DRIVING SCENARIOS

Regarding ISO 7401 the assumption of only one variable during each run, which is steering
wheel angle, is made [1]. Performance of the vehicle is measured by few metrics that
characterize its behavior. All of those metrics are based on the lateral response sensitivity and
are expressed in time or frequency domain. The method is designed for the linear range of
vehicle behavior, which is defined by tire’s force curve in lateral acceleration domain [5]. This
means that designed scenarios does not necessarily need to generate highest possible lateral
forces on wheels. At the beginning it is proposed to determine the amplitude of the input that
gives peak lateral acceleration value far below the upper limit of the linear range of vehicle
behavior [1].

3.3.1. STEP STEER

Procedure
This maneuver gives valuable information of vehicle transient behavior and response and is
widely used in automotive industry. A step input of steering wheel angle (SWA) is applied to
a vehicle running straight with constant longitudinal velocity. Preselected value of the input
should be reached as rapidly as it is possible and then maintained for a few seconds till all the
measured parameters reached steady state (Figure 14). Theoretically it should be infinitely fast,
but in the reality amplitude gain of input should not be longer than 0.15 s. Final input value
should not be too high, so that the car is able to maintain steady state after maneuver, but on the
other hand big enough, to prevent any external errors and data noise from affecting results.
During the maneuver, the throttle is held fixed and small changes in longitudinal velocity of the
vehicle may occurs [1].

Figure 14. Step steer input [3; p.13]

- 13 -
Data analysis
Data is presented on several plots, where we can compare all required vehicle motion responses
to the steering wheel input signal (Figure 15). Referring to the ISO 7401 procedure there are
several key metrics to analyze [1]:
• Response (rise) time – it is a time in which the motion reaches 90% of the steady state
value for the first time.
• Peak response time – is defined as the time in which maximum value of measured
parameter is reached.

The starting point of measurement for both metrics is time at which steering wheel input reaches
value equal 50% of its amplitude.
• Overshoot value – is equal the difference of peak value and steady-state value after
maneuver divided by steady-state value.

Figure 15. Data interpretation methodology for lateral response manoeuvres [5]

Metrics
Most important measurements found in the literature to examine in this test are [1]:
• Lateral acceleration response time: the overall delay in changing the direction of the
vehicle motion, indicating how quickly the vehicle can reach the intended direction of
travel
• Yaw rate response time: the overall delay in rotation of the vehicle around yaw axis,
determining how fast vehicle reaches yawing stability, which means more predictable
behavior
• Lateral acceleration peak response time: the agility of the vehicle in changing the
direction of motion, describing how fast the vehicle can enter the corner
• Yaw rate peak response time: the delay in pointing the vehicle in the direction intended
by the driver
• Overshoot of lateral acceleration: the vehicle lateral acceleration damping, that affects
the normal force distribution on wheels, fluctuations of which reduce the grip
• Overshoot of yaw rate: the vehicle yaw damping, the bigger the overshoot the less
predictable behavior of the car for the driver

- 14 -
 3.3.2. RAMP STEER

Similar test to the previous one, but the steering angle input is applied as longer lasting ramp
that leads to a constant maximum value (Figure 16). Goal of this test is to verify transient
behavior of the vehicle, while lower velocities of the dampers are applied. This test can be
conducted for different speeds of increasing input value. Whole procedure of data analysis is
similar as in step steer (Figure 15) [1].

Figure 16. Ramp steer input [3; p.14]

3.3.3. PULSE STEER

Procedure
The steering wheel angle sequence is one period of sinusoidal curve with various periods
(Figure 17). The goal of this maneuver is to determine how much time does it take for the
vehicle to return to its initial steady state after being driven out of equilibrium. The amplitude
of the input should be determined by driving in a steady state on a circle, with a radius that
generates preselected lateral acceleration at the required speed [1].

Data analysis
Compared to previous tests two additional measurement should be carried out. First one is time
lag between input peak value and measured parameters peak value. Additionally, instead of
response time calculated till 90% of steady state, more important is the time, when the value
crosses initial value. This results in faster response for the next turn.

Metrics
Measurements that should be done during this test are response times of lateral acceleration and
yaw rate described earlier in step steer test. Additional important metrics are:
• Lateral acceleration peak time lag: the agility of the vehicle in changing the direction of
motion, describing how fast the vehicle can enter the corner
• Yaw rate peak time lag: the delay in pointing the vehicle in the direction intended by
the driver
• Lateral acceleration zero-crossing time: the time till the state with no lateral
acceleration, meaning that the vehicle is driving straight, and is able to accelerate
quicker
• Yaw rate zero-crossing time: the measurement of the time needed to reach no yaw
rotation of the vehicle, that defines when the vehicle is ready for the next turn

- 15 -
 Figure 17. Pulse steer input [3; p.15]

3.3.4. FREQUENCY SWEEP

Procedure
For the complete analysis, the whole required frequency range should be tested. A sine wave
with increasing frequency in steps of steering wheel angle is applied (Figure 18). The amplitude
is defined by the first period of sine wave. Peak lateral acceleration at this time corresponds to
the steady state lateral acceleration that was selected for step steer test. The range of frequency
should be operational of tested object and be sufficient sensitive to this change, which in
passenger cars is usually from 0.2 Hz to 2 Hz [1].

Figure 18. Frequency sweep input [3; p.16]

Data analysis
In the frequency tests the measurement is the gain of variables, which we want to be as high as
possible. It is calculated as the ratio of the measurement amplitude to the input amplitude, which
is a steering wheel angle and is analyzed in frequency domain.

