Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL 2007-01-2655

PAPER SERIES E

Validation off an SUV Model for Vehicle Dynamics Simulation

João Maria Vidal Franco
Improvement Vehicle Dynamics

Gilles Schaefer
SERA_cd

FILIADA À
XVI Congresso e Exposição Internacionais
da Tecnologia da Mobilidade
São Paulo, Brasil
28 a 30 de novembro de 2007

AV. PAULISTA, 2073 - HORSA II - CJ. 1003 - CEP 01311-940 - SÃO PAULO – SP
Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
Validation off an SUV Model for Vehicle Dynamics
Simulation
Copyright © 2007 SAE International
ABSTRACT
The present paper is a summary of the
validation work conducted as part of an SUV
suspension development for local market. An
extensive use of Vehicle Dynamics Simulation
was done during this vehicle development, and
the SUV model validation was decided on two
traditional handling maneuvers, one to evaluate
the transient behavior (ISO 3888 Chicane) and
the other for the steady state condition (constant
radius curve).
A prototype was instrumented and all related
data was collected at Pirelli Brazil Test Track
facilities. Those data were then introduced in
the simulation software, in its validation mode,
in order to run a simulation at exactly the same
input conditions as the real tests. Such
simulation results were afterwards compared
with the real data and the required adjustments
were done in the simulation model.
The real vehicle handling data showed a very
satisfactory correlation with the simulation
model, with adequate precision for development
requirements.
INTRODUCTION
Generally speaking, suspension system
development for Brazilian market presents great
SUSPENSION DEVELOMENT OBECTIVES
The validation work performed here is linked to
the original suspension development goals.
Previous market experience, gained with similar
imported models, lead the definition of
development objectives. In summary, MMC
Automotores wanted the following changes in
vehicle performance:
- Improve rear suspension bottoming,
2007-01-2655
João M. Vidal Franco
Improvement Vehicle Dynamics
Gilles Schaefer
SERA CD
challenges, due to some local tough roads and
peculiar vehicle loading and use. This situation
is even more critical when designing a
suspension set up for SUV vehicles, due to its
inherently high CG height from the ground and
its relatively high performance in terms of top
speed and acceleration.
When MMC Automotores do Brasil, Mitsubishi
Motors representative for Brazil, decided to
produce locally a new SUV, as part of the
localization process, it was decided to develop a
specific suspension tuning for Brazilian
conditions. The main objective was to increase
suspension travel to improve vehicle comfort
level on bad surfaces, without any critical
compromise of vehicle stability and handling.
Considering the delicate compromise between
Ride & Handling involved, it was decided to use
a Vehicle Simulation tool (Callas/Prosper
software, from SERA-CD) to help drive the
suspension development process, mainly in the
handling and safety aspects. This simulation
work was already reported in SAE paper 2005-
01-4177.
The present paper describes the validation
process for the SUV model used in this vehicle
dynamics simulation.
- Increase vehicle attitude, front and rear, by
20mm,
- Improve suspension insulation level, specially
shake and road shocks on bad asphalt,
- Keep the basic ride setup of original
suspension, ie. bounce and pitch control levels,
- Keep the basic handling characteristics of
original models.
1
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
VALIDATION WORK
In this paper, we will present the validation
work in the following steps:
- Validation Process
- Validation Methodology
- Callas/Prosper Validation Principle
- Vehicle Data Acquisition
- Validation Results and
Adjustments
VALIDATION PROCESS
The validation is essentially the comparison
between computation (also called simulation)
and real vehicle on-board data acquisition. In
other words, for a given type of vehicle and
maneuver, it is an overlay of computation and
acquisition results obtained for the same driver
commands.
VALIDATION METHODOLOGY
During the vehicle suspension development
process, one of the main concerns was stability
and safety. Following market requirements, the
overall vehicle ride height was raised of 20mm,
to improve suspension bottoming and insulation
level on rough surfaces; it was then mandatory
to verify all the handling implications of such a
change.
Among several possibilities, it was decided to
focus the simulation work in four specific tests:
- NHTSA Fish Hook maneuver,
- ISO 3888 Chicane ,
- Virtual Tilt Table, a tool available at
Callas for rollover static stability limit
evaluation,
- Virtual speed bumper, to suspension
bottoming evaluation.
These simulations will cover the main aspects of
development implication, leaving the remaining
issues for regular subjective evaluation. So we
focus the validation process in the handling
aspects of vehicle dynamics.
For the maneuvers Fish Hook and static
Rollover, the real test is very risk and very
expensive to be carried out, so we decide to
perform such verifications only in the virtual
world.
The validation was then processed for constant
radius steering pad test and ISO Chicane.
The objective of such validation methodology
was to cover a broad range of vehicle dynamic
characteristics, starting with the more simple
tests, and progressing to the more complex ones.
The following aspects will be covered:
- Vehicle steady state behavior,
- Vehicle transient response,
- Vehicle “soft” handling, at tire linear
response range,
- Vehicle “hard” handling, at tire limit of
adhesion,
- Non symmetrical handling
Model
characteristics (the vehicle has a
Panhard rod on the rear suspension).
In the validation methodology, it was decided to
avoid as much as possible the use of pure
mathematical adjustment coefficients in the
vehicle model. Any discrepancy between model
and real vehicle data should be first deeply
analyzed, and after corrected by adding the
required complexity to the affected vehicle
system.
To start the simulation process, some
simplifications were adopted in vehicle
modeling.
Following are the first modeling assumptions:
• Weight distribution per wheel, CG
height from ground, the suspension and
steering kinematics, were all obtained
from the first prototype measurements.
• Shock absorbers speed x damper force
data were obtained from the supplier
dynamometer.
• Rear springs load x deflection curves
were also measured at supplier.
• The jounce and rebound suspension
bumpers were modeled from the load x
deflection curves available in their
drawings.
• Front suspension torsion bars, together
with front and rear anti roll bars were
modeled using CAE plus FEA tools,
and the resulting stiffness input in the
vehicle model.
• Considering the comparative nature of
the work to be carried out, it was
decided to start neglecting the elasto-
kinematics of both front and rear
suspensions.
• For simplification purposes, the chassis
flexibility was also not considered,
assuming that the vehicle is rigid.
• For engine modeling we used the
power curve obtained from
dynamometer. Transmission ratios and
power distribution were also modeled.
2
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

