See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313625339

Lateral Stability Analysis for Car-Trailer Combinations

Conference Paper · November 2016

DOI: 10.1115/IMECE2016-65648

CITATIONS READS
3 175

3 authors:

Eungkil Lee Tao Sun

Ontario Tech University Ontario Tech University
6 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   50 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Yuping He
Ontario Tech University
146 PUBLICATIONS   1,020 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Active Safety Systems for Road Vehicles View project

Non-Linear Dynamics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yuping He on 30 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition
IMECE2016
November 11-17, 2016, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

IMECE2016-65648

LATERAL STABILITY ANALYSIS FOR CAR-TRAILER COMBINATIONS

Eungkil Lee, Tao Sun and Yuping He

Department of Automotive, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada L1H 7K4

ABSTRACT stability of a CT system, sensitivity analysis of different

This paper presents a parametric study of linear lateral
stability of a car-trailer (CT) combination in order to examine the
fidelity, complexity, and applicability for control algorithm
development for CT systems. Using MATLAB software, a linear
yaw-roll model with 5 degrees of freedom (DOF) is developed
to represent the CT combination. In the case of linear stability
analysis, a parametric study was carried out using eigenvalue
analysis based on a linear yaw-roll CT model with varying
parameters. Built upon the linear stability analysis, an active
trailer differential braking (ATDB) controller was designed for
the CT system using the linear quadratic regulator (LQR)
technique. The simulation study presented in this paper shows
the effectiveness of the proposed LQR control design and the
influence of different trailer parameters.
INTRODUCTION
A car-trailer (CT) combination usually consists of a towing
unit, such as a pick-up truck or passenger car, and a towed unit,
namely a trailer [1]. Individual units are connected to one another
at an articulated point by a hitch. A CT combination is commonly
used for transporting goods in North America due to low moving
costs [2]. However, CT systems have poor stability because of
their multi-unit structures. Compared with single-unit cars, CT
combinations show unique unstable motion modes, including the
jack-knifing, trailer swing, and rollover [3]. The unstable motion
modes are the common causes for severe traffic accidents in
which the car and trailer are involved [4].
The eigenvalue analysis based on a linear 5DOF yaw-roll
model was conducted to evaluate the stability of a CT system [5].
In order to examine the effect of vehicle parameters on the
parameters, e.g., trailer center of gravity (CG) position, trailer
mass, trailer yaw inertia, and trailer axle position, were
conducted [6]. Built upon the linear stability analysis, an ATDB
controller was designed using the linear quadratic regulator
(LQR) technique. The genetic algorithm (GA) is used to get the
optimal weighting matrices of LQR controller.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2
introduces the linear yaw-roll CT model with 5DOF. In Section
3, the linear stability analysis of the CT system based on the
linear 5-DOF yaw-roll model is presented. In Section 4, the
linear ATDB controller is evaluated through the comparison of
the simulation results based on the linear model with and without
the ATDB controller. Finally, concluding statements are
provided in section 5.
VEHICLE SYSTEM MODELING
The CT combination to be investigated in the research
consists of a car and a trailer which are connected by a hitch. For
the linear 5DOF CT models generated in MATLAB, each axle of
the vehicle units is represented by a single wheel. Based on the
body fixed coordinate systems, 𝑋 − 𝑌 − 𝑍 and 𝑋1 − 𝑌1 − 𝑍1 , for
the car and trailer, respectively, the CT models can be described
in terms of the respective governing equations of motion. In the
vehicle modeling, the pitch and bouncing motions are ignored,
and the aerodynamic forces are neglected. It is assumed that the
articulated angle between the car and trailer is small, and the roll
stiffness and damping coefficients of the vehicle suspension
systems are constant when the roll motion is involved. Figure 1
illustrates the schematic representation of the car-trailer
combination.