Metrics
During this maneuver variables are measured in the frequency domain:
• Lateral acceleration gain: the agility of the vehicle in changing the direction of motion
over the frequency range. The higher the value for the individual frequency the better
responsiveness
• Yaw rate gain: the agility of the vehicle rotation around yaw axis over the frequency
range. The higher the value for the individual frequency the better responsiveness

- 16 -
 3.3.5. DOUBLE LINE CHANGE
To investigate how the results obtained from the manoeuvres described earlier affect the times
achieved on the track a more complex section, that frequently occurs at competitions, was
chosen. This is a chicane consisting of double line change. Cones are placed at straights and the
gaps between them along direction in which the car enters this section defines its geometry.
According to the rules this gap is 7.5 m to 15 m [12]. The section consists of entering a corner
after a long straight, which then rapidly changes into a corner in the opposite direction. The
sequence is repeated in the opposite direction and finally returning to the line on which the
vehicle was driving before the entire manoeuvre (Figure 19).

Figure 19. Chicane - double line change manoeuvre

4. COMPUTATIONAL MODEL

Taking part in formula student competitions forces the team to build a completely new car every
year, and due to this fact, this model had to be built from scratch. The methodology of building
computational model of the vehicle had to be chosen in order to simulate response test. To
improve lateral suspension control and ride comfort the three-dimensional 7-degree of freedom
vehicle model is required (Figure 20). The sprung mass of the model has rotational 3-degree of
freedom, and the unsprung mass has translational 1-degree of freedom for each wheel in vertical
axis [4]. Later in the paper similar model is used. This way complexity of the computational
model is sufficient to compare results of the simulation with on track test.

Figure 20. Seven degrees of freedom of vehicle ride model [4; p.108]

- 17 -
The requirements for the calculations of vehicle behavior were:
• possibility of implementing 7-degree of freedom vehicle model,
• complexity that allows comparison with on track tests,
• evaluation can be carried out in short time, no longer than few weeks,
• fast adjustments of parameters to test multiple setups,
• calculations of all movements are made and accessible for user.

The analytical calculations are not sufficient to get the results accurate enough to compare them
to the tests on the track, because of many simplifications in this solution. The right option for
such needs is to build computational model in multibody software. There are many to choose
from, but the MotionView and MotionSolve provided by Altair Engineering Inc were chosen,
because it is provided for free for every Formula Student team.

Multibody dynamics
Multi-body dynamics simulation is a CAE tool, that examines interactions of multiple bodies
in systems, where large displacements occur. Forces and moments acting on these bodies are
defined, and resultant displacements are calculated, while respecting the constraints imposed
on the model. Vehicle model consists of all moving components referred as bodies of
suspension and steering system and joints, which are the connections between them, that defines
their relative behavior. As for PWR Racing Team this is a starting point with transient
simulations, components are simplified as rigid bodies, so their compliance is not considered.

To increase the quality of the analysis many parameters are implemented to the model. It
consists of hard points of suspension kinematics, which are coordinates of all the joints.
Analyse of cornering behavior requires the steering system specification and sway bars
characteristics. Moreover, each assembly of the car has defined mass, location, and inertia. As
only lateral dynamic performance is investigated, the powertrain unit is simplified as much as
possible. Tire damping is a crucial factor for this type of analysis as it has a huge influence on
frequency response of vehicle body (Figure 7). The Magic Formula tyre model [11] was used
to define tire dynamic behavior.

Coordinate system
To facilitate communication, the axes in the vehicle coordinate system were based on the
convention adopted by the SAE association (Figure 21). This is a widely used system in the
automotive industry. The center of the system is placed in the middle of rear axle. X axis is
pointed along the vehicle to the front and roll is rotation about this axis. Y is in lateral direction
to the car and rotational movement about this axis is pitch. Z axis is vertical and rotation about
this axis is referred to yaw.

Figure 21. Coordinate system convention proposed by SAE community [15]

- 18 -
 4.1. VEHICLE PARAMETERS

Suspension system type, that have been chosen for this project, is Independent Suspension with
double A-arm. Its construction allows movement of a single wheel without affecting the
opposite wheel. This suspension mechanism is the equivalent of four-bar linkage kinematic
model that has five degrees of freedom restrained by control arms. This way wheel movement
relative to the vehicle body is controlled and gives only a single possible path of its motion.
This way dynamic car behavior can be defined parametrically. Similar system was implemented
in previous RTX project (Figure 22).

Figure 22. Independent suspension implemented in RTX race car

Hardpoints
Building the model begins with defining the position of every element in the workspace. It is
done by designing vehicle kinematics. Each joint in the suspension and steering system is
described in a three-axis coordinate system. Correctly designed kinematics allows the wheel
path to be set in such way to optimise tyre performance throughout the suspension operating
range. In addition, care must be taken to ensure that each component has a sufficient working
space. The forces applied to each component cause them to deform, and it must be considered
to avoid collisions between elements. This compliance can be minimised by proper suspension
geometry and appropriate stress distribution over the individual links. The result of the
kinematics analysis is a list of hardpoints’ coordinates for the RT12e car. The table for the left
side of the vehicle is shown below (Table 1), while the right side is symmetrical with respect
to the XZ plane of the vehicle.