• The vehicle was a 4x4 model, but
considering that the most critical
conditions for transient handling and
rollover resistance are in good asphalt
wherethe vehicle is in4X2 mode, all the
simulation work was done in this
configuration.
VALIDATION PRINCIPLE
The basic validation principle of the Vehicle
Dynamics Simulation software used in this
work is to compare back to back the simulation
model and the real vehicle responses for the
same driver commands.
To achieve it, it is necessary to import in Callas
/ Prosper:
• the point by point command recorded
during the real test acquisition,
• the point by point results recorded
during the real test acquisition, which
is converted in the software as a
pseudo computation result
The comparison can then be directly made in
Callas by overlaying results files of simulation
and acquisition.

The following diagram shows the validation global architecture:

DATA AQUISTION • Steering Wheel Angle (Command data –

To support the validation work, some tests were vehicle driving)
performed with the first prototype, aiming to • Front Suspension LH Travel Sensor
acquire real dynamic data to be used. As the (Dynamic result)
main concern during the development process is
regarding stability and specially rollover • Front Suspension RH Travel Sensor
prediction, the data acquisition was steered by (Dynamic result)
that goal. All four corners of vehicle were • Rear Suspension LH Travel Sensor
instrumented, in order to get simultaneous (Dynamic result)
suspension travel data, enabling to plot dive,
squat, roll movements and to identify any • Rear Suspension RH Travel Sensor
tendency of wheels to loose contact with the (Dynamic result)
ground. • Lateral Acceleration (Dynamic result)
The vehicle was instrumented to collect the
following data:
• Longitudinal Speed (Command data –
vehicle driving)

