Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2006-01-1277

14 Degree-of-Freedom Vehicle Model for Roll

Dynamics Study
Chinar Ghike and Taehyun Shim
University of Michigan-Dearborn

Reprinted From: Vehicle Dynamics and Simulation 2006

(SP-2018)

2006 SAE World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
April 3-6, 2006

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed
SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. This process requires a
minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel: 724-772-4028
Fax: 724-776-3036

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2006 SAE International
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.

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

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

2006-01-1277

14 Degree-of-Freedom Vehicle Model for Roll Dynamics Study

Chinar Ghike and Taehyun Shim

University of Michigan-Dearborn

Copyright © 2006 SAE International

ABSTRACT well as accurately applying the actuation force to avoid

vehicle rollover. In the literature, a number of vehicle
A vehicle model is an important factor in the models have been introduced for application of
development of vehicle control systems. Various vehicle active/passive roll control systems [2-3, 8-11]. The
models having different complexities, assumptions, and majority of these models are low order roll plane models
limitations have been developed and applied to many derived with various assumptions and have limitations
different vehicle control systems. A 14 DOF vehicle for its application.
model that includes a roll center as well as non-linear
effects due to vehicle roll and pitch angles and unsprung
mass inertias, is developed. From this model, the
limitations and validity of lower order models which
employ different assumptions for simplification of
dynamic equations are investigated by analyzing their
effect on vehicle roll response through simulation. The
possible limitation of the 14 DOF model compared to an
actual vehicle is also discussed.

INTRODUCTION Fig. 1 Schematic of simple rigid and suspended vehicle models

used in rollover study
The vehicle rollover has been reported as the number
Figure 1 shows some roll plane models such as a rigid
one harmful event of non-collision fatal crashes, even
vehicle model and a suspended vehicle model. The rigid
though it constitutes a small amount of all car accidents.
vehicle model excludes all compliances and represents
The prevention of vehicle rollover has been an active
a theoretical upper bound on vehicle stability [10, 11].
research area in recent years. A number of methods
The suspended vehicle model [2-3, 8-10] has a roll
have been proposed and explored to prevent vehicle
degree of freedom for the suspension that connects the
rollovers. Research on such rollover prevention systems
sprung and unsprung masses. The sprung mass is
is focused on two basic types: rollover warning system
typically assumed to rotate about a kinematic roll center
and active roll control system. The rollover warning
axis [8], which connects the front and rear suspension
systems use a prediction algorithm to determine the risk
roll centers. This model also assumes that the sprung
of impending rollover based on vehicle roll angles,
mass is much greater than the unsprung mass and that
lateral load transfer, and/or lateral acceleration[1-3].
the chassis and tires are much stiffer than the
They provide some type of warning so that the driver
suspension. In order to better represent the vehicle
can take corrective action. The active roll control
lateral and yaw dynamics as well as coupling of yaw-roll
systems reported in literature [4-7] can be categorized
motion due to the transient lateral load transfer during
into about four different types based on its actuation
extreme maneuvers, higher order models such as 8
schemes: four wheel steering [4], active suspension [5],
DOF [12,13] and 14 DOF [14,15] are also used in
active roll-bar [6], and differential braking [7]. The active
rollover studies. A 14 DOF vehicle model, which
roll-bar and active suspension are designed to directly
considers the suspension at each corner has the same
control the vehicle roll motion; the four wheel steering
benefits of an 8 DOF vehicle model, with the additional
and differential braking are to reduce the vehicle rollover
capabilities of predicting vehicle pitch and heave
tendency by controlling vehicle yaw motion.
motions. It also offers the flexibility of modeling non-
linear springs and dampers and can simulate the vehicle
In the development of active/passive roll control responses to normal force inputs in case of an active
systems, a vehicle model that represents realistic roll suspension system. Moreover, the 14 DOF model,
behavior is essential to predict impending rollover as unlike the 8 DOF model, can predict vehicle behavior
1
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

even after wheel lift-off and thus can be used in words, the body-fixed co-ordinate frame 1 is obtained by
developing or testing the validity of rollover rotating the co-ordinate frame 2 first through the pitch
prediction/prevention strategies. In other words, even angle T and then through the roll angle I .
though the 14 DOF model has low degrees of freedom
and consequently certain limitations when compared to
a multi-body dynamics model, it can sufficiently express
the vehicle motions that are important in most active
chassis control systems.