1 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 Figure 1. The schematic representation of the yaw-roll models: (a) top view, (b) side view, and (c) rear view
The equations of motion for the car are
𝑚𝑐 (𝑈̇𝑐 − 𝑟𝑐 ∙ 𝑉𝑐 )
= −𝐹𝑥1 ∙ 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝛿) + 𝐹𝑦1 ∙ 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛿) − 𝐹𝑥2 + 𝐹𝑥𝑡
𝑚𝑐 (𝑉𝑐̇ + 𝑟𝑐 ∙ 𝑈𝑐 ) + 𝑚𝑐𝑠 ∙ ℎ1 ∙ 𝜙̈𝑐
= 𝐹𝑥1 ∙ 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛿) + 𝐹𝑦1 ∙ 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝛿) + 𝐹𝑦2 + 𝐹𝑦𝑡
𝐼𝑧1 ∙ 𝑟̇𝑐 − 𝐼𝑥𝑧1 ∙ 𝜙̈𝑐
= (𝐹𝑥1 ∙ 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛿) + 𝐹𝑦1 ∙ 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝛿)) ∙ 𝑎 − 𝐹𝑦2 ∙ 𝑏 − 𝐹𝑦𝑡 ∙ 𝑑
(𝐼𝑥𝑥1 + 𝑚𝑐𝑠 ∙ ℎ12 ) ∙ 𝜙̈𝑐 − 𝐼𝑥𝑧1 ∙ 𝑟̇𝑐 + 𝑚𝑐𝑠 ∙ ℎ1 ∙ (𝑉𝑐̇ + 𝑟𝑐 ∙ 𝑈𝑐 )
= (𝑚𝑐𝑠 ∙ 𝑔 ∙ ℎ1 − 𝑘𝑟1 ) ∙ 𝜙𝑐 − 𝑐𝑟1 ∙ 𝜙̇1 + 𝐹𝑦𝑡 ∙ 𝑧1 (4)
The equations of motion for the trailer are
𝑚𝑡 (𝑈̇𝑡 − 𝑟𝑡 ∙ 𝑉𝑡 ) = −𝐹𝑥3 − 𝐹𝑥𝑡
𝑚𝑡 (𝑉𝑡̇ + 𝑟𝑡 ∙ 𝑈𝑡 ) + 𝑚𝑡𝑠 ∙ ℎ2 ∙ 𝜙̈𝑡 = 𝐹𝑦3 − 𝐹𝑦𝑡
𝐼𝑧2 ∙ 𝑟̇𝑡 − 𝐼𝑥𝑧2 ∙ 𝜙̈𝑡 = −𝐹𝑦3 ∙ 𝑓 − 𝐹𝑦𝑡 ∙ 𝑒
(𝐼𝑥𝑥2 + 𝑚𝑡𝑠 ∙ ℎ22 ) ∙ 𝜙̈𝑡 − 𝐼𝑥𝑧2 ∙ 𝑟̇𝑡 + 𝑚𝑡𝑠 ∙ ℎ2 ∙ (𝑉𝑡̇ + 𝑟𝑡 ∙ 𝑈𝑡 )
= (𝑚𝑡𝑠 ∙ 𝑔 ∙ ℎ2 − 𝑘𝑟2 ) ∙ 𝜙𝑡 − 𝑐𝑟2 ∙ 𝜙̇𝑡 − 𝐹𝑦𝑡 ∙ 𝑧2
For the 5DOF model, the motions considered are: 1) the
lateral velocity of the car, 𝑉𝑐 , 2) the yaw rate of the car, 𝑟𝑐 , 3) the
roll angle of the sprung mass of the car, 𝜙𝑐 , 4) the yaw rate of the
(1) trailer, 𝑟𝑡 , and 5) the roll angle of the sprung mass of the trailer,
𝜙𝑡 . In the linear vehicle modeling, the following additional
assumptions have been made: (1) the forward speed of the car
(2) (𝑈𝑐 ) and the trailer (𝑈𝑡 ) are the same, and they are treated as a
constant, 𝑈; (2) the longitudinal forces are neglected; and (3) The
tire dynamic is characterized as a linear model that describes the
(3) linear relationship between the tire slip angle and the
corresponding tire cornering force. The liner 5DOF yaw-roll
model can be expressed in the state-space form as
𝑀{𝑋̇} + 𝐷{𝑋} + 𝐹𝛿 = 0 (9)
where δ is the car front wheel steering angle, and the state
variable vector is defined as
(5) 𝑇
{𝑋} = {𝜙𝑐 𝜙̇𝑐 𝜙𝑡 𝜙̇𝑡 𝑟𝑐 𝑟𝑡 𝑉𝑐 𝑉𝑡 } (10)
(6)
(7) where 𝑉𝑡 is the lateral velocity at the center of gravity (CG) of
the trailer.
(8) The lateral tire forces 𝐹𝑦1 , 𝐹𝑦2 and 𝐹𝑦3 can be determined
using the following linear relationships between the tire slip
angle and the corresponding cornering force:
2 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
 𝐹𝑦1 = 𝐶1 . 𝛼1 (11) related to roll or yaw motion, but the eigenvalue analysis of the
linear 5-DOF yaw-roll model is very useful to estimate the
𝐹𝑦2 = 𝐶2 . 𝛼2 (12) instability of the CT system at different forward speeds.
𝐹𝑦3 = 𝐶3 . 𝛼3 (13) Figure 2 indicates that within the given forward speed range,
motion modes 1, 3 and 4 are stable. However, the curve of
where 𝐶1 , 𝐶2 and 𝐶3 are the cornering stiffness of the car front damping ratio versus forward speed for motion mode 2 intersects
and rear tire, and the trailer tire respectively, and α1 , α2 and α3 with the zero damping ratio line at the speed of 31.7 m/s (marked
are side-slip angle of the tires. The side-slip angle can be with a red circle), above which the damping ratio of mode 2
expressed as follow: becomes negative. Thus, for mode 2, the speed of 31.7 m/s is the
𝑉𝑐 + 𝑎. 𝑟𝑐 critical speed, above which the CT system will lose its stability.
𝛼1 = 𝛿 − (14) As shown in Figure 2, for motion mode 2, the damping ratio
𝑈 decrease as the vehicle forward speed increases. It implies that
𝑏. 𝑟𝑐 − 𝑉𝑐 the stability of the CT system decrease with the increase of
𝛼2 = (15)
𝑈 vehicle forward speed.
𝑓. 𝑟𝑡 − 𝑉𝑡
𝛼3 = (16)
𝑈
Appendix A lists the notations and parameters of the CT system.
Mode 1