3
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
VALIDATION RESULTS & MODEL
ADJUSTMENTS
Using the data recorded at test track (acquisition
results), a validation run were made for each
maneuver, using the same real vehicle
commands for speed and steering inputs. The
simulation software generates then a complete
vehicle dynamic computation, providing test
animations and a series of detailed data result
graphs (validation results).
The validation computation enables also the
comparison of computation results with the
acquisition results in the post-processing, since
the acquisition results are loaded as a reference
file.
The validation process was started using the
Steering Pad Constant Radius Curve, because it
is comparatively less complex than the ISO
Chicane, and allows an easier first model
adjustment. This maneuver was used to check
the constant or steady state behavior of vehicle,
performed at the tires limit of adhesion, both
clockwise and anticlockwise, to check any
asymmetrical behavior.
In all validation process, some basic procedures
were followed:
• Use in validation model exactly the same
driving inputs (steering wheel angle and
vehicle tangential speed) than the real
FIGURE 1: VALIDATION AT STEERING PAD CLOCKWISE MANEUVER
driver applied in the data acquisition
prototype. Because vehicle speed is not
exactly constant, we utilize the software
“cruise control” to follow exactly the real
vehicle speed, which is mandatory
• Compare the lateral acceleration of
simulation and acquisition, and make the
required adjustments to improve the
matching.
• Obtain the suspension travel readings from
validation vehicle and compare with real
results from acquisition prototype.
The validation process started with the original
model, as described earlier, in its simplest form
(Validation 1 vehicle). After the first validation
runs, in the steering pad maneuver, an
additional complexity was added on model,
resulting in Validation 2 vehicle, which
presented a better matching with acquisition
vehicle data.
Thus we proceed to the ISO chicane maneuver,
and then some final changes were introduced in
the model, resulting in Validation 3 vehicle. To
conclude the process, Validation 3 was checked
also in the steering pad maneuver. All main
results of such process are presented below,
with a description of the extra complexities
introduced at each step.
4
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

GRAPH 1: ACQUISITION AND VALIDATION STEERING WHELL ANGLES

Steering wheel angle
SUV Validation Vehicles
Data Acquisition Prototype

-100

-105

-110
Steering wheel angle (°)

-115
Steering wheel angle
Steering wheel angle
-120

-125

-130

-135
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (s)

GRAPH 2: ACQUISITION AND VALIDATION TANGENTIAL SPEED

Tangential
speed
SUV Validation
Data Acquisition
Vehicles
Prototype
62.
5

6
2Tangential speed
(km/h)
61.
5

6
1 Tangential
speed
Tangential
60. speed
5

6
0

59.
5

5
9 0 2 4 6 8 1 1 1 1 1
Time 0 2 4 6 8
(s)

GRAPH 3: ACQUISITION AND VALIDATION LATERAL ACCELERATION

Accelerometers
P45Validação WR265.vhc & Validation
P45Validação WR265.vhc & Acquisition

-6

-6.5

-7
Accelerometer/1/Y (m/s²)

-7.5 Validation 1 Y
Validation 2 Y
Acquisition Y
-8 Validation 3 Y

-8.5

-9

-9.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (s)

5
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

GRAPH 4: CLOCKWISE FRONT SUSPENSION TRAVEL

Front Suspension travel (positive when compressed)
SUV Validation Vehicles
Data Acquisition Prototype

240

Wheel travel/Axle 1/Left (mm) - Wheel travel/Axle

200

Wheel travel/Validation 1/Left

160
Wheel travel/Validation 1/Right
1/Right (mm)

Wheel travel/Validation 2/Left

Wheel travel/Validation 2/Right
120
Wheel travel/Acquisition/Left
Wheel travel/Acquisition/Right
Wheel travel/Validation 3/Left
80
Wheel travel/Validation 3/Right

40

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (s)

GRAPH 5: CLOCKWISE REAR SUSPENSION TRAVEL

Rear Suspension travel (positive when compressed)
SUV Validation Vehicles
Data Acquisition Prototype

240
Wheel travel/Axle 2/Left (mm) - Wheel travel/Axle

200

Wheel travel/Validation 1/Left

160
Wheel travel/Validation 1/Right
2/Right (mm)

Wheel travel/Validation 2/Left

Wheel travel/Validation 2/Right
120
Wheel travel/Acquisition/Left
Wheel travel/Acquisition/Right
Wheel travel/Validation 3/Left
80
Wheel travel/Validation 3/Right

40

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (s)