In this paper, we have first developed a 14 DOF vehicle

model with a roll center and validated it with CARSIM
[16] and ADAMS/Car [17]. This model is highly complex
and includes non-linear effects due to vehicle roll and
pitch angles and unsprung mass inertia that may render
it unsuitable for the application in control system
development. The effect of simplification of equations Fig. 3 Description of forces and velocities at the right front
used in this model is studied by simulation and the corner of a vehicle.
applicability and validity of such simplifications are
analyzed. Lastly, the possible limitations of the 14 DOF Figure 3 shows the force and velocity components in the
model as compared to an actual vehicle are discussed. right front corner of a vehicle. The velocities u srf , v srf
and wsrf are the velocities of the right front strut mounting
point in the longitudinal, lateral and vertical directions
respectively in the body-fixed co-ordinate frame, which is
attached to the sprung mass center of gravity (co-
ordinate frame 1). These velocities can be obtained by
transforming the c.g. velocities as
§ u srf · § 0 0 c / 2 ·§ Z x · § u ·
¨ ¸ ¨ ¸¨ ¸ ¨ ¸
¨ v srf ¸ ¨ 0 0 a ¸¨ Z y ¸  ¨ v ¸ (1)
¨¨ ¸¸ ¨ c / 2  a
© wsrf ¹ © 0 ¸¹¨© Z z ¸¹ ¨© w ¸¹

The velocities uurf , vurf and wurf represent the velocities

Fig. 2 Schematic of 14 DOF full vehicle model with 1-d suspension and of the unsprung mass mu in the body-fixed co-ordinate
co-ordinate frames
frame 1 while u grf and v grf are the lateral and
longitudinal velocities at the tire contact patch in co-
ordinate frame 2. It is assumed that the vertical velocity
VEHICLE MODEL DEVELOPMENT (MODEL 1) wgrf at the tire contact patch is zero (smooth road). The
Figure 2 exhibits the schematic of the two axle, 14 forces Fxsrf , F ysrf and Fzsrf are the forces transmitted to
degree-of-freedom, vehicle model used to investigate
vehicle roll response to steering and torque inputs. This the sprung mass along the longitudinal, lateral and
schematic includes six degrees of freedom at the vehicle vertical directions respectively of co-ordinate frame 1.
lumped mass center of gravity and two degrees of The forces Fxgsrf , Fygsrf and Fzgsrf are the forces acting at
freedom at each of the four wheels including vertical the tire ground contact patch in the same co-ordinate
suspension travel and wheel spin. The body is modeled frame 1. These forces can be written in terms of the tire
as rigid with body fixed coordinates, xyz, attached at the forces Fxgrf , Fygrf and Fzgrf by projecting its components
center of gravity and aligned in principal directions (co-
ordinate frame 1). u , v and w indicate forward, lateral, along co-ordinate frame 2 as
and vertical velocities, respectively of the sprung mass.
There is roll angular velocity, Z x , pitch angular velocity, § Fxgsrf · §1 0 0 ·§ cos T 0  sin T ·§ Fxgrf ·
¨ ¸ ¨ ¸¨ ¸¨ ¸
Z y , and yaw angular velocity, Z z . The attitude and ¨ Fygsrf ¸ ¨ 0 cos I sin I ¸¨ 0 1 0 ¸¨ F ygrf ¸ (2)
¨¨ ¸¸ ¨ 0  sin I ¨ ¸¸
position of body with respect to the inertial frame (XYZ) © Fzgsrf ¹ © cos I ¸¹¨© sin T 0 cos T ¸¹¨© Fzgrf ¹
can be determined through a number of successively
obtaining cardan angles (i.e. the roll angle I , the pitch The forces Fxgrf and Fygrf are obtained by resolving the
angle T and the yaw angle \ ) as shown in Fig. 2. The longitudinal ( Fxtrf ) and cornering ( F ytrf ) forces at the
co-ordinate frame 2 is obtained by rotating the inertial
tire contact patch as
co-ordinate frame through the yaw angle \ . In other
2
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Fxgrf Fxtrf x cos G  Fytrf x sin G (3) x srf  wsrf  wurf (12)
F ygrf Fytrf x cos G  Fxtrf x sin G (4)
where G is the steering angle at the wheels. The vertical force Fzgrf acting at the tire ground contact
patch in co-ordinate frame 2 can be written in terms of
A Magic Formula [18] tire model has been used in the the tire stiffness ( k tf ) and the instantaneous tire
development of tire forces Fxtrf and F ytrf . The
longitudinal slip and lateral slip used in the tire model deflection ( xtrf ) as
was calculated as follows:
Fzgrf Fztrf xtrf k tf (13)
(rrf Z rf  (u grf cos G  v grf sin G ))
s rf (5)
(u grf cos G  v grf sin G ) The tire deflection xtrf in eqn. (13) is given as
1
D rf tan (v grf / u grf )  G (6)
x trf  wuirf  cos T ( wurf cos I  v urf sin I )  u urf sin T (14)
The longitudinal and lateral velocities at the tire contact
patch, u grf and v grf are given as: where wuirf is the vertical velocity of the wheel center in
the inertial co-ordinate frame. It should be noted that
u grf cos T (u urf  Z y x rrf ) even though the tire is assumed to remain at a fixed
(7) angle with the strut, the vertical stiffness of the tire, k tf , is
 sin T ( wurf cos I  sin I (Z x x rrf  vurf ))
always considered to be normal to the ground, between
v grf cos I (vurf  Z x x rrf )  wurf sin I (8) the ground and the wheel center (pt C).
where rrf is the instantaneous radius of the tire.
The instantaneous tire radius is then determined as
The longitudinal ( uurf ) and lateral ( vurf ) velocities of the rrf ro  xtrf /(cos T cos I ) (15)
unsprung mass in the body-fixed co-ordinate frame used
in the above equations are simply written as
To account for wheel lift-off, when the tire radial
compression becomes less than zero, the tire normal
uurf u srf  l srf Z y (9) force Fzgrf is set equal to zero and also the instantaneous
vurf v srf  l srf Z x (10) tire radius is considered equal to the nominal tire radius
where l srf is the instantaneous length of the strut as until the tire returns to the road surface.
indicated in figure 3.
If xtrf  0 then Fzgrf 0 and rrf r0 (16)
The unsprung mass vertical velocity wurf represents the
degree of freedom corresponding to the suspension The forces Fxsrf and F ysrf transmitted to the sprung mass
deflection and can be expressed by applying Newton’s along the u  and v  axes of the body fixed co-ordinate
Law for the vertical motion of the unsprung mass as frame are obtained after subtracting the components of
the unsprung mass weight and inertia forces from the
mu w urf cos I (cos T ( Fzgrf  mu g )  sin T Fxgrf )  sin I Fygrf corresponding forces Fxgsrf and Fygsrf acting at the tire
(11)
 Fdzrf  xsrf x ksf  xsrf x bsf  mu (vurf x Z x  uurf x Z y ) contact patch as

