Vehicle Dynamics – Part 4

Steering Stability and Steady-State

Characteristics

R.G. Longoria
Spring 2010
v.1

ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering

Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Overview
• Terms like handling are used to assess the directional
controllability of a vehicle, traditionally for road
(passenger) vehicles.
• Toward building an understanding of these concepts,
these slides discuss:
– Low-speed turning and Ackerman steering geometry
– Steady-state turning characteristics
– Understeer coefficient
– Insight into steady-state turning

ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering

Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
Control, Stability, and Handling [5]
• “Control is action by a driver intended to
influence the motion of the car.”
• “Stability refers to the unwillingness of a car to
be deflected from its existing path – usually a
desirable trait, in moderation.”
• “Handling is the ability of a car to round
corners successfully, the study of how this
occurs, and the study of the driver’s perception
of the vehicle’s cornering behavior.”
ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering
Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Turning at low (Ackermann) speed
• What is ‘low-speed’? Simple relationship between
δo δi
– Negligible centrifugal forces heading and steering wheel angle.
– Tires need not develop lateral
forces
• Pure rolling, no lateral sliding L
(minimum tire scrub). R Turn Center

• For proper geometry in the

turn, the steer angles, δ, are B
given by:
L L
δo ≅ < δi ≅
R+B R−B “Ackermann steering geometry”
2 2
• The average value (small cot δ o − cot δ i = B
L
angles) is the Ackerman δ o = steer angle of outside wheel
angle, δ i = steer angle of inside wheel
L
δ Ackermann = B = track
R L = wheelbase

Ref. Wong, Ch. 5

ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering
Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Notes on Ackerman steering
• At low speed the wheels will roll without slip angle.
• If the rear wheels have no slip angle, the center of the turn lies
on the projection of the rear axle. Each front steered wheel has
a normal to the wheel plane that passes through the same center
of the turn. This is what Ackerman geometry dictates.
• Correct Ackerman reduces tire wear (and is easy on terrain).
• Ackerman steering geometry leads to steering torques that
increase with steer angle. The driver gets feedback about the
extent to which wheels are turned. With parallel steer, the trend
is different, becoming negative (not desirable in a steering
system – positive feedback).
• Off-tracking of the rear wheels, ∆, is related to this geometry.
The ‘∆’ is R[1-cos(L/R)], or approximately L2/(2R).
ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering
Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Standard notation/conventions

ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering

Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 What can you do with this?
Can you pass the vehicle
through a given position?

1. Assume low-speed turning

δo δi
2. Project along rear-axle
3. Define R = L/δmax
L
4. Project from CG
5. Project ideal turning path
B

ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering

Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Steady state turning or handling
• Steady state ‘handling’ refers to directional
behavior of a vehicle during constant speed
turning
• We derive steady state handling characteristics
from the dynamic model
• The understeer coefficient is a key result from
this analysis, and is used to define neutral steer,
understeer, or oversteer handling conditions.

ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering

Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Begin with steady-state conditions
• Bicycle model assumption
• At high speeds, the radius of turn, R, is much
larger than L, and the difference between the
two steer angles can be ignored, justifying
this model.
• For steady-state, the lateral motion dynamics
are described by Newton’s law, which
describes the balance between the inertial
forces generated in the turn and the tire
cornering forces:
W V2
∑ Fy = 
Fyf + Fyr −
  g R
= pɺ y = 0
Tire Forces
Wong Fig 5.5
This gives us one equation.

ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering

Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Relate slip angles and lateral forces
θ  θ L
L = 2 R sin   ≅ 2 R ⋅ = Rθ θ=
 2 2 R
δ f −α f
δ f − α f + αr = L R geometry

You can show:

θ W V 2 l2
Fyf = dynamic force equilibrium
g R L  Wf V 2
 Fyf =
Wf = W
l2
static force equilibrium  g R
L
For two tires: Fyf = 2Cα f α f
Solving for slip
2
Moment equilibrium about CG Fyf Wf V angles given we
αf = =
know what lateral
ɺ = 0 = l F −l F
I zΩ 2Cα f 2Cα f gR
z 1 yf 2 yr
forces should be.
ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering
Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Define the understeer coefficient
The basic result from a SS analysis
Geometry
of the turning mechanics is