LINEAR STABILITY ANALYSIS

Mode 2
In order to identify the unstable motion modes and predict Mode 3
the critical speeds of the CT system, an eigenvalue analysis is
conducted using the linear 5DOF yaw-roll model. Note that the
critical speed is a vehicle forward speed above which the vehicle
will lose its stability. The liner 5DOF yaw-roll model can be
expressed in the state-space form given in Eq. (9) and the system Mode 4
matrix A can be obtained from Eq. (17).

𝐴 = −𝑀−1 · 𝐷 (17)

With the system matrix A, the eigenvalue analysis of the

linear vehicle model can be conducted. One pair of complex
eigenvalue 𝑆1,2 of the matrix may take the follow form expressed
in Eq. (18).
s1,2 = 𝑅𝑒 ± 𝑗𝜔𝑑 (18)
where 𝑅𝑒 and 𝑗𝜔𝑑 are the real and imaginary parts of the
eigenvalue, respectively. The corresponding damping ratio is
defined as,
−𝑅𝑒
ξ= (19)
√𝑅𝑒2 + 𝜔𝑑2
For the linear 5DOF yaw-roll model, the baseline values of
the parameters are listed in Appendix A. Note that the notation
of the geometric parameters of the CT system is also defined in
Figure 1. With the given parameters of the linear model listed in
Appendix A, for an eigenvalue, the damping ratio expressed in
Eq. (19) is a function of the vehicle forward speed. Figure 2
shows the relationship between the damping ratio for each of the
four motion modes and the vehicle forward speed. The vehicle
becomes unstable if a damping ratio takes a negative value. The
closer a curve of damping ratio versus forward speed approaches
to the zero damping line, the closer the vehicle becomes unstable.
Figure 2 doesn’t show whether an unstable motion mode is
Figure 2. Mode damping ratios versus forward speed for the case
of baseline parameter set
EFFECTS OF TRAILER PARAMETERS ON THE
STABILITY OF CT SYSTEMS
The damping ratio defined in Eq. (19) is used as a measure
to examine effects of typical trailer parameters on the stability of
the CT system. In order to assess the sensitivity of trailer
parameters on the stability of the CT system, we will change one
parameter at a time.
EFFECT OF TRAILER CENTER OF GRAVITY POSITION
To examine the effect of trailer center of gravity (CG)
position (in the longitudinal direction) on the stability of the CT
system, the distance between the trailer CG and the hitch, e, is
varied, while other parameters remain unchanged. It is assumed
that the distance between the trailer axle and the hitch is fixed,
that is, e + f = 2.6 m. Thus, once e varies, f should also change
accordingly. When e takes the values of 1.7 m and 2.3 m, the
corresponding simulation results are shown in Figures 3 and 4 in
terms of the damping ratios of the motion modes versus the
vehicle forward speed. From Figures 3 and 4, the respective