where, k sf is suspension stiffness, bsf is suspension Fxsrf Fxgsrf  mu g sin T  mu u urf

(17)
damping coefficient, and x srf is the instantaneous  mu Z z vurf  mu Z y wurf
compression of the right front suspension spring. The F ysrf Fygsrf  mu g sin I cos T  mu vurf
force Fdzrf represents the additional load transfer that (18)
 mu Z x wurf  mu Z z u urf
occurs at the wheels through the suspension links
because of the reaction force to the force transmitted to The vertical force Fzsrf transmitted to the sprung mass
the sprung mass through the roll center. This will be
considered in detail at a later stage. through the strut is given as

The instantaneous suspension spring deflection x srf is Fzsrf x srf k srf  x srf bsrf (19)
given as
Figure 4 shows the forces and velocities in the roll plane
of, for example, the front suspension. Generally, roll
3
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

center height is defined with reference to the ground.
However, for the development of this model, the front
and rear roll centers are assumed to be fixed at
distances hrcf and hrcr respectively, below the sprung
mass c.g. along the negative w  axis of the body fixed
co-ordinate frame 1. Moreover the roll center is simply
considered to be a point of application of the forces
transmitted to the sprung mass through the suspension
links and not as a kinematic constraint.
§ F ygsrf rrf  F ysrf l srf  F ygslf rlf  ·
¨ ¸
¨ F yslf l slf  ( F ysrf  F yslf )hrcf ¸
Fdzrf  Fdzlf © ¹ (22)
cf
The moments M yrf and M zrf transmitted to the sprung
mass at, for example, the right front corner by the
suspension along the Z y and Z z directions can be given
as

M yrf ( Fxsgrf r  Fxsrf x l srf )

x rf (23)
M zrf 0 (24)

The equations of motion for the six degrees of freedom

of the sprung mass model can now be derived from
direct application of Newton’s Laws for the system as

m(u  Z y w  Z z v) ¦ (F xsij )  mg sin T (25)

m(v  Z z u  Z x w) ¦ (F ysij )  mg sin I cos T (26)
m( w  Z x v  Z y u ) ¦ (F zsij  Fdzij )  mg cos I cos T (27)

Fig. 4 Forces and velocities in the front suspension roll plane J xZ x ¦ (M xij )  ( Fzslf  Fzslr  Fzsrf  Fzsrr )c / 2 (28)

In Fig. 4, the forces Fzslf and Fzsrf are the forces

J y Z y ¦ (M yij )  ( Fzslr  Fzsrr )b  ( Fzslf  Fzsrf )a (29)

transmitted to the sprung mass through the struts. The

J z Z z ¦ (M zij )  ( F yslf  F ysrf )a  ( F yslr  F ysrr )b
(30)
lateral forces, F yslf and Fysrf , represent the forces  ( Fxslf  Fxsrf  Fxslr  Fxsrr )c / 2
transmitted to the sprung mass through the suspension
links. In the absence of a roll center i.e. when the roll where m is the sprung mass and the subscript ‘ ij ’
center is assumed to be in the ground plane, the total denotes left front ( lf ), right front ( rf ), left rear ( lr ) and
roll moment transmitted to the sprung mass at, for right rear ( rr ) .
example, the right front corner along the Z x direction is
given as The cardan angles T , \ , I needed in the above
equations are obtained by performing the integration of
M xrf F ygsrf r  F ysrf x l srf
x rf (20) the following equations,

and the force due to the lateral load transfer through T Z y x cos I  Z z x sin I (31)
suspension links, Fdzrf =0.
\ Z y x sin I / cos T  Z z x cos I / cos T (32)