δ f −α f + αr = L R L  W f Wr  V 2
δ = + −
where, R  Cαf Cαr  gR
Forces (small steer angles)
Fyf and Fyr δ = steer angle at the front wheels
Slip angles L = wheelbase
Wong Fig. 5.5
R = radius of turn
α f and α r
V = forward speed
g = grav. Acceleration
δ f = L R + α f −αr
Wf,r = weights at front and rear axles
Cαf,r = cornering stiffnesses at front
and rear tires
What do we do with this result?
ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering
Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Steady state steering characteristics
Understeer coefficient or gradient, Kus, is defined by
 Wf Wr 
K us = 
 Cα f Cα r 
−
 

in the steady-state steering equation, Compare with L

ay ‘low-speed’ δ low =
L R
δ = + K us turning.
R g
where ay is the lateral acceleration.
The understeer gradient helps determine the magnitude and
direction of the steering inputs required to achieve a neutral
steer. It is a measure of open-loop directional response.

ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering

Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Summary of steering Dependence
conditions on velocity

• Neutral Steer, Kus=0. On a constant- 2 x L/R

radius turn, no change in steer angle Understeer Your δ has to be 2

times Ackerman.

Steer Angle, δ
will be required to follow the path. Neutral steer L/R
The Ackerman angle will ‘work’.
There is a balance between the front Oversteer
Critical speed

and back wheel slip angles. Characteristic speed

Independent of V.
Speed
• Understeer, Kus>0. The front wheel
slip angle is greater than the rear, so
you have to compensate by increasing
the steering angle (desirable).
• Oversteer, Kus<0. The rear wheel slip
is greater than the front, so you have to
compensate by decreasing the steering
angle.
Wong Fig. 5.6
ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering
Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Example calculations with Kus
• If the cornering stiffnesses of a single front and a single rear tire
are 35.8 and 141.1 kN/rad, respectively, determine the
understeer coefficient. Assume Wf = 7.27 kN, Wr = 17.98 kN.

 7.27 17.98 
K us =  −  = 0.076 radians
 35.8 141.1 
• Will this vehicle tend to understeer or oversteer?

Since Kus>0, this vehicle will tend to understeer.

ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering

Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Constant steer and velocity response
α f = αr
α f < αr K us = 0
Neutral steer
K us < 0 Oversteer α f > αr
You need to increase
Understeer
K us > 0 the steer angle.
You need to decrease
the steer angle.

Fs

L ay
δ = + K us
R g
ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering
Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Compare to Rocard
Kus in stability analysis
For a constant speed vehicle modeled by the bicycle model, taking small angle
assumptions where needed and no drive forces
l1Ω z + v y
αf =δf −
mvɺ y = Fyr + Fyf − mvx Ω z Fyf = 2Cα f α f vx
ɺ = l F −l F
I zΩ Fyr = 2Cα rα r l2 Ω z − v y
z 1 yf 2 yr
αr =
vx

Wong eqs. 5.32 and 5.33 mI z s 2 + ( I z a1 + ma4 ) s + (a1a4 − a2 a3 ) = 0

The bicycle model is directionally stable if: (a1a4 − a2 a3 ) > 0

v 2  Wf Wr 
This leads to the relation: L + x
 −  > 0
g Cα f Cα r 
  See pp. 363-365 in
Note, constant steer and Kus =understeer
forward velocity. Wong for details.
coefficient
ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering
Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Additional steering characteristics
• Characteristic speed - how much understeer?
This is the speed at which the steer angle Vchar = gL
K us
required to make a turn is twice the L/R.
• Critical Speed - you can go unstable in the K us < 0
oversteer case when the critical speed is Vcrit = gL
exceeded. − K us

• Lateral acceleration gain ay

δ These arise in Segel’s
• Yaw velocity gain r
model of 1956,
δ however his model
• Sideslip Angle - angle between the longitudinal included roll. We may
axis and the local direction of travel, β
review this model later.
• Static Margin - the distance the neutral steer
point falls behind the CG, e/L.

ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering

Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Influence of tire forces
• The basic 2D analysis shows how vertical load and tire cornering stiffness at
each axle impact the understeer coefficient (gradient), Kus, through the
relation
L  Wf Wr  V 2 L ay
δ = + −  = + K
 R  Cα f Cα r  gR
us
R g

In this way, this parameter is a measure of how much slip angle rises per g at
a given axle, since recall, W a y
α∼
Cα g

• The ratio W/Cα at an axle has units (deg/g) that suggest it might be thought
of as a “cornering compliance”.
• A ‘laterally compliant’ axle is one that allows relatively more slip angle per
lateral acceleration than another ‘stiffer’ axle.
• If a front axle on a 2 axle vehicle is ‘more compliant’ than the rear axle, this
leads to understeer.
ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering
Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Steering summary
• In summary, weight distribution and
cornering stiffness are primary determining
factors in steady-state turning.
• A FWD (front-engine) vehicle with more
weight on front tires may tend to exhibit
understeer.
• A RWD (rear-engine) vehicle with more
weight on rear wheels may tend to oversteer.
• Load transfer will alter the handling
behavior.
• Accelerating/decelerating in a turn induces a Wong Fig 5.9
load transfer that causes the slip angles at the 4-wheel drive car turning
front to increase/decrease while the rear at various R and lateral
decrease/increase, leading to accelerations
understeer/oversteer.  Wf Wr 
K us =  − 
C C
 αf αr 

ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering

Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Steering summary
Some additional issues:
• Tire properties, inflation pressure, etc.
• Lateral load transfer
• Driving or braking forces
• General suspension effects, including ‘roll steer’, ‘roll camber’, and ‘compliance
steer’. Some of these effects are included in general vehicle models (such as
Segel, 1956).
Preference (Wong):
Wong
Have a small degree of understeer,
with slight increase with lateral
acceleration (past about 0.4 g).

This gives more stability, with more

sensitivity associated with
understeer.

ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering

Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 Closing summary
• You should have sufficient material to allow you to
investigate (a) basic vehicle turning as well as (b)
bicycle model turning (standard two-axle vehicles).
δ
x
y
L L = wheel base
ψ
(a) X
(b)

• ‘Open loop’ turning refers to dictating the steer angle,

δ, without utilizing any feedback about how the
vehicle is to be positioned and/or orientated with
respect to a reference.
ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering
Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin
 References
1. Segel, L., “Theoretical Prediction and Experimental Substantiation of the Response of
the Automobile to Steering Control,” The Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Proceedings of the Automobile Division, No. 7, pp. 310-330, 1956-7.
2. Steeds, W., Mechanics of Road Vehicles, Iliffe and Sons, Ltd., London, 1960.
3. Doebelin, E.O., System Modeling and Response, John Wiley and Sons, New York,
1980.
4. Gillespie, T.D., Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics, SAE, Warrendale, PA, 1992.
5. Dixon, J.C., Tires, Suspension and Handling (2nd ed.), SAE, Warrendale, PA, 1996.
6. Heisler, H., Vehicle and Engine Technology, SAE, Warrendale, PA, 1999.
7. Wong, J.Y., Theory of Ground Vehicles, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 2001
(3rd ed.).
8. Milliken, W.F. and D.L. Milliken, Race Car Vehicle Dynamics, SAE, Warrendale,
PA, 1995.
9. Reimpell, Jornsen, Helmut Stoll, Jurgen W. Betzle, “The Automotive Chassis:
Engineering Principles”, 2nd ed. (Tanslated from German), Oxford : Butterworth
Heinemann, 2001.
10. Weir, D.H., and D.T. McRuer, “A Theory for Driver Steering Control of Motor
Vehicles”, Highway Research Record, Vol. 247, pp. 7-28, 1968.
ME 379M/397 Department of Mechanical Engineering
Vehicle System Dynamics and Control The University of Texas at Austin