3 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

critical speeds (marked with red circles) can be determined. The
critical speeds of the different trailer CG position are over 50 m/s
and 24 m/s as shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. It is found
that the shorter the distance between the trailer CG and the hitch,
the higher the critical speed. The Trailer longitudinal CG
position is directly related to the hitch tongue load. The
simulation results shown in Figures 3 and 4 imply that a larger
tongue load of the hitch (i.e., the shorter distance between the
trailer CG and the hitch) be beneficial for improving the stability
of the CT system.
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 4
Figure 3. Mode damping ratios versus forward speed for the case
of varying the trailer longitudinal CG position with e=1.7 m and
f=0.9 m
Mode 2
Mode 1
Mode 3
Mode 4
Figure 4. Mode damping ratios versus forward speed for the case
of the varying trailer longitudinal CG position with e=2.3 m and
f=0.3 m
4 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
EFFECT OF TRAILER YAW MOMENT OF INERTIA
To evaluate the effect of trailer yaw moment of inertia Iz2 on
the lateral stability of the CT system, this parameter is varied,
while keeping other parameters as constants. The nominal value
of the trailer yaw moment of inertia Iz2 takes the value of 1764
𝑘𝑔𝑚2 , and the corresponding critical speed is 31.7 m/s as shown
in Figure 2. If Iz2 takes the values of 1264 𝑘𝑔𝑚2 (decreasing by
28.34% from the nominal value) and 2264 𝑘𝑔𝑚2 (increasing by
28.34% from the nominal value), the corresponding simulation
results in terms of motion mode damping ratios versus time are
illustrated in Figures 5 and 6, showing the critical speeds of 49.3
m/s and 25.5 m/s, respectively. Simulation results indicate that
the critical speed decreases with the increase of the trailer yaw
moment of inertia.
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 4
Figure 5. Mode damping ratios versus forward speed for the case
of the trailer yaw inertia with 𝐼𝑧2 = 1264 𝑘𝑔𝑚2
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 4
Figure 6. Mode damping ratios versus forward speed for the case
of the trailer yaw inertia with 𝐼𝑧2 = 2264 𝑘𝑔𝑚2
EFFECT OF TRAILER AXLE POSITION
In order to test the effect of the trailer axle position, i.e., the
distance between the trailer axle and the hitch, on the stability of
the CT System, a sensitivity analysis is conducted. As shown in
Figure 1, this distance is the defined as the addition of the
distance between the trailer CG to the hitch (e) and that between
the CG and the trailer axle (f). In the sensitivity analysis, the
values of f and other parameters are fixed, while e takes the
values of 1.5 m and 3.0 m, and Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the
simulation results in terms of the damping ratios of motion
modes versus forward speed. The critical speeds of the different
trailer axle position are 25.4 m/s and 50 m/s, respectively. The
results shown in Figures 7 and 8 indicate that the longer the
distance, the higher the critical speed. The sensitivity analysis
discloses that increasing the distance between the trailer axle and
the hitch is advantageous to the improvement of the stability of
the CT system.
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 4
Figure 7. Mode damping ratios versus forward speed for the case
of the distance between the trailer axle and the hitch taking the
value of 2.1 m
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 4
Figure 8. Mode damping ratios versus forward speed for the case
of the distance between the trailer axle and the hitch taking the
value of 3.6 m
5 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
EFFECT OF TRAILER SPRUNG MASS
In order to study the effect of trailer sprung mass on the CT
system stability, the relationship between the damping ratios and
vehicle forward speed of the least damped motion modes is
investigated with different sprung masses while other parameters
taking their nominal. Figures 9 and 10 show the simulation
results in terms of the damping ratios of the motion modes versus
vehicle forward speed when the trailer sprung mass takes the
values of 260 kg and 660 kg, respectively. As shown in Figures
9 and 10, the critical speeds (marked with red circles) are 31.5
m/s and 35.5 m/s, respectively. Simulation results indicate that
the trailer mass does not have a significant effect on the CT
system stability. Generally, higher trailer sprung mass leads to
more stable responses. This phenomenon may be interpreted by
the fact that a larger trailer sprung mass will cause a heavier hitch
tongue load, thereby leading to a higher critical speed.
Mode 2
Mode 1
Mode 3
Mode 4
Figure 9. Mode damping ratios versus forward speed for the case
of the trailer sprung mass with 𝑚2𝑠 = 260 𝑘𝑔
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 4
Figure 10. Mode damping ratios versus forward speed for the
case of the trailer sprung mass with 𝑚2𝑠 = 660 𝑘𝑔
ATDB CONTROLLER DESIGN simulations are conducted under the car front wheel steering
angle input of a single cycle of sine-wave with an amplitude of
In order to enhance the stability of the CT system, an active 0.0175 rad and a frequency of 0.318 Hz as shown in Figure 11 at
trailer differential braking (ATDB) strategy is proposed. To this the vehicle forward speed of 60 km/h (a low-g single lane-change
end, an ATDB controller has been designed using the LQR maneuver).
technique.
The LQR-based ATDB controller design can be described
as an optimization problem: minimize the objective function or
performance index:
∞
J = ∫0 (𝑥 𝑇 (𝑡)𝑄𝑥(𝑡) + 𝑢𝑇 (𝑡)𝑅 𝑢(𝑡)) 𝑑𝑡 (20)