In the first validation runs, a good qualitative and rear track values, instead of nominal
correlation already occurs between SUV first values fully symmetrical.
model (Validation 1) and the real prototype.
• Measure the prototype front and rear
Keeping the same driving inputs, the model
suspension rubber bushings loads, and
managed to negotiate the steering pad at the
adding its value in the model. Especially at
same average radius of 47m. The model
front, the bushings ratio was found very
presented also the same basic understeer
significant.
behavior of the real vehicle. Neither, model or
prototype, presented any tendency to lift the • Measure the real antiroll bar loads at both
internal wheels from the ground. Even the front and rear suspensions, and include
asymmetry presented by the real vehicle to such data in the model. At first, antiroll bar
negotiate such turn clockwise (~60Km/h) and values were computed by CAE. Then was
anticlockwise (~65Km/h), due to rear processed the measurements with bushings
suspension Panhard Rod, was present in the first and all leverage components, showing that
SUV model. However, regarding quantitative the front anti roll bar was slightly
results about suspension travel, the accuracy overestimated and the rear one,
reached was not good enough. underestimated.
Based on that, it was decided to increase the All that additional data was introduced in the
complexity of Validation 1, introducing some SUV model, resulting in the Validation 2
additional data regarding the first modeling vehicle. A significant improvement in relation
approach: to the acquisition prototype was achieved.
• Introduce all asymmetries found in the real
prototype, as weight distribution per wheel,
real front

6
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

FIGURE 2: VALIDATION AT STEERING PAD ANTICLOCKWISE MANEUVER

GRAPH 6: ANTICLOCKWISE FRONT SUSPENSION TRAVEL

Front Suspension travel (positive when compressed)
SUV Validation Vehicles
Data Acquisition Prototype

240
Wheel travel/Axle 1/Left (mm) - Wheel travel/Axle

200

Wheel travel/Validation 1/Left

160
Wheel travel/Validation 1/Right
1/Right (mm)

Wheel travel/Validation 2/Left

Wheel travel/Validation 2/Right
120
Wheel travel/Acquisition/Left
Wheel travel/Acquisition/Right
Wheel travel/Validation 3/Left
80
Wheel travel/Validation 3/Right

40

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (s)

GRAPH7: ANTICLOCKWISE REAR SUSPENSION TRAVEL

Rear Suspension travel (positive when compressed)
SUV Validation Vehicle
Data Acquisition Prototype

240
Wheel travel/Axle 2/Left (mm) - Wheel travel/Axle

200

Wheel travel/Validation 1/Left

160
Wheel travel/Validation 1/Right
2/Right (mm)

Wheel travel/Validation 2/Left

Wheel travel/Validation 2/Right
120
Wheel travel/Acquisition/Left
Wheel travel/Acquisition/Right
Wheel travel/Validation 3/Left
80
Wheel travel/Validation 3/Right

40

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (s)

Considering both clockwise and anticlockwise travel results of the Validation 1, 2 and 3
runs of constant 47m radius curve, the average models, regarding the acquisition prototype,
suspension were the following:

7
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

Steering Pad Clockwise

Difference Front Suspension Rear Suspension
(mm) LH RH LH RH
Validation 1 11.8 6.5 21.8 15.2
Validation 2 7.9 5.4 12.1 10.5
Validation 3 8.9 6.9 11.9 5.8
(% Total Travel) LH RH LH RH
Validation 1 5.0 2.8 9.1 6.3
Validation 2 3.4 2.3 5.0 4.4
Validation 3 3.8 2.9 4.9 2.4

Steering Pad Anticlockwise

Difference Front Suspension Rear Suspension
(mm) LH RH LH RH
Validation 1 1.1 6.4 12.9 31.5
Validation 2 1.2 5.0 15.2 19.1
Validation 3 2.1 1.4 15.8 14.7
(% Total Travel) LH RH LH RH
Validation 1 0.5 2.7 5.4 13.1
Validation 2 0.5 2.1 6.4 8.0
Validation 3 0.8 0.6 6.6 6.2

The resulting differences in suspension travel simulations, the real world ground presented
between Validation 3 model and the real some small irregularities, as can be seen in
acquisition vehicle have a maximum of 6.6% above graphics, resulting in additional shock
(rear left), and less in the other vehicle corners. absorber loads, not present in
As reference, total suspension travel figures, simulation/validation vehicles.
front and rear, are 236 and 240mm, Proceeding with the validation process, we
respectively. addressed the ISO 3888 Chicane results. This
One possible reason for the remaining maneuver was used to check vehicle behavior in
differences is the fact that, in opposition to the transient conditions, and at the tire linear
response range.