When a roll center is modeled as shown in Figure 4, the
roll moment M xrf transmitted to the sprung mass by the
right front corner suspension is given as
M xrf F ysrf hrcf
Thus the inclusion of a roll center reduces the total roll
moment transferred to the sprung mass by the front
suspension. The difference between the roll moments in
the absence of the roll center (eqn (20)) and when the
roll center is considered (eqn (21)) acts directly on the
unsprung mass and is responsible for the link load
transfer forces (jacking forces), Fdzlf and Fdzrf .These
forces can be estimated as
I Z x  Z y x sin I tan T  Z z x cos I tan T (33)
The model developed above is a highly complex, non-
linear full vehicle model with 1-dimensional suspension.
(21) The next section shows the validation of this model with
CARSIM. In the subsequent sections we will consider
the effect of various modeling assumptions and
simplifications on the responses of the vehicle model
and understand their applicability and validity.
VALIDATION
The 14 DOF full vehicle model is validated with CARSIM
and ADAMS/Car for a J-turn maneuver at 50 kph. Figure
5 shows the steering wheel angle input for the maneuver
and the comparative roll angles, lateral acceleration and
4
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

yaw rates. Figure 6 shows the comparative normal due to the suspension geometry in the multi-dynamics
forces at the four tires. It can be seen that the developed model.
model correlates very well with CARSIM untill wheel lift-
off. LINEARIZATION OF TRIGONOMETRIC TERMS
(MODEL 1A)

In this section, a small angle assumption is made for the

steering wheel angle vs time roll angle vs time
100 cardan angles T and I , and its effect on the vehicle roll
5
dynamics is investigated. No small angle assumption is
made for the steering angle G as this could cause
angle (deg)

angle (deg)
0 0

-5 differences at high steering inputs which are not truly

-100 representative of the limitations of the vehicle model.
-10

-200
0 1 2
-15
0 1 2 Several equations are simplified due to the linearization
time (sec) time (sec) of the trigonometric terms with the small angle
lateral accn vs time yaw rate vs time assumption. Equation (2), which represents the co-
angular velcoity (deg/s)

0.5 20 ordinate transformation of the ground forces, can be

simplified to eqn (2a). Here it is assumed that
lateral accn (g)

0
0
sin T sin I TI 0 .
-0.5 -20

§ Fxgsrf · §1 0  T ·§ Fxgrf ·
-1
-40 ¨ ¸ ¨ ¸¨ ¸
0 1 2 0 1 2 ¨ F ygsrf ¸ ¨0 1 I ¸¨ Fygrf ¸ (2a)
time (sec) time (sec) ¨¨ ¸¸ ¨T  I ¨ ¸¸
© Fzgsrf ¹ © 1 ¸¹¨© Fzgrf ¹
Fig. 5 Comparison of vehicle responses among the models
during the J-turn maneuver at a speed of 50 kph
Equations (7) and (8) for the longitudinal and lateral
velocities at the tire ground contact patch are
respectively modified to eqns (7a-1) and (8a-1) below.

u grf u srf  Z y (l srf  rrf )  T ( wurf ) (7a-1)

left front tire normal force right front tire normal force
8000 v grf v srf  Z x x (l srf  rrf )  wurf I (8a-1)
10000
6000
force (N)

force (N)

The terms containing T and I in the above equations are

4000
5000
very small and can be dropped without introducing any
2000
significant errors to yield eqns (7a) and (8a) below.
0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2
time (sec) time (sec)
u grf u srf  Z y (l srf  rrf ) (7a)

8000
left rear tire normal force
6000
right rear tire normal force
v grf v srf  Z x x (l srf  rrf ) (8a)
6000
4000 Equation (11) for the vertical motion of the unsprung
force (N)

force (N)

4000 mass is simplified to eqn (11a) below.

2000
2000
mu w urf Fzgrf  mu g  T Fxgrf  I F ygrf  Fdzrf
0 0 (11a)
0 1 2 0 1 2
 ( x srf x k srf  x srf x bsrf )  mu ˜ (vurf Z x  u urf Z y )
time (sec) time (sec)

Fig. 6 Comparison of tire normal forces among the models

during the J-turn maneuver at a speed of 50 kph Equation (14) for the tire deflection xtrf is simplified to
The slight difference in the responses prior to wheel lift- eqn (14a).
off and the deviation that occurs later may be due to the
fact that the roll center in CARSIM is assumed to be x trf  wuirf ( wurf  vurf I  u urf T ) (14a)
fixed with respect to the ground while in the model
developed above the roll center is assumed to be at a The instantaneous tire radius is then simply given as
fixed distance from the sprung mass center of gravity. At
extreme roll angles and certainly after wheel lift-off this rrf ro  xtrf (15a)
will have an impact on the responses. The difference in
the responses as compared to ADAMS/Car can be
attributed to the variation in roll center height that occurs
5
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