subject to the governing equations of motion of the linear 5DOF

yaw-roll model expressed in Eq. (9). In Eq. (20), Q and 𝑅 are
weighting matrices, u(t) is control variable that is defined as the
yaw moment resulting from the ATDB system, x(t) is the state
variables defined as Eq. (10).
It is assumed that all uncontrollable modes are stable. Thus,
the solution of the optimization problem is the active trailer yaw
moment acted of the form
𝑢(𝑡) = −𝐾𝑥(𝑡) (21)

where 𝐾 is the feedback control gain matrix.

For the LQR-based controller, the weighting matrices 𝑄 and
𝑅 have great influence on the performance of the controller. The
trial and error method is commonly used to determine desired
weighting matrices for the objective function. However, this
process is tedious and time consuming.
The genetic algorithm (GA) is used in the design
optimization of ATDB controller. In order to improve stability of
the CT system, the ATDB controller is designed to achieve the
minimum yaw rate, roll angle and lateral acceleration of the CT
system under a given single lane change maneuver. The
weighting factors are defined as Eq. (22).
𝑄 = 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔([𝑞1 𝑞2 𝑞3 𝑞4 𝑞5 𝑞6 𝑞7 𝑞8 ]) , 𝑅 = [𝑟] (22)
The design optimization is to find desired values of the
design variables that minimize the following objective function
as Eq. (23).
𝜑 𝜑 𝜑 𝜑 𝜑 𝜑
𝑓𝑜𝑏𝑗 = 1𝑝 + 2𝑝 + 3𝑝 + 4𝑝 + 5𝑝 + 6𝑝 (23)
𝜑1 𝜑2 𝜑3 𝜑4 𝜑5 𝜑6
where 𝜑1 , 𝜑2 , 𝜑3 , 𝜑4 , 𝜑5 and 𝜑6 are the Root of Mean Square
(RMS) of the roll angle of the car, roll angle of the trailer, yaw
rate of the car, yaw rate of the trailer, lateral acceleration at the
CG of the car and lateral acceleration at the CG of the trailer with
𝑝 𝑝 𝑝 𝑝 𝑝 𝑝
ATDB controller. 𝜑 1 , 𝜑 2 , 𝜑 3 , 𝜑 4 , 𝜑 5 and 𝜑 6 are the RMS of
the CT system without the ATDB controller, which are the
counterparts of 𝜑1 , 𝜑2 , 𝜑3 , 𝜑4 , 𝜑5 and 𝜑6 respectively. As shown
in Eq. (23), the objective function is normalized by the RMS of
the corresponding the CT system.
SIMULATION RESULTS
In order to compare the dynamic responses of the CT system
with and without the LQR-based ATDB controller, numerical
Figure 11. Car front axle wheel steering input for the single lane-
change maneuver
Figures 12-17 show the dynamic responses of the linear CT
model with and without the LQR-based controller under the
single lane-change maneuver. A closed observation of the
simulation results illustrated in Figures 12-17 indicates that the
CT system with the LQR-based ATDB controller outperforms
the baseline CT system in terms of:
(1) roll angle of the sprung mass of the car,
(2) roll angle of the sprung mass of the trailer,
(3) yaw rate of the car,
(4) yaw rate of the trailer,
(5) lateral acceleration at the CG of car, and
(6) lateral acceleration at the CG of trailer.
In the case of the linear 5DOF model with ATDB controller,
the maximum peak value of the car and trailer roll angle is 0.21
deg and 0.12 deg, reducing by 44.3% and 20.1% from the
baseline value of 0.38 deg and 0.15 deg, respectively. The
maximum peak value of the yaw rate of the car and trailer with
