4569846498
Modelling and assembly of the full vehicle 389 Camber angle (deg) 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 FRONT RIGHT TYRE – 100 km/h LANE CHANGE Roll stiffness model _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Linkage model __________ 0.0 1.0 2.0 Time (s) 3.0 4.0 5.0 Fig. 6.60 Camber angle comparison – linkage and roll stiffness models As discussed in Chapter 5 it is perhaps fortuitous in this case that for a passenger car of the type used here the lateral tyre force produced due to slip angle is considerably more significant than that arising due to camber between the tyre and road surface. Further investigations can be carried out to establish the significance of a poor camber angle prediction input to the tyre model. In Figure 6.61 the linkage model has been run using an interpolation tyre model where it has been possible to deactivate the generation of lateral force arising from camber angle. In this plot it can be seen that the prediction of yaw rate, for example, is not sensitive for this vehicle and this manoeuvre to the modelling of camber thrust. To conclude this case study it is possible to consider an alternative modelling and simulation environment for the prediction of the full vehicle dynamics. As discussed earlier the incorporation of microprocessor control systems in a vehicle may involve the use of a simulation method that involves: (i) the use of multibody systems software where the user must invest in the modelling of the control systems (ii) the use of software such as MATLAB/Simulink where the user must invest in the implementation of a vehicle model or (iii) a co-simulation involving parallel operation of the multibody systems and control simulation software In this example the author (Wenzel et al., 2003) 2 has chosen the second of the above options and a vehicle model (Figure 6.62) is developed from first 2 Wenzel et al. (2003) describe preliminary work undertaken in a collaborative research project with Jaguar Cars Ltd, Coventry, UK and funded by the Control Theory and Applications Centre, Coventry University, Coventry, UK. It forms the PhD programme for Thomas A. Wenzel.
390 Multibody Systems Approach to Vehicle Dynamics Yaw rate (deg/s) 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 LINKAGE MODEL – 100 km/h LANE CHANGE With camber Without camber 30.0 40.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Time (s) Fig. 6.61 Yaw rate comparison – Interpolation tyre model. (This material has been reproduced from the Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, K2 Vol. 214 ‘The modelling and simulation of vehicle handling. Part 4: handling simulation’, M.V. Blundell, page 83, by permission of the Council of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers) 5.0 t r F v y v cog F xrr M zrr M zrl F yfl F xrl M zfl F yrl yfl a y M zfr v x F yrr c F yfr b F yfr F xfl F xfl F xfr F xfr t f Fig. 6.62 Three-degree-of-freedom vehicle model (Wenzel et al., 2003) principles and implemented in Simulink. The model developed here is based on the same data used for this case study with 3 degrees of freedom: the longitudinal direction x, the lateral direction y and the yaw around the vertical axis z. The vehicle parameters used in the following model include: longitudinal velocity (m/s) v x v y lateral velocity (m/s) v cog centre of gravity velocity (m/s) a x longitudinal acceleration (m/s 2 )
- Page 362 and 363: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 364 and 365: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 366 and 367: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 368 and 369: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 370 and 371: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 372 and 373: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 374 and 375: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 376 and 377: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 378 and 379: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 380 and 381: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 382 and 383: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 384 and 385: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 386 and 387: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 388 and 389: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 390 and 391: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 392 and 393: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 394 and 395: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 396 and 397: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 398 and 399: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 400 and 401: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 402 and 403: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 404 and 405: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 406 and 407: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 408 and 409: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 410 and 411: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 414 and 415: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 416 and 417: Modelling and assembly of the full
- Page 418 and 419: 7 Simulation output and interpretat
- Page 420 and 421: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 422 and 423: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 424 and 425: down and even more difficult to asc
- Page 426 and 427: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 428 and 429: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 430 and 431: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 432 and 433: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 434 and 435: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 436 and 437: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 438 and 439: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 440 and 441: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 442 and 443: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 444 and 445: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 446 and 447: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 448 and 449: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 450 and 451: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 452 and 453: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 454 and 455: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 456 and 457: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 458 and 459: Simulation output and interpretatio
- Page 460 and 461: Simulation output and interpretatio
Modelling and assembly of the full vehicle 389<br />
Camber angle (deg)<br />
6.0<br />
5.0<br />
4.0<br />
3.0<br />
2.0<br />
1.0<br />
0.0<br />
1.0<br />
2.0<br />
3.0<br />
4.0<br />
5.0<br />
6.0<br />
FRONT RIGHT TYRE – 100 km/h LANE CHANGE<br />
Roll stiffness model<br />
_ _ _ _ _ _ _<br />
Linkage model __________<br />
0.0<br />
1.0<br />
2.0<br />
Time (s)<br />
3.0<br />
4.0<br />
5.0<br />
Fig. 6.60<br />
Camber angle comparison – linkage and roll stiffness models<br />
As discussed in Chapter 5 it is perhaps fortuitous in this case that for a passenger<br />
car of the type used here the lateral tyre force produced due to slip<br />
angle is considerably more significant than that arising due to camber<br />
between the tyre and road surface. Further investigations can be carried out<br />
to establish the significance of a poor camber angle prediction input to the<br />
tyre model. In Figure 6.61 the linkage model has been run using an interpolation<br />
tyre model where it has been possible to deactivate the generation<br />
of lateral force arising from camber angle. In this plot it can be seen that the<br />
prediction of yaw rate, for example, is not sensitive for this vehicle and this<br />
manoeuvre to the modelling of camber thrust.<br />
To conclude this case study it is possible to consider an alternative modelling<br />
and simulation environment for the prediction of the full vehicle<br />
dynamics. As discussed earlier the incorporation of microprocessor control<br />
systems in a vehicle may involve the use of a simulation method that<br />
involves:<br />
(i) the use of multibody systems software where the user must invest in<br />
the modelling of the control systems<br />
(ii) the use of software such as MATLAB/Simulink where the user must<br />
invest in the implementation of a vehicle model or<br />
(iii) a co-simulation involving parallel operation of the multibody systems<br />
and control simulation software<br />
In this example the author (Wenzel et al., 2003) 2 has chosen the second of<br />
the above options and a vehicle model (Figure 6.62) is developed from first<br />
2 Wenzel et al. (2003) describe preliminary work undertaken in a collaborative<br />
research project with Jaguar Cars Ltd, Coventry, UK and funded by the Control<br />
Theory and Applications Centre, Coventry University, Coventry, UK. It forms the<br />
PhD programme for Thomas A. Wenzel.