The forces Fxsrf and F ysrf transmitted to the body by the roll angle vs time - (60 deg step steer, 50 kph)

suspension are now given by eqns (17a)~(18a) below. 6

roll angle (deg)

Fxsrf Fxgsrf  mu gT  mu (u urf  Z z vurf  Z y wurf ) (17a) 4

F ysrf F ygsrf  mu gI  mu (vurf  Z x wurf  Z z u urf ) (18a) 2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
The equations of motion for the three translational time (sec)
degrees of freedom of the sprung mass model are front tire normal forces rear tire normal forces
modified as 8000 6000
5000
6000
m(u  Z y w  Z z v) ¦ (F xsbij )  mgT 4000

force (N)

force (N)
(25a)
3000
m(v  Z z u  Z x w) ¦ (F ysbij )  mgI (26a) 4000
2000

m( w  Z x v  Z y u ) ¦ (F zsbij  Fdzij )  mg (27a) 2000

0 1 2 3 4
1000
0 1 2 3 4
time (sec) time (sec)
The angles T , \ , I can be obtained as
Fig. 7 Comparative responses – step steer – Effect of the small
angle assumption and ignoring lateral and longitudinal
T Z y  Z zI (31a) inertia forces of unsprung masses

roll angle vs time - (ramp steer 3 deg/s at road wheel, 50 kph)

\ Z y I  Z z (32a) 15

I Z x  Z zT (33a)

roll angle (deg)

10

Figures 7 and 8 show the effect of the small angle 5

assumption on the vehicle responses. It can be seen
that the small angle assumption makes no difference for 0
the step steer input in Fig. 7. In the ramp steer response 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
time (sec)
in Fig.8 the small angle assumption affects the front tire normal forces rear tire normal forces
responses only when the roll angle exceeds 8-10
10000
degrees. In general the small angle assumption will not 6000

affect the vehicle responses while the concerned angles,

force (N)

force (N)
4000
T and I , remain less than 8-10 degrees. The pitch angle 5000
T is unlikely to reach such values except in very hard 2000
braking scenarios and, in most cases, the vehicle would
0 0
already have seen wheel lift-off by the time the roll angle 0 2 4 0 2 4
I reaches 8-10 degrees. Thus we can conclude that the time (sec) time (sec)

small angle assumption is significant only for studies of Fig. 8 Comparative responses – step ramp – Effect of the small
vehicle behavior after wheel lift-off has occurred. angle assumption and ignoring lateral and longitudinal
inertia forces of unsprung masses
THE UNSPRUNG MASS EFFECT: IGNORING
will also add several off-diagonal terms to the A - matrix
THE LATERAL AND LONGITUDINAL INERTIA
in the form AX BX  C . Therefore for the sake of
(MODEL 1B)
simplicity, in addition to the small angle assumption, the
terms mu (u urf  Z z vurf  Z y wurf ) and
The terms u urf and vurf in eqns (17a) and (18a), which
are required to compute the inertia forces of the mu (vurf  Z x wurf  Z z u urf ) representing the inertia forces
unsprung masses, can be determined either by of the unsprung mass are dropped from eqns (17a) and
differentiation of the velocities u urf and vurf respectively (18a) respectively to yield the simplified equations
below.
or by the equations below.
Fxsrf Fxgsrf  mu gT (17b)
u urf u  lsrf Z y  Z y l srf (34)
Fysrf Fygsrf  mu gI (18b)
vurf v  aZ z  lsrf Z x  Z x l srf (35)
Also eqn (11a) for the unsprung mass vertical velocity
Differentiation is not desirable as it slows down the can be simplified to eqn (11b) by dropping the
computation time and it is also not suitable for term mu (vurf Z x  u urf Z y ) without any significant effect
development of control logic. Using the equations above
prior to wheel to lift-off.
6
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

mu w urf Fzgrf  mu g  T Fxgrf  I F ygrf  Fdzrf mu w urf xtrf x k trf  mu g  Fdzrf

(11b) (11c-ii)
 ( x srf x k srf  x srf x bsrf )  ( x srf x k srf  x srf x bsrf )

It can be seen from the step steer responses in Fig. 7 roll angle vs time - (60 deg step steer, 50 kph)
that ignoring the unsprung mass inertia forces increases
6
the net transient roll moment acting on the sprung mass.

roll angle (deg)

This increases the peak roll angles and lateral load 4
transfers. The increase in the roll moment would also
result in significantly quicker rollover of the vehicle after 2
two wheel lift-off, if the changes in eqns (21b)~(22b) are
applied without modifying eqn (11b) as shown above. 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
However, the modification in eqn (11b) opposes this time (sec)
tendency for quicker rollover and, as seen in Fig. 8, the front tire normal forces rear tire normal forces
8000 6000
vehicle actually rolls over at almost the same time. It
5000
should be noted here that the unsprung mass is NOT 6000
4000

force (N)

force (N)
lumped with the sprung mass in the equation (25a) and
(26a). Doing so causes deviation in the responses. 3000
4000
2000