- 19 -
 Table 1. List of suspension hardpoints of RT12e

FRONT REAR
Point Name Front – Left side Rear – left side unit
X Y Z X Y Z
1 2
Mono – LCA front 1654.01 176.77 95.75 175.13 233.22 130.68 mm
Mono – LCA rear 1393.54 209.22 114.76 -110.23 224.28 116.36 mm
Double
A-Arm Mono – UCA3 front 1695.55 224.31 225.06 195.11 247.10 236.18 mm
Mono – LCA rear 1394.78 239.54 200.09 -103.45 243.64 260.86 mm
Upright - LCA 1525.25 551.52 109.60 -22.25 550.32 108.00 mm
Upright - UCA 1515.69 529.13 292.00 -9.21 524.74 290.00 mm
Mono – Toe link 1582.00 178.77 117.83 -100.75 236.00 151.65 mm
Upright – Toe link 1581.81 564.00 137.00 -89.75 557.00 151.75 mm
Point Name X Y Z X Y Z
Upright - Pushrod 1515.69 492.63 306.30 -9.21 480.24 309.00 mm
Mono - Damper 1515.69 47.50 560.00 -9.21 42.50 504.50 mm
Push
Mono – Rocker axis 1504.69 230.00 481.00 -20.21 207.00 425.00 mm
Rod
Mono - Rocker 1515.69 230.00 481.00 -9.21 207.00 425.00 mm
Rocker - Pushrod 1515.69 289.90 509.02 -9.21 248.38 465.38 mm
Rocker - Damper 1515.69 219.98 562.48 -9.21 214.60 516.18 mm
Point Name X Y Z X Y Z
U-bar Mono – ARB4 Pivot 1450.11 265.97 153.48 -74.44 244.73 362.42 mm
Rocker ARB link – ARB 1515.69 265.97 137.48 -9.21 244.73 346.42 mm
Rocker – ARB link 1515.69 265.97 482.25 -9.21 244.73 426.00 mm

With this information, designers could design their components, which basic physical
parameters such as masses, stiffnesses or inertias could be implemented in the model. These
were calculated in a 3D CAD environment. As a result, the most important vehicle input data
could be defined in the model (Table 2). The visualisation of prepared model in MotionView
environment is shown in Figure 23.

Figure 23. Visualisation of complete vehicle model

1
Mono - monocoque
2
LCA – lower control arm
3
UCA – upper control arm
4
ARB – Anti-roll bar

- 20 -
Aerodynamics
For the simulation purpose, where the vehicle is examined with various longitudinal velocities,
the aerodynamics package downforce had to be established. It is a downwards lift force, that
helps the vehicle to generate more grip, by increasing the vertical force on the tires. For race
cars it is necessary to calculate its value as it is a great component of the total vertical force.
The analysis of aerodynamics package was done with the use of computational fluid dynamics
software by aerodynamics department of the team. Using collected data (Table 2), the
downforce in function of vehicle longitudinal velocity was simplified with use of the equation:
1
𝐹𝑑 = 𝜌𝑣 2 𝐴𝐶𝑑 [𝑁] (9)
2

Where: Fd – downforce
ρ – air density
v – longitudinal velocity of the vehicle
A – frontal area of the vehicle
Cd – downforce coefficient
Table 2. Input data of the most important vehicle parameters

Input data Value Unit

Total mass with driver 260 kg
Total mass distribution on the front axle 48 %
Sprung mass of the car 197 kg
Unsprung mass of the car 63 kg
Wheelbase 1525 mm
Front track 1200 mm
Rear track 1180 mm
CoG5 height 285 mm
The position of CoG along X axis of the car 793 mm
Downforce coefficient 3.5 -
Drag coefficient 1.3 -
Frontal area 1.3 m2

Tires
Tires are the only part of the car that is in contact with the road surface, therefore each parameter
should be adjusted to maximise the performance of tires. Tire is a very complicated instrument,
that has a huge impact on the accuracy of simulation. One of the characteristics relevant to this
paper is tire damping, which is a huge contributor to the vehicle frequency response (Figure 3).

An important tire parameter to note is its sensitivity to vertical load. Lateral force generated by
the tire is affected by the applied load, what suggest that including downforce in the model has
significant impact on vehicle lateral performance. This relation is nonlinear (Figure 24) and at
higher loads the lateral force falls off [5].

5
CoG – center of gravity

- 21 -
 Figure 24. Tire lateral force vs vertical load [5]

Tire relaxation length is transient property of the tyre that affects the vehicle dynamic behavior.
This parameter characterises the response time lag of the lateral force to the input [10]. It means
that during any transient scenarios designed in this study, implementing this parameter
increases response lag, so the peak values of the outputs would be shifted in time more
compared to the input.

Complete tire characteristics, that include all important properties mentioned above, was
described with use of Magic Formula 5.2 developed by Hans B. Pacejka [10]. Tires used in the
model are Hoosier 16x7.5-10 R25B, to which raw data was provided by Tire Test Consorptium
(TTC) [12].

Suspension setup
During the design phase of the vehicle the dynamic properties of the car were calculated, and
the appropriate suspension setup was chosen. Selected values, relevant for this study and used
in the model as input data, are presented below (Table 3).
Table 3. Suspension setup input data

Parameter Front Rear Unit

Camber angle -0.5 -0.4 deg
Toe angle 0.2 -0.4 deg
Ride frequency 3.99 4.4 Hz
Tire spring rate 104 104 N/mm
Critical damping of sprung mass 2.16 2.79 N/(mm/s)
Main spring rate 32.4 61.2 N/mm
ARB angular stiffness 727 1046 Nm/deg

- 22 -
 4.2. DAMPER CHARACTERISTICS
Only one variable of the vehicle parameters during each scenario carried out in the paper is the
damper curve. The goal is to give an insight of influence of adjusting this parameter to the
vehicle lateral response and lap time improvement. Damper choice was made by analysing the
available space in the monocoque, where dampers could be fitted, which defined desired length
of the damper, while maintaining the minimum damper stroke needed, to achieve the minimum
wheel travel required in FSG competition rules [12]. Afterwards, based on previously
calculated critical damping (Table 3), a damper model with appropriate range of curve settings
was selected. Due to lack of any similar analyses of the damper characteristics made by the
PWR Racing Team in previous years, a very wide range was selected. This way car’s behavior
at extreme cases could be examined.