FIGURE 3: VALIDATION AT DOUBLE LINE CHANGE MANEUVER

8
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
In this maneuver, the correlation in suspension
travel between Validation 2 and acquisition
prototype was also better than the one presented
by Validation 1. However, especially at
beginning and at the end of chicane, even the
Validation 2 vehicle present significant
GRAPH 8: ACQUISITION AND VALIDATION LATERAL ACCELERATION
4
Accelerometer/1/Y (m/s²)
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
0 1
Some over-simplifications may be responsible
for that over reactions in transient maneuvers,
and making an additional analysis in the SUV
construction, we suspected the steering system.
This peculiar steering system has a complex
linkage, which is finally kept in position at the
steering wheel by the driver, and all these links
add their elasticity.
The moment around the kingpin axis in a corner
situation is always a restoring torque in
opposition to the steer, as the sum of the tire
self-aligning torque and the steering restoring
torque (side force multiplied by longitudinal
foot offset).
While cornering, both front wheels are steering
to the same way, so the restoring torques are
also in the same way and are added at the
steering box. Without any specific device, on all
cars, this torque and this elasticity provide an
elastic decrease of wheel real steering compared
to the kinematics steering; this is one of the
major terms of the so-called “elasto-
kinematics”. This factor decrease the yaw rate
for a given SW input, and provide some
understeer (additionally to the Cornering
differences in the front and rear suspension
travel in relation to the real vehicle.
Doing a close analysis in ISO Chicane results, it
was noticed that both Validation1 and 2
vehicles presented higher lateral acceleration
values than the real vehicle.
Lateral Acceleration
SUV Validation Vehicles
Data Acquisition Prototype
AccelerometerValidation1
AccelerometerValidation2
AccelerometerAcquisition
AccelerometerValidation3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s)
stiffness balance) in all the situations except
grip limit where the other factor (front to rear
grip balance) becomes prevailing. In the SUV
Validation 1 and 2 models the steering system
was considered rigid, without any free play, nor
compliances in the steering column, or steering
box and linkages. So the same steering input
produces a quicker and higher response in the
model than in the real prototype. This lead to an
additional model update, resulting in Validation
3, were all clearances and compliances of
steering system were reproduced, resulting in a
much closer result in lateral acceleration.
Another adjustment made in this step,
specifically to improve the steering pad results,
was to take into account the increase in tire
temperature and pressure at external wheels.
This tire pressure increase was recorded during
tests, and the resulting increase in tire stiffness
was the other modification introduced in the
Validation 3 model. The overall behavior of
Validation 3 was the closest to acquisition
prototype, having reached a level good enough
to end the validation process.
9
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

GRAPH 9: ISO CHICANE FRONT SUSPENSION TRAVEL

Front Suspension travel (positive when compressed)
SUV Validation Vehicles
Data Acquisition Prototype

240

Wheel travel/Axle 1/Left (mm) - Wheel travel/Axle

200

Wheel travel/Validation 1/Left

160
Wheel travel/Validation 1/Right

1/Right (mm)
Wheel travel/Validation 2/Left
Wheel travel/Validation 2/Right
120
Wheel travel/Acquisition/Left
Wheel travel/Acquisition/Right
Wheel travel/Validation3/Left
80
Wheel travel/Valdation3/Right

40

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s)

GRAPH 10: ISO CHICANE REAR SUSPENSION TRAVEL

Rear Suspension travel (positive when compressed)
SUV Validation Vehicles
Data Acquisition Prototype

240
Wheel travel/Axle 2/Left (mm) - Wheel travel/Axle

200

Wheel travel/Validation 1/Left

160
Wheel travel/Validation 1/Right
2/Right (mm)

Wheel travel/Validation 2/Left

Wheel travel/Validation 2/Right
120
Wheel travel/Acquisition/Left
Wheel travel/Acquisition/Right
Wheel travel/Validation 3/Left
80
Wheel travel/Validation 3/Right

40

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s)