2000 1000
EFFECT OF FURTHER SIMPLIFICATIONS TO 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
THE 14 DOF FULL VEHICLE MODEL time (sec) time (sec)

Even after the small angle assumption and ignoring the Fig. 9 Comparative responses – step steer – Effect of
inertia forces of the unsprung masses, the equations for simplifications indicated in Model 1c-i and Model 1c-ii
the 14 DOF model are fairly complex. In this section
certain additional simplifications and their effect on the roll angle vs time - (60 deg step steer, 50 kph)
vehicle roll response is studied. 15
roll angle (deg)

SIMPLIFYING THE EQUATIONS FOR THE FORCES 10

TRANSMITTED TO THE SPRUNG MASS (MODEL 1C-

I): 5

0
The equations ((2a),(17b)~(18b)) for the lateral and 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
longitudinal forces transmitted to the sprung mass can time (sec)
front tire normal forces rear tire normal forces
be simplified by dropping the terms containing I and T
10000
as 6000
force (N)

force (N)

§ Fxsrf · § Fxgsrf · § Fxgrf · 5000
¨ ¸ ¨ ¸ ¨ ¸
¨ F ysrf ¸ ¨ F ygsrf ¸ ¨ F ygrf ¸ 2000
© ¹ © ¹ © ¹
This simplification reduces the roll moment on the
sprung mass, which reduces the predicted transient as
well as steady state roll angles as seen in the step steer
responses in Fig. 9. There is also a consequent
reduction in the lateral load transfer at the tires. For
small roll angles this effect is not significant and may be
deemed acceptable, but as seen in the ramp steer
responses in Fig. 10, at higher roll angles there are
considerable errors which in this particular case, make
the difference between vehicle rollover and stability.
SIMPLIFYING THE EQUATION FOR THE UNSPRUNG
MASS VERTICAL VELOCITY (MODEL 1C-II):
The terms containing T and I are dropped from the
equation for the vertical motion of the unsprung mass to
yield eqn (11c-ii) below
4000
(2c-i)
0 0
0 2 4 0 2 4
time (sec) time (sec)
Fig. 10 Comparative responses – ramp steer – Effect of
simplifications indicated in Model 1c-i and Model 1c-ii
Dropping the term I Fygrf causes an increase in the
vertical acceleration of the unsprung mass and a
consequent decrease in the tire compression. This
reduces the predicted transient and steady state tire
normal forces as is clearly seen in both the step steer
and ramp steer responses in Figs. 9 and 10 respectively.
The reduced tire normal forces result in lower lateral
force generated at the tires and consequently reduced
roll moment acting on the sprung mass. However as the
normal forces on the loaded tire are more affected by
the simplification in eqn (11c-ii) the effective roll stiffness
of the model is also reduced. Thus the change in roll
angle is not as significant as the change in the tire
normal forces. However, it should be noted that this
simplification will also affect the response of the vehicle
7
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

to any normal force inputs at the suspension corners roll angle vs time - (60 deg step steer, 50 kph)
from an active suspension system.
6

roll angle (deg)

SIMPLIFYING THE EQUATION FOR THE TIRE 4
DEFLECTION (MODEL 1C-III):
2
Equation (14a) for the tire deflection is simplified to eqn
(14c-iii) below. 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
time (sec)
front tire normal forces rear tire normal forces
x trf  wuirf  wurf (14c-iii) 8000 6000
5000
6000
Along with this simplification it is necessary to change 4000

force (N)

force (N)
the equations for the angles of the sprung mass as 3000
4000
2000
T Z y (31c-iii) 2000 1000
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
\ Zz (32c-iii) time (sec) time (sec)
I Z x (33c-iii) Fig.11 Comparative responses – step steer - Effect of
simplifications indicated in Model 1c-iii and Model 1c-iv
The removal of the term vurf I from eqn (14a) results in v grf v srf (8c-iv)
increased tire compression prediction. As can be seen in
the step steer and ramp steer responses in Figs. 11 and As can be seen from the step steer responses in Fig. 11,
12, this results in significantly greater tire normal forces this simplification changes the roll frequency response of
at high roll angles. Moreover, the model can no longer the model entirely. However there is no change in the
predict wheel lift-off and rollover as is apparent from the steady state roll angles or tire forces and the ramp steer
ramp steer outputs. responses in Fig. 12 are identical. The change in the roll
frequency is very important when considering the
SIMPLIFYING THE EQUATIONS FOR VELOCITIES AT response of the vehicle in non-steady state maneuvers
THE TIRE-GROUND CONTACT PATCH (MODEL 1C- such as a double lane change test and also in
IV): development of control logic for active steer or active
normal force controls.
The longitudinal and lateral velocities at the tire are
taken to be the same as those at the corresponding However, eqns (7a) and (8a) can be simplified by using
sprung mass corner. Thus eqns (7a) and (8a) are the static c.g. height of the sprung mass h in place of
simplified as shown below. the instantaneous lengths l srf  rrf without introducing

u grf u srf (7c-iv) any errors either in the steady state or transient
responses prior to wheel lift-off. Similarly, the initial strut
length l sif can be used in place of the instantaneous

roll angle vs time - (ramp steer 3 deg/s at road wheel, 50 kph)

strut length l srf in equations (9) and (10) for the
15
unsprung mass lateral and longitudinal velocities. The
unsprung mass velocities can also be replaced by the
roll angle (deg)