Dampers chosen for the concerned vehicle are Formula Student TTX MkII FSAE 200 mm,
manufactured by Öhlins DTC. Overall length, measured from center to center of spherical
bearings, while fully extended is 200 mm, with possible 57 mm stroke. This model is 4-way
externally adjustable, offering the possibility for setting changes of low- and high-speed of both
compression and rebound [14]. The characteristics are changed with the use of valves that
changes the oil flow in the chamber. Valves are adjusted by screwing them with use of the
adjusters highlighted in the photo (Figure 25).

High Speed Rebound Damping Adjuster

Low Speed Rebound Damping Adjuster

Low Speed Compression Damping Adjuster

High Speed Compression Damping Adjuster

Figure 25. The way of adjusting damper settings

Damper characteristics were included in the computational model using data provided on the
dyno plots by manufacturer. There was no possibility to get access to similar damper dyno and
for this reason the data was not validated and compared to our dampers, curves of which are
likely to be quite different due to wear. Exemplary plot of exactly this model of damper (Figure
26) shows how different low-speed settings change characteristics. The damper velocities up to
15 mm/s generates huge signal noise during test, therefore this section is not investigated.

- 23 -
 Figure 27.

Figure 26. Exemplary damper curves provided by Öhlins [14]

Figure 27. Linearisation of the important section of damper curves

Curves are not linear, as in simplified description in literature (Section 2.2), but to ease the
curve selection process some sections of the curves can be linearised. Curve 2-4.3 2-4.3 has
a visible knee at the velocity of 50 mm/s. With the use of data from Table 3 the damping ratio
of the section between 20 mm/s and 50 mm/s can be calculated and is equal 2.78 for the front
axle and 2.15 for the rear axle of our car. This value is too high for the study on this level of
development. The goal is to analyse the influence of the values commonly used in the industry,
which are from 0.3 to 1.2 (Figure 3) or slightly higher. The linearisation process of other
presented curves is shown on the zoomed section of Figure 26 (Figure 27). For the following
four damper settings, the red dotted lines are a linear approximation of the section beginning at
the velocity of the damper equal 25 mm/s. The velocity at which curvature of the curve and
deviation from the red line are visible is considered as knee points. These points are marked
with red arrows. It is not possible to determine their values more accurately, as the manufacturer

- 24 -
provides the damper characteristics only in graphical form. The curve 4-4.3 4-4.3 has visible
knee at velocity of 100 mm/s and all other curves with lower damping coefficient has the knee
at even higher velocities or do not have any visible knees. At this point it was assumed that for
all this curves section of velocities from 20 mm/s to 100 mm/s is linear and the results for the
compression are shown below (Table 4). A few additional settings from the similar graph as
shown in Figure 26 are also included in this table.
Table 4. Damping coefficient equivalents for different low-speed settings

Damping coefficient Damping ratio

Setting equivalent Front Rear
25-4.3 25-4.3 0.5 0.25 0.18
24-4.3 24-4.3 0.58 0.28 0.2
15-4.3 15-4.3 1.05 0.5 0.35
10-4.3 10-4.3 1.55 0.7 0.55
7-4.3 7-4.3 2.1 1 0.73
6-4.3 6-4.3 2.35 1.1 0.8
5-4.3 5-4.3 4 1.9 1.4
4-4.3 4-4.3 6 2.8 2.05

Curves implemented to the computational model are defined by several points that corresponds
to the knee points determined in the same way as examples in Figure 27. Moreover,
characteristics are not presented in absolute velocity domain as in Figure 26, but the velocities
of the rebound take negative values. The ultimately defined curve in the computational model
is presented on the example of the 4-4.3 4-4.3 setup (Figure 28).

Figure 28. Example of a damper curve applied to the computational model

- 25 -
5. SIMULATION
5.1. TEST EVENTS SETUP

In order to describe metrics, which will characterise handling performance, the selection and
description of events of chapter 3.3 must be performed. Metrics are chosen based on
standardized test methods as ISO 7401 [1], but only those which have sufficient sensitivity to
provide enough information.

Ramp steer
As proven later in this study, the damper velocities for both step and ramp steer are in low-
speed range of chosen dampers (Chapter 5.2). Additionally, this section of the damper curves
applied to the model are almost linear (Chapter 4.2). As a result, the characteristics for both
tests would be similar and it was sufficient to carry out one of them. The step steer for which
the input builds up faster was chosen, and the differences between the individual settings were
more visible.

Step and pulse steer

The procedures are carried out with some assumptions of test conditions.
• Target turning radius is equal 8 m:
o the corresponding front wheel angle is 11° and steering wheel angle 35°,
o most corners at the competitions are of that, or lower value (Figure 12).
• Target lateral acceleration:
o in order to stay within a linear range of vehicle behavior (Chapter 3.3), it should
be chosen reasonably lower than maximum value reached at steady state with
best suspension setup, leaving a margin for setup adjustments,
o as the study develops in the future, larger values would be used to compare
results,
o is the result of driving the vehicle at the desired turning radius.
• Time of controlling the input value is defined in the ISO standard: [1]
o for step steer is should be as low as possible, not higher than 0.15 s,
o for pulse steer between 0.30 – 0.5 s.