ATDB controller is 3.7 deg/s and 4.5 deg/s, reducing by 36.3%
and 40.5% from the baseline value of 5.8 deg/s and 7.6 deg/s,
respectively. Also the maximum peak value of the lateral
acceleration at the CG of the car and trailer with ATDB controller
is 0.1g and 0.14g, reducing by 38% and 27.3% from the baseline
value of 0.17g and 0.19g, respectively. Compared with the
baseline case, the oscillation of lateral, roll and yaw motions of
the control case is reduced and the settling time is shorter.

6 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Figure 12. Time history of roll angle of the sprung mass of the car Figure 15. Time history of yaw rate of the Trailer

Figure 13. Time history of roll angle of the sprung mass of the trailer Figure 16. Time history of lateral acceleration at the CG of the car

Figure 14. Time history of yaw rate of the Car Figure 17. Time history of lateral acceleration at the CG of the trailer

7 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 In order to further compare the cases with and without active
control, an eigenvalue analysis based on the linear CT model with the
ATDB controller is conducted. Note that for this eigenvalue analysis,
all vehicle system parameters take their nominal values listed in
Appendix A. Figure 20 shows the damping ratio curves of the four
least damped motion modes for the case with the ATDB controller.
The critical speed for the case with the ATDB control is over 50 m/s.
The eigenvalue analysis result shown in Figure 20 is consistent with
those illustrated in Figures 12-17, which demonstrate that the LQR-
based ATDB controller can effectively improve the lateral stability of
the CT system.
Mode 1
Mode
2 Study of Active Control Strategies for Improving Lateral
Mode 3
Mode 4
Figure 20. Mode damping ratios versus forward speed for the
case with the ATDB controller
effectively improve the stability of the CT system. It clearly
indicates that ATDB control is a promising solution to the safety
enhancement of CT systems.
REFERENCES
[1] Y He, H ElMaraghy and W ElMaraghy, 2005, “A Design
Analysis Approach for Improving the Stability of Dynamic
System with Application to the Design of Car-Trailer
Systems”, J Vibration and Control, Vol. 11(12), pp. 1487-
1509.
[2] Clay, A., Montufar, J. and Middleton, D., 2003, “Operation
of Long Semi-trailers in the United States”, Transportation
Research Record, Vol. 1833, pp. 79-86.
[3] Vlk, F., 1985, “Handling Performance of Truck-Trailer
Vehicles: A State-of-the-Art Survey”, Int. J. of Vehicle
Design, Vol. 6(3), pp. 323-361.
[4] Shamin, R., Islam, M. and He, Y., 2011, “A Comparative
Stability of Car-Trailer Systems”, SAE 2011 World
Congress, Paper No: 2011-01-0959, Detroit, MI, USA.
[5] T Sun, 2013, “Design Synthesis of Car-Trailer Systems with
Active Trailer Differential Braking Strategies”, Master
Thesis, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology,
Ontario, Canada.
[6] J Darling, D Tilley and B Gao, 2009, “An Experimental
Investigation of Car-Trailer High-speed Stability”, Proc.
IMechE, Part D: J. Automotive Engineering, Vol.223, pp.
471-484.