10
corner velocities to further simplify the equations.
However, this results in a slight difference in the roll
5
frequency response of the model. This error is very
small and can generally be ignored.
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
time (sec)
front tire normal forces rear tire normal forces
LIMITATIONS OF THE 14 DOF MODEL
10000
6000
There can be differences between the responses of the
14 DOF vehicle model developed as compared to an
force (N)

force (N)

4000
5000 actual vehicle or a multi-body dynamics based vehicle
2000 model. These errors are due to several effects that exist
in an actual vehicle suspension but are not represented
0
0 2 4
0
0 2 4 in the vehicle model.
time (sec) time (sec)

Fig.12 Comparative responses – ramp steer - Effect of

Compliance elements (bushings) are not considered in
simplifications indicated in Model 1c-iii and Model 1c-iv the vehicle model. In the 14 DOF model developed, the
8
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018
tire is considered to remain normal to the sprung mass.
In an actual vehicle, the camber angle variation with
wheel travel will affect the tire force generation and roll
behavior.
The vertical and lateral movement of the roll center in an
actual vehicle affects the net roll moment acting on the
sprung mass and also affects the load transfer at the
tires. Since the roll center is also the instantaneous
center of rotation of the sprung mass w.r.t. the ground,
the roll center movement also affects the location,
velocity and acceleration of the sprung mass c.g. In
extreme maneuvers, these phenomena can significantly
affect the vehicle roll response and the tire normal
forces. A vehicle model that includes a moving roll
centre that acts not just as a point of application of
forces but also as a kinematic link will be needed to
model these effects. However, there are many practical
difficulties in this approach. For example, the roll center
movement both with respect to the sprung mass and
with respect to the ground wil be needed as inputs to the
model.
In spite of the limitations described above, the 14 DOF
model developed is a fairly good representation of the
vehicle roll and handling behavior in most cases. It can
be used to anticipate vehicle rollover and for the
development of integrated chassis control that includes
active suspension/active roll control systems and to
active steering and throttle/brake control.
CONCLUSIONS
A complex, non-linear 14 degree-of-freedom full vehicle
model that can simulate vehicle rollover was developed
and validated. From this model, various simplified
vehicle models employing different assumptions were
introduced and assessed through simulation for their
limitations and validity, particularly for vehicle roll
dynamics studies. The possible limitations of the 14
DOF model as compared to an actual suspension are
also discussed.
It is expected that the results presented here can be
useful for the selection or development of a suitable
vehicle model for vehicle roll control systems.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support
of Center for Engineering Education and Practice
(CEEP) at University of Michigan-Dearborn.
REFERENCES
1. Dahlberg, E. “A Method Determining the Dynamic
Rollover Threshold of Commercial Vehicles”, SAE
Paper No. 2000-01-3492, 2000.
2. Chen, B. and Peng, H. “Rollover Warning for
Articulated Vehicles Based on a Time-To-Rollover
9
Metric”, Proc. of ASME International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition, Nashville,
TN, November 1999.
3. Hyun, D. and Langari, R. “Modeling to Predict
Rollover Threat of Tractor-Semitrailers”, Vehicle
System Dynamics, 39 (6), 401-414, 2003.
4. Furleigh, D.D., Vanderploeg, M.J., and Oh, C.Y.
“Multiple Steered Axles for Reducing the Rollover
Risks of Heavy Articulated Trucks”, SAE Paper No.
881866, 1988.
5. Watanabe, Y. and Sharp, R.S. “Mechanical and
Control Design of a Variable Geometry Active
Suspension System”, Vehicle System Dynamics, 32,
217-235, 1999.
6. Konik, D., Bartz, R., Barnthol, F., Bruns, H., and
Wimmer, D. “Dynamic Drive-the New Active Roll
Stabilization System from the BMW Group-System
Description and Functional Improvements”, AVEC
2000.
7. Chen, B. and Peng, H. “Differential-Braking-Based
Rollover Prevention for Sport Utility Vehicles with
Human-in-the loop Evaluations”, Vehicle System
Dynamics, 36 (4-5), 359~389, 2001.
8. Dixon, John C. “Tires, Suspension and Handling”.
2nd Edition. Society of Automotive Engineers Inc.,
Warrandale, PA, 1996.
9. Hac, A. “Rollover Stability Index Including Effects of
Suspension Design”, SAE Paper No. 2002-01-0965,
2002.
10. Gillespie, T. Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics,
Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA,
1992.
11. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s
Rating System for Rollover Resistance: An
Assessment, Transportation Research Board,
Special Report 265, 2002.
12. Song, J., “Performance evaluation of a hybrid
electric brake system with a sliding mode controller”,
Mechatronics, 15,339–358, 2005.
13. Cooper, N., Manning, W., Crolla, D. and Levesley
M., “Integration of Active Suspension and Active
Driveline to Ensure Stability while Improving Vehicle
Dynamics”, SAE 2005-01-0414.
14. Shim, T. and Toomey, D., “Investigation of Active
Steering/Wheel Torque Control At the Rollover Limit
Maneuver”, SAE 2004-01-2097.
15. Shim, T. and Margolis, D., “Dynamic Normal Force
Control for Vehicle Stability Enhancement”, Intl. J. of
Vehicle Autonomous System, 3(1), 1-14, 2005.
16. Mechanical Simulation Corporation
http://www.carsim.com
17. ADAMS/Car http://www.mscsoftware.com/
18. Bakker, E., Nyborg, L., Pacejka, H.B., Tyre modeling
for use in vehicle dynamic studies, SAE Technical
Paper 870421
 Downloaded from SAE International by Steven Sullivan, Wednesday, November 28, 2018