Frequency sweep
The purpose of this test was to check the responsiveness of the vehicle in the range of
operational frequencies. This would show in which range the performance is worse. When
running the simulation, the output data could not be plotted for multiple runs carried out. For
various input amplitudes, the frequency range of 0.2 Hz – 2 Hz proposed in standards [1] was
tested. Due to software issues, further attempts to carry out this test were abandoned for this
study. The proper visualisation of the outputs, described in the literature [3], is shown in the
Figure 29.

Figure 29. Example of proper ay response in frequency domain plot [3]

- 26 -
Double line change
For the more comprehensive insight into behavior of the vehicle subjected to such task, the two
different track layouts are designed. In both simulations the gap between cones is 7.5 m, which
is the smallest possible for such manoeuvre during competitions. The difference is that first run
is conducted with the vehicle velocity of 60 km/h, and second 80 km/h.

Summary of the assumptions made for each selected scenario is shown in the Table 5, that
consist of test conditions, and important metrics for each manoeuvre, which were proposed in
Chapter 3.3 to analyse and define handling behavior. Metrics are highlighted in green for
clarity.
Table 5. Measures and parameters of the manoeuvres

Step Pulse Double line

unit
steer steer change
𝑘𝑚
Vehicle longitudinal velocity 30 60; 80
ℎ
Parameter Steering wheel angle 𝑑𝑒𝑔 35
Desired ay6 𝑔 0.6
Input time 𝑠 0.15 0.3
ay vs time 𝑔 ✓ ✓
Plot 𝑑𝑒𝑔
Yaw rate vs time ✓ ✓
𝑠
ay response time 𝑚𝑠 ✓ ✓
Yaw rate response time 𝑚𝑠 ✓ ✓
ay peak response time 𝑚𝑠 ✓ ~
Yaw rate peak response time 𝑚𝑠 ✓ ~
ay overshoot value % ✓ ~
Metrics Yaw rate overshoot value % ✓ ~
ay peak time lag 𝑚𝑠 ~ ✓
Yaw rate peak time lag 𝑚𝑠 ~ ✓
ay zero-crossing time 𝑚𝑠 ~ ✓
Yaw rate zero-crossing time 𝑚𝑠 ~ ✓
Run time 𝑠 ~ ~ ✓

6
ay – lateral acceleration of the vehicle

- 27 -
 5.2. MODEL VALIDATION

Before the results of the manoeuvres can be examined, the quality of the computational model
must be validated. It is because of the complexity of the model, and there were many
opportunities to make some errors influencing results. A few simulations were carried out to
compare their results with the on-track logged data from a previous, similar race car and the
analytical calculations carried out for the vehicle that is the object of this study.

Constant radius
Its purpose is to check lateral performance of the car on the circle with a radius of 8 meters, like
the skidpad event. The assumptions and metrics to compare are:
• Peak lateral acceleration – with continuously increasing longitudinal velocity, peak
value of lateral acceleration of the vehicle during on-track test before loss of traction
was slightly more than 1.55g. In the simulation it is expected to reach a little bigger
value due to lower grip on the track caused by road surface irregularities and weather
and surface condition.
• Roll gradient – it is an amount of vehicle body roll with respect to the lateral
acceleration. This value measured with use of collected data from the same on-track as
peak lateral acceleration was equal 0.7 deg/g.

Figure 30. Constant radius test outputs

Outputs of the test (Figure 30) shows that the peak lateral acceleration is, as predicted, slightly
higher equal 1.64 g. The peak roll angle is 1.15°, which gives 0.69 deg/g. Compared to the
calculations the error is 1.3% (Table 6).
Table 6. Constant radius tests outputs validation

On-track Results of
Metrics Difference [%]
measurements simulation
Peak lateral acceleration [g] 1.55 1.64 5.8
Roll gradient [deg/g] 0.7 0.69 1.3

- 28 -
Damper velocities
Racetracks usually have flat surfaces. This is especially true in Formula Student, where all the
races are held on very flat tracks, that is why very low ground clearance is allowed. During
a regular driving, the highest shock velocities are caused by sudden forces caused by bumps in
the road. In this racing class most of the displacements on the dampers are caused by the
movements of vehicle body, velocities of which is usually much lower. In order to confirm this
thesis, damper velocities were measured in simulations and also checked in logged data from
previous car.

During simulations highest measured velocities were less than 100 mm/s in peak and occurred
in step steer manoeuvre, while usually for other simulations it was about 50 mm/s (Figure 31).

Figure 31. Damper velocities during manoeuvres

The logged data of RTX car, during Formula Student Germany endurance event, is presented
as a velocity histogram (Figure 32). About 40% of the time the car is driving straight. In the
remaining 60%, the damper velocities do not exceed 250 mm/s and 80% of it is in the range
below 100 mm/s, which is the maximum value during simulations.

Figure 32. histogram of damper velocities at FSG competition

Öhlins dampers low speed characteristic shows that for each setting, that would be considered
in this study, which means all less stiff than 4-4.3 4-4.3, has the knee point at velocities higher

- 29 -
than 100 mm/s (Figure 27). The data above allow us to assume that changing setting of high
speeds of the damper will not affect the simulation results. For this reason, in order to simplify
the computational model, only low speeds adjustments were made for each manoeuvre.

Damping ratio
Before implementing the detailed damper curves from the technical documentation, the
response of the vehicle with constant values of the damping coefficient to the step steer input
was examined. The damping ratios corresponding to the most specific ones discussed in Chapter
2.2, and shown in the Figure 3 on the plots of lateral displacement in time, were chosen. The
results for four curves are shown as displacement of the left front damper over time (Figure 33).