CONCLUSIONS

In the study, an eigenvalue analysis was conducted to

examine the lateral stability of a CT system with varying trailer
parameters. It was found that different trailer parameters have
varied effects on the stability of the system. Simulation results
conducted in the research reveal that:
(1) decreasing the distance between the trailer CG and the hitch
is advantageous for improving the stability of the CT system;
(2) reducing trailer yaw inertia is beneficial for enhancing the
stability of the CT system;
(3) increasing the distance between trailer axle and hitch causes
the increasing the yaw damping effect of the trailer, leading
to the stability improvement of the CT system; and
(4) increasing trailer sprung mass has marginal positive effect on
the stability of the CT system.
The aforementioned observations may be used as qualitative
guidelines in CT system design and trailer applications
considering operating conditions and various constraints, such as
vehicle safety standards or regulations. An active trailer
differential braking (ATDB) was designed for the CT system
using the linear quadratic regulator (LQR) technique. Simulation
results demonstrate that with the given nominal values of the
vehicle system parameters, the LQR-based ATDB controller can

8 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 APPENDIX A

THE NOMINAL VALUES OF THE PARAMETERS FOR

THE LINEAR 5-DOF YAW-ROLL CT MODEL

Leading Car total mass 𝑚𝑐 1521 𝑘𝑔

Leading Car sprung mass 𝑚𝑐𝑠 1306 𝑘𝑔
Trailer total mass 𝑚𝑡 602 𝑘𝑔
Trailer sprung mass 𝑚𝑡𝑠 466 𝑘𝑔
Yaw moment of inertia of the total mass
𝐼𝑧1 1816 𝑘𝑔𝑚2
of the car
Yaw moment of inertia of the total mass
𝐼𝑧2 1764 𝑘𝑔𝑚2
of the trailer
Roll moment of inertia of the sprung
𝐼𝑥𝑥1 846.6 𝑘𝑔𝑚2
mass of the car
Roll moment of inertia of the sprung
𝐼𝑥𝑥2 708 𝑘𝑔𝑚2
mass of the trailer
Roll-yaw product of inertial of the
𝐼𝑥𝑧1 0
sprung mass of the car
Roll- yaw product of inertial of the
𝐼𝑥𝑧2 0
sprung mass of the trailer
Longitudinal distance between the CG of
𝑎 0.972 𝑚
the car and front axle of the car
Longitudinal distance between the CG of
𝑏 1.807 𝑚
the car and rear axle of the car
Longitudinal distance between the CG of
𝑑 3.028 𝑚
the car and hitch
Longitudinal distance between the CG of
𝑒 2𝑚
the trailer and hitch
Longitudinal distance between the CG of
𝑓 0.6 𝑚
the trailer and axle of the trailer
Height of the CG of car sprung mass
ℎ1 0.325 𝑚
above roll axis
Height of the CG of trailer sprung mass
ℎ2 0.676 𝑚
above roll axis
Vertical distance between car roll center
𝑧1 0.305 𝑚
and hitch
Vertical distance between trailer roll
𝑧2 0.285 𝑚
center and hitch
Roll damping coefficient of the car
𝑐𝑟1 5000 𝑁𝑚𝑠/𝑟𝑎𝑑
suspension
Roll damping coefficient of the trailer
𝑐𝑟2 7000 𝑁𝑚𝑠/𝑟𝑎𝑑
suspension
Roll stiffness of the car suspension 𝑘𝑟1 120000 𝑁𝑚/𝑟𝑎𝑑
Roll stiffness of the trailer suspension 𝑘𝑟2 210000 𝑁𝑚/𝑟𝑎𝑑
Cornering stiffness of car front tires c1 120000 𝑁/𝑟𝑎𝑑
Cornering stiffness of car rear tires c2 110000 𝑁/𝑟𝑎𝑑
Cornering stiffness of trailer tires c3 45000 𝑁/𝑟𝑎𝑑

9 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

View publication stats