u g / v g : longitudinal/lateral velocities at tire contact patch

in coordinate frame 2 (m/s)
CONTACT Fxt / F yt / Fzt : tire longitudinal/lateral /vertical forces (N)
Taehyun Shim (Assistant Professor)
Fxg / F yg / Fzg : longitudinal/lateral/vertical forces at tire
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Michigan-Dearborn contact patch in coordinate frame 2
4901 Evergreen Road (N)
Dearborn, MI 48128, U.S.A. Fxgs / Fygs / Fzgs : longitudinal/lateral/vertical forces at tire
Tel: +1-313-593-5127 Fax:+1-313-593-3851 contact patch in coordinate frame 1(N)
E-mail: tshim@umich.edu Fxs / F ys / Fzs : longitudinal / lateral / vertical forces
transferred to body in coordinate frame
NOMENCLATURE 1(N)
Vehicle: Fdz : force due to lateral load transfer through
m : vehicle sprung mass (kg) suspension links (jacking force) (N)
Jx roll inertia (kg-m2) M x / M y / M z : roll/pitch/yaw moments transmitted to the
2
J y : pitch inertia (kg-m ) sprung mass at the suspension corner
J z : yaw inertia (kg-m ) 2 in co-ordinate frame 1 (Nm)
s: tire longitudinal slip;
a: distance of c.g from front axle (m)
D: tire lateral slip (rad);
b: distance of c.g from rear axle (m)
Z: angular velocity of wheel rotation (rad/s)
c: track width (m)
G: road wheel steer angle (rad);
h: c.g height (m)
T: external torque applied at wheel (Nm)
hrcf :front roll center distance below sprung mass c,g (m)
hrcr : rear roll center distance below sprung mass c,g (m) APPENDIX
u / v / w : longitudinal/lateral/vertical velocities of c.g in Vehicle Parameters:
body fixed coordinate (m/s)
sprung mass: m 1440kg
Z x / Z y / Z z : roll rate/pitch rate/yaw rate of c.g in body
sprung mass roll inertia: Jx 900kgm 2
fixed coordinate (rad/s)
I : roll angle (rad) sprung mass yaw inertia: Jy 2000kgm 2
T : pitch angle (rad) sprung mass pitch inertia: J z 2000kgm 2
\: yaw angle (rad)
distance of sprung mass c.g from front axle: a 1.016m
distance of sprung mass c.g from rear axle: b 1.524m
suspension/tire
sprung mass c.g height: h 0.75m
mu : unsprung mass (kg)
front/rear track width: c f c r 1.5m
ks : suspension spring stiffness (N/m)
front suspension stiffness: k sf 35000 N / m
bs : suspension damping coefficient (Ns/m)
kt : tire stiffness (N/m) front suspension damping coefficient: bsf 2500 Ns / m
Jw : rotational inertia of each wheel (kg-m2) rear suspension stiffness: k sr 30000 N / m
ro : nominal radius of tire (m) rear suspension damping coefficient: bsr 2000 Ns / m
r: instantaneous tire radius (m) front/rear unsprung mass: muf mur 80kg
xs : suspension spring compression (m) front/rear tire stiffness: k tf k tr 200000 N / m
x si : initial suspension spring compression (m) nominal tire radius: ro 0.285m
xt : tire spring compression (m) tire/wheel roll inertia: J w 1kgm 2
xti : initial tire spring compression (m) front roll center height below sprung mass c.g: hrcf 0.65m
l si : initial length of strut (m), l si h  (r  xti ) rear roll center height below sprung mass c.g: hrcr 0.6m
ls : instantaneous length of strut (m),
l s l si  x s  x si
u u / vu / wu : unsprung mass longitudinal/lateral/vertical
velocities in coordinate frame 1 (m/s)
u s / v s / ws : longitudinal/lateral/vertical velocities at the
suspension corner in coordinate frame 1
(m/s)
10