Figure 33. Displacement of the damper for constant damping coefficients

The examined curves are determined for damping ratios equal 0.3, 0.7, 1 and 2. The lower the
damping ratio value, the faster the displacement reached its peak, and the overshoot value is
higher, equal 9.4% for 0.3 damping ratio. The steady state is reached fastest for damping ratio
equal 0.7, with just a small overshoot of 4%. For 1.0 there is no overshoot at all, and for an even
higher value there is a significant slower reaction of the input. Detailed measurements are
presented in the Table 7.
Table 7. Metrics for constant damping coefficients

Results for different damping ratios

Metrics 0.3 0.7 1.0 2 Unit
damper displacement
85 114 126 442 ms
response time
damper displacement
10.2% 4% ~ ~ %
overshoot value
damper displacement
132 189 ~ ~ ms
peak response time

- 30 -
 5.3. RESULTS

In this chapter results obtained in MotionSolve solver are presented. All the metrics analysed
there were described in the chapter 5.1. All further simulations were performed with
implemented Öhlins damper curves. Results are presented on front left wheel.

Step input
As first, step steer test was performed. Curves of four chosen damper curves are presented as
changes in damper length and the resultant vehicle roll angle during the manoeuvre (Figure 34).
It is plotted to confirm the appropriate approximation of their values as close to constant
damping coefficient. It can be seen that the green curve behaves the same way as damping
coefficient equal 1.

Figure 34. Step steer manoeuvre - damper deflection and vehicle roll angle

- 31 -
Important metrics are shown on the lateral acceleration and the yaw rate in time domain (Figure
35). Value differences between any of the curves are so small that plots alone do not give any
valuable data.

Figure 35. Step steer manoeuvre - outputs

More precise information were gathered in the table containing all crucial metrics described in
chapter 5.1 (Table 8). The trend is the same as for a test with constant damping coefficient
values (Figure 33). A smaller damping ratio results in a faster response for both lateral
acceleration and yaw rate, which is indicated by a shorter lag time to maximum value. This
means that the vehicle is able to change direction more quickly. On the other hand, after
a manoeuvre has been completed, a stiffer damper setting allows the vehicle to reach steady
state more quickly, resulting in greater stability and predictability before a potential subsequent
manoeuvre. The third parameter considered is the overshoot value, which harmful for the
driver’s confidence. Moreover, it is affecting the aerodynamic downforce, which value is
changing when vehicle body angle is varying.

- 32 -
 Table 8. Step steer manoeuvre - metrics

Results for different damper curves

24-4.3 10-4.3 7-4.3 5-4.3
Metrics 24-4.3 10-4.3 7-4.3 5-4.3 Unit
ay response time 34 34 33 33 ms
yaw rate response time 75.9 76 76 76.1 ms
ay overshoot value 14.5 13.4 13 12.5 %
yaw rate overshoot value 3.1 3.07 2,91 2.78 %
ay peak response time 74.9 75.2 75.3 7.4 ms
yaw rate peak response time 81.3 81.4 81.5 8.6 ms

Pulse steer
Another executed test was pulse steer, where the swing time of the input was equal 0.3 s and
then returned to the initial value (Figure 36). Again, plots of damper deflection and roll angle
of the vehicle were extracted, to have better view of lateral dynamic behavior, as their
differences are greater (Figure 37). Thanks to no lateral acceleration after the manoeuvre, there
are no value fluctuation after fading period. Therefore, it is easier to analyse this section,
compared to step steer.

Figure 36. Pulse steer manoeuvre - input

- 33 -
 Figure 37. Pulse steer manoeuvre - damper deflection and vehicle roll angle

Same method as in step steer was used for results presentation (Figure 38). In that case, on the
plot of lateral acceleration over the time, the differences at the end of the manoeuvre can be
clearly seen. The gain is much higher for the softest setting, reaching the highest peak. Till this
point of peak value, the analysis is same as in step steer test. But the situation is changed when
values start to decrease. There the differences of all metrics for yaw rate are negligible (Table
9). On the other hand, lateral acceleration changes its trend, and the response of the softest
setting is the longest. Compared to the stiffest setting difference is 9 ms, which is 3.6%. This
mean that softer dampers let us enter corner faster with better response but coming back to
driving straight takes more time. Additional metric for this test is zero crossing time, which is
the time in which the value crosses zero for the second time. Here something unique can be
seen. The softest setting crossed this value much faster than others, next the stiffest setting and
then softer and softer ones. This metric tells how fast the vehicle is able to enter next corner in
the same direction.

- 34 -
 Figure 38. Pulse steer manoeuvre - outputs

Table 9. Pulse steer manoeuvre - metrics

Results for different damper curves

24-4.3 10-4.3 7-4.3 5-4.3
Metrics 24-4.3 10-4.3 7-4.3 5-4.3 Unit
ay response time 252 249 246 243 ms
yaw rate response time 192 192 192 192 ms
ay peak time lag 3 2 2 1 ms
yaw rate peak time lag 32 32 32 32 ms
ay zero-crossing time 262 273 272 268 ms
yaw rate zero-crossing time 205 205 205 205 ms

- 35 -
Double line change
The influence of damper coefficient setting on cornering entry and exit is already know, but
how this reflects on lap time. For this purpose, small section was built. It is a chicane, with
dimensions that often occurs on the racetracks. It contains cornering entry after a long straight,
then entry to next sequence after turning in opposite direction and exit to the straight. It is
complex manoeuvre and the differences in running time should be visible.

