4569846498

01.05.2017 Views

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 )

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.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!