CONCLUSION could be traced to some simplifications adopted

at the start of simulation work:
Even with the simplifications firstly adopted,
the SUV Validation 1 model proved to be • The elasto-kinematics of both front and
qualitatively very accurate, presented the same rear suspensions where not introduced in
basic handling characteristics than the real the models.
vehicle, i.e. similar safe understeer behavior, • And being a cab over lather frame
similar cornering ability for both LH and RH construction, the real SUV chassis is not a
turns, similar asymmetry presented by real rigid structure, as adopted in the modeling.
vehicle, and same lack of tendency to lift inside
wheels in cornering in emergency maneuvers. All that additional flexibility lead to transient
In the quantitative side, some differences appear delays in real vehicle response, which are not
regarding front and rear suspension travel, the present in Validation models, thus causing that
Validation1 model being far more critical than remaining differences in lateral acceleration
the real acquisition data prototype. A very and, as consequence, in vehicle roll and front
significant improvement in this condition could and rear suspension travel increase. Although
be achieved introducing some additional both elasto-kinematics and chassis flexibility
complexity in the first model, resulting in the could be easily added in Callas / Prosper
Validation 2 vehicle. Only in the transient vehicle editor to refine the validation models,
maneuver, the Validation 2 model showed a the additional time and engineering costs to
more higher response than the real vehicle, obtain the required real prototype data were
resulting in higher figures for suspension travel. very high. The first aim of vehicle dynamics
To improve such situation, an additional step in simulation, in this SUV development program,
complexity was introduced in the model, was to compare the safety level of both original
resulting in the Validation 3 vehicle. With these and local suspensions setups. In this way, the
final adjustments, a much closer matching remaining imprecision of Validation 3 model
between simulation and acquisition results will be the same for both setups, and will then
could be achieved. The remaining differences

10
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

not affect the final result of the suspension ABOUT THE AUTHORS
development. 1-João Franco, Improvement Vehicle
We can also notice that one of the approval Dynamics. Vehicle dynamics advisor, working
criteria was the ability of vehicle wheels to in Brazilian automotive market since 1978,
remain in contact with the ground (NHTSA Fish mainly as ride & handling specialist.
Hook, Tilt Table, even ISO Chicane). In this 55 11 4979-6915, improvement@terra.com.br
way, having a model more critical than the real
vehicle introduces an additional safety factor in 2-Gilles Schaefer, SERA-CD
the simulation process. 33 (0) 1 69 86 13 37, Gilles.schaefer@sera-
The vehicle steering responsiveness was not an cd.com
issue for this simulation because in the www.sera-cd.com
development program, all steering components
should remain as the original ones, and the same REFERENCES
for the frame and cab structures. Based on 1-D.Lechner, Y.Delanne, Schaefer, Schmitt.
above considerations, the vehicle model reached
an accuracy good enough to satisfy program “Metodologie de validation du logiciel de
objectives, not requiring the introduction of dynamique automobile CALLAS”
additional costly data. It was considered also not SIA 970202. Congrès SIA Lyon, Avril 1997.
necessary to introduce pure mathematical Repris dans Ingénieurs de l’Automobile Nº713,
adjustment coefficients. As a final conclusion, Mai 1997.
the use of vehicle dynamic simulation helped
2- G.Schaefer, D. Lechner, Delanne, Schmitt.
achieve SUV suspension development
objectives more quickly, and address some “CALLAS: a decisive step toward validity for
handling characteristics in a more precise way. 3D vehicle dynamics”
It was possible also to achieve an adequate ISATA Paper 97SAF005, 30th ISATA
correlation of vehicle handling behavior Conference, Florence June 1997.
between model and real prototype even with the
simplifications firstly adopted. 3- João Franco, G.Schaefer.
“Real case of Vehicle Dynamics Simulation
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS during an SUV Suspension Development”
We would like to thank Mr. Reinaldo Muratori, SAE pap er 2005-01-4177, SAE Brazil
Product Engineering Director of MMC Conference, S.Paulo November 2007.
Automotores do Brasil (Mitsubishi), for their
support for this paper.

11
Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

The appearance of the ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s
consent that copies of the paper may be made for personal or internal use of
specific clients. This consent is given on the condition however, that the copier pay a
$ 7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations
Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted
by Sections 107 or 108 of U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to
other kinds of copying such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or
promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for resale.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of
publication. Direct your orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction
Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted

SAE publications in other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database.

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval

system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
© Copyright 2007 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not
necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the
paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it
is published in SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in
part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE
should send the manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary,
Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.