Figure 39. Double line change - outputs

The differences on the plots of the outputs are even smaller than in previous tests (Figure 39).
The results of the simulation are provided as time needed to complete this specific section and
are presented in the Table 10. Results do not take into account the time of driving through run-
up straight. First four runs in the table are the same setups as in previous tests, for which the
damping ratios on front axle compared to the values on rear axle are as even as possible to set.
The other four runs were simulated to check what happen when damping ratios on axles differ
significantly. Best times were reached for the stiffest settings. On the other hand, the worst
times for setting, in which the lowest damping is set on the front and the highest on the rear.
What can be noticed is that rear axle is less sensitive for lower values of damping, while keeping
stiffer adjustment on the front. This can be seen on the results of run no. 7 and 8.
Table 10. Double lane change - section times for different damper settings

Low-speed compression/rebound Chicane 7.5 m

No. Öhlins setting time [s]
Front Rear 60 km/h 80 km/h
1 24-4.3 24-4.3 18-4.3 18-4.3 2.668 2.009
2 10-4.3 10-4.3 7-4.3 7-4.3 2.666 2.008
3 7-4.3 7-4.3 5-4.3 5-4.3 2.664 2.008
4 5-4.3 5-4.3 4-4.3 4-4.3 2.663 2.007
5 24-4.3 24-4.3 4-4.3 4-4.3 2.670 2.011
6 10-4.3 10-4.3 4-4.3 4-4.3 2.671 2.011
7 7-4.3 7-4.3 7-4.3 7-4.3 2.665 2.008
8 5-4.3 5-4.3 18-4.3 18-4.3 2.664 2.008

- 36 -
While running with the longitudinal velocity of 60 km/h, the slowest and the fastest run time
differ by 8 ms, which is equal 0.3% of the total time (Table 10). For such big difference in
damping coefficient settings the difference is expected to be higher. To identify the problem
many outputs were examined. There are two reasons why the delta of the run times is so small:

• Generated peak lateral acceleration is much smaller, than the maximum value that is
possible to reach (Figure 30). Obtaining such values was a valid assumption according
to the guidelines of ISO 7041 standard (Chapter 3.3) but resulted in smaller differences
of outputs.
• On the plot of longitudinal velocity of the vehicle in time it can be noticed that the
amplitude is 0.017 m/s (Figure 40). This is because the assumption of the simulation is
that it should maintain constant velocity for the whole run. The small drops can be seen
during a turn, and then solver tries to reach its target value as fast as it is possible. It
takes some time, because of the parameters of the powertrain unit defined. The real
driver in such section would behave rather differently, reducing speed before entry
much more, to keep optimal path.

This misleading simplification of the simulation suggests focusing more on the results of the
other tests, and here only consider the trend of which setting give the best run time and which
the worst.

Figure 40. Double line change - longitudinal velocity

- 37 -
6. CONCLUSIONS

The aim of the study was to determine an objective way to analyse the lateral transient dynamics
of the Formula Student race car. Based on the literature and in particular ISO 7401 standard,
appropriate metrics were defined to quantify handling quality in cornering, and to compare their
values for different low-speed damper setting. The chosen scenarios were quite simple, as this
was the first time the PWR Racing Team had carried out such study, and more emphasis was
placed on the methodology than getting very accurate results from multiple tests.

The computational model itself was made very precisely, containing all the required data to
perform such tests. Simulations carried out with use of MotionView environment produced
results that were correlated with the real data, meaning that with further development of the
computational model it is possible to validate simulations and compare results with on-track
tests.

Examination of the results showed that there is no ideal damping ratio setting of the dampers
for each scenario, but overall stiffer settings perform better. The step steer test indicated that in
the aggressive corner entry, low values of damping coefficient of low-speed settings result in
much quicker response, and possible higher values of lateral acceleration and yaw rate to
achieve, allowing the car to change direction faster. In this test the setting with highest damping
coefficient value is considered the best one, as the biggest percentage difference is in the
overshoot values. The lowest overshoot there results in higher driver’s driving confidence and
lower fluctuations of grip and aerodynamic downforce. On the other hand, the pulse steer test
shows that when the lateral acceleration changes its direction, the trend of the settings response
to input changes. The time response to reach steady state is quicker for stiffer settings, resulting
in a possibly quicker recovery of longitudinal velocity after corner exit and a more confident
driver’s feeling of the car. The last test, double line change, also confirmed that in more
complex sequences stiffer settings result in better performance and faster lap times. In addition,
it was shown that the rear axle is less sensitive to softer settings.

It should be noted that during the study several complications and places for improvements
were identified, which should be discussed in potential further developments of the work:

• Open-loop tests gave simpler results, easier to analyse, as the model behavior was not
affected by any driver feedback. This assumption was correct for simple driving
scenarios but resulted in unrealistic outcomes of the double line change simulation, in
which the real driver would behave completely differently, reducing speed before the
manoeuvre, adjusting his driving path. In this type of test, it would be useful to develop
the model and create a test that includes feedback from the driver, who continuously
sends information to the system, changing parameters during the simulation.

• A greater variety of manoeuvres is crucial for a more accurate understanding of handling

behavior. The next improvement should be the analysis of the frequency scenarios, like
sinusoidal or sweep steer described in this study, that could not be carried out due to
software issues. This way response over the whole frequency range of the steering input
can be examined.

Data presented in this study are not meant to determine the only correct setting of the damper
parameters, but to be used by the team as a guideline for future development in this field of
study and to help define baseline car set-up.

- 38 -
FIGURES
Figure 1. Renders of RTX race car ....................................................................................... - 3 -
Figure 2. System consisted of spring, damper, and mass [5] ................................................ - 4 -
Figure 3. Behavior of the system in time domain for different damping ratios [5] .............. - 6 -
Figure 4. Comparison of different damping ratios influence on vibrations [6] .................... - 6 -
Figure 5. Spring-damper-mass system with two degrees of freedom [7] ............................. - 7 -
Figure 6. Vertical accelerations on simplified quarter car model [5] .................................... - 7 -
Figure 7. vertical accelerations on quarter car model [5] ...................................................... - 8 -
Figure 8. Influence of different damping ratios on transmissibility [8] ................................ - 8 -
Figure 9. Simplified damper characterisitcs [5] .................................................................... - 9 -
Figure 10. Asymmetry in damper characteristics [5] ............................................................ - 9 -
Figure 11. Complete damper curve [8] ............................................................................... - 10 -
Figure 12. Position of steered wheels during endurance event ........................................... - 12 -
Figure 13. Skidpad track layout [12] ................................................................................... - 12 -
Figure 14. Step steer input [3; p.13] .................................................................................... - 13 -
Figure 15. Data interpretation methodology for lateral response manoeuvres [5].............. - 14 -
Figure 16. Ramp steer input [3; p.14] ................................................................................. - 15 -
Figure 17. Pulse steer input [3; p.15] .................................................................................. - 16 -
Figure 18. Frequency sweep input [3; p.16]........................................................................ - 16 -
Figure 19. Chicane - double line change manoeuvre .......................................................... - 17 -
Figure 20. Seven degrees of freedom of vehicle ride model [4; p.108] .............................. - 17 -
Figure 21. Coordinate system convention proposed by SAE community [15] ................... - 18 -
Figure 22. Independent suspension implemented in RTX race car ..................................... - 19 -
Figure 23. Visualisation of complete vehicle model ........................................................... - 20 -
Figure 24. Tire lateral force vs vertical load [5] ................................................................. - 22 -
Figure 25. The way of adjusting damper settings ............................................................... - 23 -
Figure 26. Exemplary damper curves provided by Öhlins [14] .......................................... - 24 -
Figure 27. Linearisation of the important section of damper curves .................................. - 24 -
Figure 28. Example of a damper curve applied to the computational model ...................... - 25 -
Figure 29. Example of proper ay response in frequency domain plot [3] ........................... - 26 -
Figure 30. Constant radius test outputs ............................................................................... - 28 -
Figure 31. Damper velocities during manoeuvres .............................................................. - 29 -
Figure 32. histogram of damper velocities at FSG competition ......................................... - 29 -
Figure 33. Displacement of the damper for constant damping coefficients ........................ - 30 -
Figure 34. Step steer manoeuvre - damper deflection and vehicle roll angle ..................... - 31 -
Figure 35. Step steer manoeuvre - outputs .......................................................................... - 32 -
Figure 36. Pulse steer manoeuvre - input ............................................................................ - 33 -
Figure 37. Pulse steer manoeuvre - damper deflection and vehicle roll angle .................... - 34 -
Figure 38. Pulse steer manoeuvre - outputs ........................................................................ - 35 -
Figure 39. Double line change - outputs ............................................................................. - 36 -
Figure 40. Double line change - longitudinal velocity ........................................................ - 37 -

- 39 -
TABLES
Table 1. List of suspension hardpoints of RT12e................................................................ - 20 -
Table 2. Input data of the most important vehicle parameters ............................................ - 21 -
Table 3. Suspension setup input data .................................................................................. - 22 -
Table 4. Damping coefficient equivalents for different low-speed settings ....................... - 25 -
Table 5. Measures and parameters of the manoeuvres........................................................ - 27 -
Table 6. Constant radius tests outputs validation ................................................................ - 28 -
Table 7. Metrics for constant damping coefficients ............................................................ - 30 -
Table 8. Step steer manoeuvre - metrics ............................................................................. - 33 -
Table 9. Pulse steer manoeuvre - metrics ............................................................................ - 35 -
Table 10. Double lane change - section times for different damper settings ...................... - 36 -

- 40 -
BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] ISO 7401:2003 Standard – the International Organization for Standardization; 2003

[2] “Transient Directional Response Test Procedures for Automobiles” – R. Nisonger, P.

Fancher; 1981

[3] “Model Based Handling Analyses” – E. Sondhi, P. Perinciolo, 2018

[4] “Modeling and Validation of 7-DOF Ride Model for Heavy Vehicle” – S. Sulaiman, P.
Samin, H. Jamaluddin, R. Rahman, M. Burhaumudin, 2012

[5] “Race car vehicle dynamics” – D. L. M. William F. Milliken, 1995

[6] “Rennwagentechnik” – M. Trzesniowski, 2017

[7] “Understanding your dampers” – J. Kasprzak, 2017

[8] “Spring and dampers, a new understanding” – M. Giaraffa, S. Brisson, 2016

[9] “HyperWorks 2017, MotionView User’s Guide” – Altair Engineering Inc., 2017

[10] “Tire and vehicle dynamics” – H. Pacejka, 2006

[11] FSAE tire data – http://www.millikenresearch.com/fsaettc.html, 2018

[12] Formula Student Germany Rules 2020 V1.0

[13] “Vehicle Dynamics Theory and Application” – R. N. Jazar, 2008

[14] TTX 25 MkII damper technical documentation – Öhlins DTC

[15] https://www.racecar-engineering.com/tech-explained/racecar-vehicle-dynamics-
explained/attachment/racecar-vehicle-dyanmics-roll-pitch-yaw/

- 41 -